Rand Paul: Suspect not enemy combatant


By KATIE GLUECK | 4/23/13 10:05 AM EDT Updated: 4/23/13 1:27 PM EDT
Sen. Rand Paul on Monday made clear that in his view, the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings should be tried through normal means, rather than as an enemy combatant.
“You know, I want to congratulate law enforcement for getting and capturing these terrorists, first of all, but what we do with them, I think we can still preserve the Bill of Rights, I see no reason why our Constitution is not strong enough to convict this young man with a jury trial, with the Bill of Rights,” Paul (R-Ky.) said on “Cavuto” on Fox Business Network. “We do it to horrible people all of the time: Rapists and murderers, they get lawyers, they get trials with juries. We seem to do a pretty good job of justice. So I think we can do it with our court system.”
Latest on POLITICO



Paul’s comments came hours after authorities named the charges facing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the teenage suspect in the bloody Boston bombings. His older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, died in clashes with law enforcement last week. Some lawmakers have called for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be tried as an enemy combatant rather than receiving a standard criminal trial, but the White House said Monday Tsarnaev would not be given the enemy combatant designation.
Paul, a libertarian-leaning lawmaker, said that when he speaks with wounded veterans, “who have really sacrificed their bodies literally, they tell me they are fighting for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,” he said. “And I believe them, I know that is what they represent. I think they are disheartened to think we’re going to tell people, ‘no jury trial anymore.’ So I think it is something worth standing up for.”
The senator, who burst onto the national scene this year with a 13-hour filibuster opposing the use of drones to target American civilians, said he wouldn’t have an issue using the tools in the face of an imminent security threat.
“Here is the distinction,” he said. “I never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or policeman kills him, but it is different if they want to come fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activity.”
He added that he isn’t opposed to drones and “heat-seeking devices” being used when someone poses an immediate risk, and noted that “if someone is actively running around with a gun, you don’t need a warrant. That is the way our system works.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2RL5ZDyrF