Obama gives terrorists/enemy combatants Miranda Rights

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by grover
This is not an issue flyer... its required by law.

Since when is it required by law to give enemy combatants in the war field 'the right to an attorney paid for by US tax payers' and 'the right to be silent'??

Never.

Give it up, you aren't going to convince those who are for this. They will get their Miranda rights and it will soon come to light as a very bad mistake.

reply to post by jd140


I like the idea of this, but I do see at least two problems:

1. If we implement this now, all the detainees who were not mirandized have legal defenses.

2. There is absolutely no way to implement this on the battlefield!

It is a great plan for our intelligence community to use, it is great for the mini-raids we are doing to search for suspects, but it is impossible to uphold during a battle. Then in the aftermath, the enemy has all kinds of defenses and rights violations.

Maybe we need a new version of the Miranda. They get certain humanitarian rights, but they do not have the right to withhold battle specific information that could save lives, and they do not have the right to appeal any battlefield decisions made by the commanders on site.

reply to post by jd140

Its not a good idea... its not a bad idea... it is the law... and in case you haven't been paying attention the courts consistently shot down the attempts by the previous administration to designate them as a special case... in short the courts upheld the due process under law principle and that includes reading them their Miranda rights... and also in case you haven't been paying attention some more they have been getting court appointed lawyers... military ones.

I find it increasingly difficult to take the right's hysterics over Obama seriously and consequently them seriously any more. They will bend over backwards to find something to criticize him over...

He likes his coffee black.... he's a racist
He likes his coffee with cream and sugar... he's an oreo cookie
He wears boxers... something wrong with that
He wears jockey shorts... something wrong with that
He doesn't wear underwear at all... a huge scandal

It doesn't matter what he says or does the right will find fault... even when he is upholding the law.

reply to post by grover


Show me where it is law that someone taken into custody on foreign land that is not an American citezen is supposed to be granted Miranda rights.

Its a sad day where a terrorist or enemy combatant has the same rights as me if I shop lift a pack of gum..

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by jd140

 

I find it increasingly difficult to take the right's hysterics over Obama seriously and consequently them seriously any more. They will bend over backwards to find something to criticize him over...

You find it increasingly difficult because it is a hard job defending Obama all the time. I recall you saying that you are not a democrat , but each and every post screams that you are. You claim Repubs and Dems are no differant from each other, yet you only post about how bad the Repubs are. I don't recall you ever dissagreeing with Obama, which is strange given that he hasn't been doing that great.

I think its time you come out of the closet and just admit that you are a Democrat.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by grover

 

Show me where it is law that someone taken into custody on foreign land that is not an American citezen is supposed to be granted Miranda rights.

Here's one for you:
Show me anything that says americans have the legal right to take foreigners into cutody on foreign soil when not in a declared war.

Uh-oh, you just got exposed.

Originally posted by Redpillblues
Its a sad day where a terrorist or enemy combatant has the same rights as me if I shop lift a pack of gum..

The sad days started long ago, when habeus corpus was suspended, when america decided pre-emptive war was the answer, and when we turned to torturing.

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


How did I get exposed? I never claimed that it was legal or illegal.

Lets say it was illegal. Why would we need to read them their Miranda rights if they are being kidnapped?


Now instead of weakly deflecting my question, would you like to take a shot at answering it?

reply to post by jd140


I have been quite critical of him on the bank bailouts for one. In fact that really is the primary thing I have disagreed with him on though there have been others.

I have said repeatedly that I have no faith in the Democrats but that I have less faith in the Republicans...

AND I have nothing but contempt for the hard right.

reply to post by grover


Okay thanks for clearing up (or tried to clear up) the off topic post I had posted and am really suprised that it is still up. Although everyone was critical of the bail outs, even his supporters. You can say this and that, but your actions disagree with you.


How you coming along with finding that law I asked for?

It is called due process under the law... if an American agent, FBI, CIA, whatnot arrests you in say Cairo and intends to extradite you to the U.S. under the law you have to be given the same rights as if you were arrested on American soil.

Really if they kept you in Cairo there wouldn't be an issue... its bringing you here which is why the bush minor administration went out of their way to keep them out of the states... that was what Gitmo and all the black prisons were all about... circumventing the laws that would have granted them due process.

reply to post by grover


Show me where that applies to enemy combatants.

I don't want your explanation of the law. I asked you to show me the part of the law that pertains to enemy combatants.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

 

How did I get exposed? I never claimed that it was legal or illegal.

Lets say it was illegal. Why would we need to read them their Miranda rights if they are being kidnapped?


Now instead of weakly deflecting my question, would you like to take a shot at answering it?

You're exposed because they are illegally being detained, yet the argument is about what we do with them after they are detained, instead of the matter at hand, which is that they shouldnt be detained in the first place.

Not deflecting your question, I already answered it. If they are held by the u.s., on the u.s., under u.s. law, then yes, they do have a right to U.S. legal defense.

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


I still don't see how I been exposed or what I was exposed for.

I will ask that you show me the law that states that enemy combatants are awarded the same rights as an American citizen though.

Enemy combatants become prisoners of war, in case you missed Hogan's Heroes, prisoners of war have rights... that was at Numenberg one of the biggest crimes of the Nazi's (and the Japanese as well) that they did not respect prisoners rights and it is one of the reasons why the bush minor administration twisted the law into knots, to deny their prisoners rights.

Its pretty clear cut... that is unless you don't want it to be.

BTW read my current signature... carefully then try and contemplate what it means... that is if you can.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by grover]

reply to post by grover


POW's are protected under the Geneva Convention.

Miranda Rights aren't one of the rights given to POW's. So I don't understand your arguement that they are given the right of having their Miranda Rights read to them under the Geneva Convention.


That is a cute signature.

Sarah Told Ya So:
Sarah Palin warned of this in her acceptance speech at St. Paul, the Republican convention, last September.

PALIN: "Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read 'em their rights."

www.rushlimbaugh.com...


ppssst...You'all need to stop underestimating this woman.

Miranda rights given to terrorists. Or is it miranda rights given to suspected terrorists? In some cases it's easy to label some one a terrorist, those caught red handed for example. Even murderers in America are not considered murderers until they have been convicted.

Our justice system has it's flaws thats for sure, but it is based on the constitution or our rule of law, if were going to throw out this rule of law for certain groups then sooner or later everyone else will be in the same boat.

Our Constitution was what made us a Good country, men and women have fought and died in the name of our freedoms. Why toss all that out the window? Im not necessarily speaking of foreign alleged terrorists that are coming here to attack us, this seems to be a military issue and should be tried in and under military law. What Im concerned about are domestic terrorists or people labeled as such, as US citizens they have the right of due process and representation and trial.

or do they?

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by grover

 

Show me where that applies to enemy combatants.

I don't want your explanation of the law. I asked you to show me the part of the law that pertains to enemy combatants.

Are you sure because it looks like you said -

Show me where it is law that someone taken into custody on foreign land that is not an American citezen is supposed to be granted Miranda rights.

You asked about the law, custody, foreign land, non-citizen,...no ENEMY COMBATANT in that question. All you asked about was the law.

Since no war was declared, we can either arrest these people under U.S. laws or let them all go.