The Tsarnaevs: Islamic Warriors or Losers?

There's been a lot talk about whether Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (I'm not going continue the charade of calling him a "suspect") should be read his Miranda rights. It's almost a moot point: he's not going to be doing much talking because he was shot in the throat and may never speak again.

There's been a lot of talk about designating him an enemy combatant. This is crazy on the face of it, since he's an American citizen.

There's even been a suggestion, from one of the right's most brilliant luminaries, Donald Trump, of torturing Tsarnaev.

All of these things presume that Tsarnaev is a terrorist, and it's not at all clear that he is. Philip Mudd, a former CIA Deputy Director, said Sunday on Fox News that Tsarnaev should be charged as a murderer. Mudd thinks, as I wrote last Friday, that the marathon bombing was more like Columbine and not 9/11.

Who is Philip Mudd? Some liberal Obama appointee? Well, Obama did try to appoint him to a high position in the Department in Homeland Security in 2009. But Mudd withdrew after questions about his involvement in waterboarding terrorist suspects:

Mr. Mudd, who joined the C.I.A. in 1985 and served tours in the Near East and South Asia, is considered one of the government’s top experts on Al Qaeda.

“He’s not just an ops guy,” said Frank Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University. “He’s probing. He asks questions. And he’s open-minded, and I don’t see that every day with this community.”

Several Republican lawmakers expressed anger over Mr. Mudd’s withdrawal. Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri said the nomination had become “the latest political casualty of a terror-fighting program no one in Congress objected to until it became politically risky.”

Thus, Mudd is not inclined to be soft on terror.

We don't yet know for sure that aren't any foreign terrorist connections in this case. Further investigation is obviously in order.  But the last thing we want is for our government to automatically treat people like terrorists. Because when we as a nation start treating members of a group as terrorists, other members of that group feel threatened and may become terrorists themselves to protest the injustice of that persecution.

History should be our guide: the invasion of Iraq was a recruiting bonanza for Al Qaeda. Let's not turn what may be a lone act of frustration by two young alienated guys by turning them into martyrs.

Ruslan Tsarni, the Tsarnaevs' uncle, was close enough to know them well, but distant enough not to think they were innocent angels like their parents did. What does he think motivated them?

Being losers, hatred to those who were able to settle themselves; these are the only reasons I can imagine of. Anything else, anything else to do with religion, with Islam – it’s a fraud, it’s a fake.

If we charge the Tsarnaevs as terrorists and enemies of the state we grant them status and renown as soldiers of Islam and martyrs. If we charge them with criminal murder we brand them as murderous losers.

If we want to discourage copycats the choice seems obvious.