Amazon.com Widgets

Should criminals such as The Boston Bomber be tried as enemy combatants?

  • Yes, the Boston Bomber should be tried as an enemy combatant.

    Yes, the Boston Bomber should be tried as an enemy combatant for the sole reasons that this amplifies the potential penalty against. The evidence against the bomber is clear and plenty enough to convict him. The big issue is what the conviction will be. If he is treated as an enemy combatant, the death penalty will be an option.

  • Enemy combatent status allows for maximum punishments.

    Criminals such as The Boston Bomber should be tried as enemy combatants. People such as him are terrorists and having the designation of an enemy combatent allows for such individuals to have the maximum punishment. Having an enemy combatent status would also prevent people from commiting such crimes in the future as well.

  • He represents the enemy.

    Whenever a person does a violent thing in the name of some country or group that is currently regarded as a military enemy, then that person can also be considered a military enemy and treated as such. The Boston Bomber made his reasons known, and tied them to such an organization. He can rightly be treated as a prisoner of war.

  • Every act is not an act of Enemy Combatants

    I believe that The Boston Bomber should be tried as a criminal because there have been other cases in the past of malicious acts against the public. I believe that because of his name and background a lot of people look at the bombing as worst than it really is and want to link it to some sort of terrorism.

  • tried as terrorists

    No, these criminals like the Boston bomber need to tried as terrorists, and need to get the most harshest punishment that they can. They are terrorists, and their only intention is to make the whole country go into a panic over what they have done. But we usually do not.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.