The tragedy of the Boston bombing left many legal pundits speculating about the prosecution of the remaining bombing suspect. Is the Boston Bomber an enemy combatant or just a common criminal? What should happen when someone from this Country carries out acts of war or terror, against persons or property in our own Country? Is the suspect in the bombing treated as an enemy combatant i.e.; someone that is waging war against us? Or is Boston bombing a crime that land the criminal in a local prison?
How is it that one person who has caused so much harm and injury and is trained by enemies of our country not be a soldier or terrorist enemy country? Surely the people that died in Boston and lost limbs in Boston deserve to have justice obtained against the bombers. What kind of justice though? A prison or a prisoner of war? It makes a difference in the rights and procedures afforded the bombing suspect. A POW does not get Miranda rights, and does not have the evidentiary rights of a common criminal.
The foundation of our system is that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a suspect committed the crime. The high standard of proof is to protect us, from the government from locking people at will. However, what happens if the Bomber suspect is found not guilty or charges are overturned or dismissed due to a technical default. Was justice then served? These are questions that will be asked again and again and are worth thinking about now in the aftermath of the Boston tragedy