Miranda rights for Enemy Combatants?

[BigBossman]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/11/combatant-criminal-reading-miranda-rights-detainees-draws-criticism/

I think it is insane that anyone would consider making international terrorists into common criminals. Essentially, reading Miranda Rights to enemies on the battlefield would make the job tougher for the CIA & our soldiers. This idea is just plain stupid & needs to be scrapped.

 

[Revmitchell]

This idea is just plain stupid & needs to be scrapped.

Which is common for liberal ideas.

 

[donnA]

just plain stupid

liberal

.....

 

[KenH]

I have no problem with this. It's the right thing to do - which means that most conservatives(who haven't been right about much since 2000) will oppose it.

 

[OldRegular]

I have no problem with this. It's the right thing to do - which means that most conservatives(who haven't been right about much since 2000) will oppose it.

Our "dear leader" "bho" does it and all the little apologists fall in line!:thumbs::laugh::tonofbricks:

 

[AntennaFarmer]

My fellow conservatives may have failed to note that there is a Federal death penalty. Bringing terrorists under the U.S. justice system may serve the cause of justice much better than keeping them at Gitmo forever.

...A.F....

 

[matt wade]

Am I the only one that read the article? I think this is a stupid policy, but how about seeing where it came from?

But Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd insisted the move does not represent a "policy change" and that no "blanket instruction" was given to the FBI to Mirandize detainees. Officials said it was a practice that began under the Bush administration.

 

[tinytim]

I have no problem with this. It's the right thing to do - which means that most conservatives(who haven't been right about much since 2000) will oppose it.

Of course you have no problem with it! Most Obamaites view their king with admiration... and he can't do anything wrong..

How do citizens of another country have the rights that are only afforded to US citizens..

The right to remain silent is a right given in our constitution... to US citizens.. NOT foreign enemies....

Terrorists deserve death.

 

[BigBossman]

I have no problem with this. It's the right thing to do - which means that most conservatives(who haven't been right about much since 2000) will oppose it.

Terrorists or enemy combatants are not common criminals. They have no place in our American jails. Miranda only applies to American citizens. This will make problems for the CIA when they are interrogating someone who is believed to have important information. This means that if they don't wish to talk that we have to treat them just like our criminals.

Can you imagine how things would have turned out if this was required during WW2? I could just see our guys apprehending a Nazi officer & having to read him Miranda rights with gun shots being fired & bombs going off.

 

[KenH]

Can you imagine how things would have turned out if this was required during WW2?

U.S. involvement in World War II lasted less than 4 years.

This is not a war of the same character. It is much more like criminal activity(think of Timothy McVeigh, for instance) than a war such as World War II.

 

[KenH]

Terrorists deserve death.

I totally agree.

 

[BigBossman]

It is much more like criminal activity(think of Timothy McVeigh, for instance) than a war such as World War II.

Timothy McVeigh was a domestic terrorist. Being that he was a U.S. citizen, he is allowed the same right as you & I. The guy that assasinated Private Long in Arkansas, & wounded another soldier is also a domestic terrorist. Scott Roeder, the guy who murdered Dr. Tiller, is also another example.

However, enemies (including foreign terrorists & enemy combatants) that are captured are held by different rules & standards. We are permitted to interrogate them differently. He are permitted to hold them until a tribunal is held. We can hold them even if no evidence is found. Being that they are not United States citizens, means that the Constitution, Miranda Rights, or anything else applies. The Geneva Convention is the only thing that applies to enemies who are apprehended. There is no provision in there about them having the right to remain silent.

 

[rbell]

I guess there's no distinction between the rights of US citizens and non-citizens anymore.

Sad...there used to be a time where being a citizen meant something. No more.

Shame on Obama for using the Constitution as toilet paper.


You know, it is possible to treat prisoners properly...without giving them the rights of US citizens.

Next thing you know, we'll put 'em in the Ritz Carlton, and buy gold-lined prayer rugs for them.

 

[Robert Snow]

We can hold them even if no evidence is found.

Surely you don't believe this is the right thing to do, holding someone without any evidence?

Someone accused of being a terrorist should have evidence supporting the charge, or they should be released.

 

[Revmitchell]

I am convinced more and more that libbies are not actually concerned for the rights of the innocent but actually sympathize with terrorists and want to protect their interests.

 

[poncho]

I am convinced more and more that libbies are not actually concerned for the rights of the innocent but actually sympathize with terrorists and want to protect their interests.

I am convinced more and more that if a government can refuse basic human rights and due process to one it can do it to all. This arguement of your's lacks any sound reasoning and so must be based on hollow rhetoric alone Rev and you know it.

The rule of law and upholding the rights of others is what seperates us from the terrorists. It made us a great nation that the whole world used to look up to. Now look at us willing to chuck all that away because we so fear and hate that which we helped to create and maintain through our 100 years of foreign interventionism and hubris.

 

[Revmitchell]

I am convinced more and more that if a government can refuse basic human rights and due process to one it can do it to all. This arguement of your's lacks any sound reasoning and so must be based on hollow rhetoric alone Rev and you know it.

The rule of law and upholding the rights of others is what seperates us from the terrorists. It made us a great nation that the whole world used to look up to. Now look at us willing to chuck all that away because we so fear and hate that which we helped to create and maintain through our 100 years of foreign interventionism and hubris.

Your argument is based on the false and unproven notion that things have been handled illegaly regarding the terrorists. Not much sound reasoning there.

 

[poncho]

Your argument is based on the false and unproven notion that things have been handled illegaly regarding the terrorists. Not much sound reasoning there.

Try another angle Rev, this one is worn out.

My arguement is based on what all Americans used to believe in. Before we became filled with fear and hatred.

Do as we say and not as we do has always been the hypocrite's motto.

 

[Revmitchell]

Try another angle Rev, this one is worn out.

My arguement is based on what all Americans used to believe in. Before we became filled with fear and hatred.

Fear is true and reasonable. Hatred is trumped up and false most commonly used as a political tool. You aren't a political tool are you? No one has ever established that all Americans used to believe your false view.

 

[targus]

I am convinced more and more that if a government can refuse basic human rights and due process to one it can do it to all. This arguement of your's lacks any sound reasoning and so must be based on hollow rhetoric alone Rev and you know it.

The rule of law and upholding the rights of others is what seperates us from the terrorists. It made us a great nation that the whole world used to look up to. Now look at us willing to chuck all that away because we so fear and hate that which we helped to create and maintain through our 100 years of foreign interventionism and hubris.

Do you think that the U.S. government was refusing basic human rights when holding POWs during WWII?

If not why not? They were not charged and tried. They were held until the end of the war.