Boston Bombing aftermath, any similarity to the Lincoln assassination aftermath?

[Rhatkinson]

(04-22-2013 06:20 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Can anyone sum up this law in "ordinary language?" I read it, and it doesn't "sink in."

I will try to explain it, although as a disclaimer, I do not practice any criminal law so I am not personally familiar with this statute. The act has several parts of it, but the parts that are relevant to this particular discussion deal with terrorism.

Title 3 of the act establishes the procedure to declare a foreign organization (i.e., al qaeda) as a terrorist organization and makes it a crime to give them "material support." It also establishes fines for banks that refuse to freeze and report the assets of such organizations. In an effort to isolate countries that support terrorists, the act outlaws financial transactions between anyone in the US or the US government with such nations.

Title 4 deals with regulating the ability of suspected terrorists to obtain visas and deportation of suspected terrorists without the court having to make classified information used in the deportation part of the public record. It also allows the Attorney General to refuse to grant asylum from a suspected terrorist.

Title 5 just organizes and "tidies up" the laws regarding possession of materials that could be used to blow people up. (Hint: don't possess them.)

Title 6 makes a number of changes in existing federal criminal law and procedure, primarily expanding the reach of federal law and increasing penalties to more effectively combat terrorism. For instance, it makes it a federal crime to kill, kidnap or assault any federal officer or employee, to conspire in the US to commit crimes of violence overseas.

Hope this helps.

Heath

---

(04-22-2013 03:31 PM)Ed Steers Wrote:  Briefly, the Supreme Court ruled in 1942 in the ex parte Quirin case that American citizens can be tried by military tribunal. Citizenship did not protect one from military tribunals. The new statute precludes this, however. The new statute codifies military tribunals and removes the sole authority of the president to decide who will be tried by military tribunal (not true during Bush administration). As I see it, the two accused are no different than Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, both tried in civil court. I see no advantage under the modern statute to using a military tribunal. There are approximately 300 individuals convicted of "terrorism" who were tried in civil courts and are serving sentences in Federal prisons in the U.S. It would appear the system does work.

I agree with Dr. Steers. I would be very surprised if this guy was tried before a military tribunal. The Lincoln conspirators only wish they were around under this new statute because they would have been tried in a civilian court as well.

Heath