The Pros And Cons Of The Boston Marathon Bombing
Equal protection under the law is a legal principal as the United States itself. The term criminal act does not, in modern times, have a universally accepted definition. Terrorism is certainly a crime in that it usually involved casualties. At times I feel that we forget that acts of terror come in many different sizes. Earlier this year the Boston Marathon Bombing shook the nation to its core. Acts of terror on American soil had not been committed in almost a decade. Three people died and over 264 more were injured. Does this constitute and act of war or is it still considered a crime. The handling of this situation seems to be considered a crime by the U.S Federal Government. Many serial killers have murdered many more people than died in the
…show more content…
In total 168 people were killed when a bomb planted by anti-government zealot Timothy McVeigh. The cases are very similar in that each situation was handled in the U.S court system. It’s important to understand that in both cases only two persons were responsible for the act. If the U.S decided to adopt the strategy that terrorism is an act of war, how would these situations be handled? Would we simply suspend the right of habeas corpus and let the terrorists sit in Guantanamo bay the rest of their lives. A major Supreme Court case on the issue of how to classify terrorism occurred with Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. In both cases listed above the alleged terrorists were U.S citizens and with that came the right to habeas corpus. In 2001 Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen born in Louisiana, was captured by the Afghan Northern Alliance and was turned over to the U.S military as an enemy combatant and detained in connection to ongoing hostilities. After being held and interrogated in Afghanistan for months, he was transferred to Guantanamo bay but it was found that he held a U.S citizenship and he was transferred to a prison in
In total 168 people were killed when a bomb planted by anti-government zealot Timothy McVeigh. The cases are very similar in that each situation was handled in the U.S court system. It’s important to understand that in both cases only two persons were responsible for the act. If the U.S decided to adopt the strategy that terrorism is an act of war, how would these situations be handled? Would we simply suspend the right of habeas corpus and let the terrorists sit in Guantanamo bay the rest of their lives. A major Supreme Court case on the issue of how to classify terrorism occurred with Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. In both cases listed above the alleged terrorists were U.S citizens and with that came the right to habeas corpus. In 2001 Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen born in Louisiana, was captured by the Afghan Northern Alliance and was turned over to the U.S military as an enemy combatant and detained in connection to ongoing hostilities. After being held and interrogated in Afghanistan for months, he was transferred to Guantanamo bay but it was found that he held a U.S citizenship and he was transferred to a prison in