Featured Should terrorists be Mirandized?

Yes, if someone is arrested they need to be Mirandized. Unless the arresting authorities are psychic and can determine intent with 100% accuracy.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

You have already determined that he is guilty based on your identification of the man as an enemy combatant. I believe he is guilty myself, but that does not mean we toss out our Constitution when people look guilty. The poor man who was doing his job, discovered a suspicious package and who probably saved lives at the Atlanta Olympic bombing was widely assumed to be guilty and it was eventually revealed that he was completely innocent. Let the system work.

Yeah, I got that.

And there's a huge reason I will NEVER vote for Trump. He doesn't care about the Bill of Rights. He was talking the other day about simply rounding up "suspicious people" as a way to prevent terrorist incidents. He's describing a police state, not a constitutional democracy.

 

No they should not. You do not mirandize enemy soldiers on the battle field.

 

Yep.

 

So even if they're American citizens, guaranteed due process under the Constitution -- we can toss the Constitution aside if we simply declare them "enemy combatants"?

Isn't that the same exact reason we fought the Revolutionary War in the first place?

 

Thanks for the accusation.

I come from a Constitutional "frame of mind" which is supposed to be the guiding light of our civic and political relationship. You are condemning me for being an American by nature, and not just by birth. I am guilty.

And you KNOW this with absolute certainty? I mean, you're probably right, but unless you are willing to toss out the Constitution for yourself and everyone else, then you have no excuse to deprive him of his rights.

I happen to like the Constitution.

He's probably guilty, but that doesn't mean we change our values. We need to maintain our core beliefs as a nation and not turn into the type of people that the terrorists represent.

I'm wide awake and I'm not riding a train. I find it astounding that respecting and abiding by the Constitution makes me a "bleeding heart liberal" in your eyes. If you were accused of a crime, I would fight for you to maintain your rights - even if the evidence looked bad.

 

Right....and you can tell if a Muslim that blows up a pressure cooker bomb is a terrorist "enemy soldier" or is just pissed off at his co-workers.

 

If they resist and survive the onslaught, yes.

HankD

 

If he is a Muslim and he blows people us he is an enemy combatant.

 

So was Timothy McVeigh an enemy combatant?

 

You betchya the problem is he was a US citizen on US soil. These terrorists who get in gun fights with police do us all a favor. Those who are here, not citizens, and blow up Americans should be hunted down and destroyed.

 

Red herring.

 

Yeah....the problem is that anybody, citizen or non-citizen, have got constitutional rights to due process.

 

Some terrorists are natural-born citizens and other naturalized citizens. So they have rights under the Constitution.

If we go back to the original intent of the Constitution, the theory is that all persons had Creator-given rights that the Constitution RECOGNIZED. The Constitution did not GRANT rights, but simply recognized what was apparent to thinking men and women.

Jefferson noted such thinking in the Declaration of Independence when asserted that:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
​

Now the Founders were not completely consistent in their beliefs - it was a white male dominated world - but the principle is sound. That is the high standard to which the United States was founded. Yet many people today - including Mr. Trump - don't know that or they want to throw it away.

Conservative people want to conserve this principle. You are not politically conservative if you want to throw it away.

​

 

Fair enough. But the question here is whether or not a person SUSPECTED of such a thing should be allowed Constitutional protects. You have already determined guilt and on that basis, want to eliminate protections in place to prevent people from being declared guilty without appropriate evidence. That's a classic example of circular reasoning.

As someone who was innocently placed on the terror watch list because I fit a certain profile - without a channel of recourse so that I could have my case examined - I am quite sensitive to these issues.

Your rhetoric would have me sitting in a cage at Gitmo, enjoying rounds of water boarding, just for the crime flying last minute to a city on the Mexican border as part of my job.

 

Kinda what I said in another thread. His supporters don't care that he has broken the law and intendds to break the law to accomplish what he thinks needs to be accomplished.

Evangelicals in the GOP have rejected Jesus as the standard. That much was evident with the support of the Mormon.

Now they've abandoned the rule of law.

Countries are destroyed from within. No need to worry about the terrorists.