Is it just me or does anyone else out there think that trying the confused young man who left a bomb at the Boston Marathon as a terrorist is a bad idea? What if he isn't a terrorist? What if that can be proven in a court of law? What if all he is is a hero-worshiping acolyte of his older brother?
Case in point. His older brother charged at the police with an explosive-filled vest. The older brother was willing to die. The younger one hid in a boat and eventually gave up. This is not what terrorists do. Terrorists blow up bomb vests, underwear, their shoes or the cars they are driving. They don't cower all day in a boat.
I think that making a political point, in this specific case, is a bad, bad idea.
If they go through with this, what is to stop the government from redefining all crime as terrorism? Any crime, except for victimless crimes, are, after all, inflictors of distress on someone. That is what terrorism is and what it is meant to be.
Someone has to come to their senses and stop mollifying the breast-beating Republican Senators who are screaming about not Mirandizing this boy and trying him as an enemy terrorist.
Murderer yes. Terrorist no.