Obama has ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to detainees

[heelsguy]

link (http://www.liberallyconservative.com/)


When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative.
“I’ll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer,” he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet.

“The Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today — foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them and they’re reading them their rights — Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan,” writes (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/605iidws.asp) Stephen Hayes at The Weekly Standard.
Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. “I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn’t been briefed on it, I didn’t know about it. We’re still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative.”
The FBI and Justice Department plan to significantly expand their role in global counter-terrorism operations, part of a U.S. policy shift that will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations with one built around transparent investigations and prosecutions.
Under the “global justice” initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said.
No uniform, no country, only loyalty to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Sharia Law, Osama bin Land and killing. Obama is slowly, “quietly” taking away the rights of American citizens while providing US Constitutional rights to Jihadists.
Republicans on Capitol Hill are not happy. “When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the ‘right to remain silent,’” says Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation–lawyering up.”
According to Mike Rogers, that is precisely what some human rights organizations are advising detainees to do. “The International Red Cross, when they go into these detention facilities, has now started telling people — ‘Take the option. You want a lawyer.’”
Rogers adds:
“The problem is you take that guy at three in the morning off of a compound right outside of Kabul where he’s building bomb materials to kill US soldiers, and read him his rights by four, and the Red Cross is saying take the lawyer — you have now created quite a confusion amongst the FBI, the CIA and the United States military. And confusion is the last thing you want in a combat zone.”
Robbing American business, spending money, lying to the public, apologizing for America, rights for terrorists………
Barack Hussein Obama, the enemy within. Indeed!
they are not american citizens, so they should not be afforded american rights and legal provisions

[Das Kahlua]

Yeah, this is a bad idea and a horrible precedent.

[Stax]

No, it isn't, nor is it really a precedent at all. Miranda is the standard for all prisoners in American custody, citizen or not.

[Genius]

I don't give a fuck.

[Stax]

Republicans on Capitol Hill are not happy. “When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the ‘right to remain silent,’” says Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation–lawyering up.”

We also tell that to murderers, rapists, etc. Does the representative suggest we don't wish to stop future murders/rapes/etc? The law does not only apply when it is considered convenient.

[The GWD]

It would have been so much more exciting in The X-Files to see Mulder capture an alien.

And read it it's rights.

[Stax]

It would have been so much more exciting in The X-Files to see Mulder capture an alien.

And read it it's rights.

Will Smith already did that and violated a whole bunch of interrogation rules.

rzihnum6Xdo

[Das Kahlua]

No, it isn't, nor is it really a precedent at all. Miranda is the standard for all prisoners in American custody, citizen or not.

In America, not in Afghanistan. These are not prisoners of war protected under the Geneva Convention, they are illegal enemy combatants who do not have the right to remain silent nor the right to have an attorney provided for them by the court. It's insanity to try and grant our protections to foreign nationals outside of the US.

[Stax]

In America, not in Afghanistan. These are not prisoners of war protected under the Geneva Convention, they are illegal enemy combatants who do not have the right to remain silent nor the right to have an attorney provided for them by the court. It's insanity to try and grant our protections to foreign nationals outside of the US.

They are in our custody. Obama already announced the closure of Guantanamo, another creation of this legal theory that by keeping people on foreign soil we can do whatever the fuck we want. There may not be binding SCOTUS precedent for this situation but suggesting that by holding people at arm's length we get to treat them differently is exactly what led to Gitmo in the first place.

[Das Kahlua]

They are in our custody. Obama already announced the closure of Guantanamo, another creation of this legal theory that by keeping people on foreign soil we can do whatever the fuck we want. There may not be binding SCOTUS precedent for this situation but suggesting that by holding people at arm's length we get to treat them differently is exactly what led to Gitmo in the first place.

No, what led to the problems with Gitmo in the first place is that we were attempting to give the detainees trials under military tribunals but the SCOTUS but the kibosh on that. Instead of finding a practical work-around, as freegood and I were discussing earlier, Bush just ignored the problem and stuck with the status quo. Unfortunately, thus far, Obama has been happy to settle for that same course of action, while also criticizing Bush for doing the exact same thing.

The leaders of the Democrat party, from Obama to Harry Reid, have already said that these detainees will not receive trials in the US; if we're not going to bring them here for trial, we sure as hell shouldn't export our laws overseas.

[Mustard]

In America, not in Afghanistan. These are not prisoners of war protected under the Geneva Convention, they are illegal enemy combatants who do not have the right to remain silent nor the right to have an attorney provided for them by the court. It's insanity to try and grant our protections to foreign nationals outside of the US.
Sorry bud, but I think its insanity to not grant human beings a right to due process. Regardless of who they are or what they have done. I'm just trying to emulate what it is I think a civilized society would do.

Every day I have to live with the fact that not all of my fellow countrymen feel the same way.

[Genius]

It baffles me how many people think that the "solution" to this problem is to have a secret facility, on foreign soil, where we send people, who might be terrorists, forever, with no hope of ever leaving, so we can torture them, and never let them go. That is the "solution".

[Kerjack]

I like this thread because its going to go for at least 10 pages.

[Lone Wolf]

Reading the Miranda Rights is just symbolic. I can still get arrested for no reason, read my rights and get beat down. It's still America people.

[heelsguy]

“When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the ‘right to remain silent,’” says Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation–lawyering up.”


so we can't torture them to get them to talk. and now we are advising them not to talk. yeah sounds like a really great way of getting vital info.

[Mustard]

While I understand where you are coming from Heels, what would be the modus operandi if said muslim terrorists had been american citizens all along? I know this is just hypothetical, but these "what if" contingencies should be explored, yes?

[hatepoppy]

lulz. 'vital info'.

[heelsguy]

While I understand where you are coming from Heels, what would be the modus operandi if said muslim terrorists had been american citizens all along? I know this is just hypothetical, but these "what if" contingencies should be explored, yes?

if I understand your hypothetical correctly, you're asking what if they were U.S citizens but, who were in afganistan fighting against the U.S?

to me, that is no different. There are laws against attempting to overthrow our governement. Hell, you can't even say outloud that you wanted to do such and such to the president, and we have the first ammendment.

[Mustard]

if I understand your hypothetical correctly, you're asking what if they were U.S citizens but, who were in afganistan fighting against the U.S?

to me, that is no different. There are laws against attempting to overthrow our governement. Hell, you can't even say outloud that you wanted to do such and such to the president, and we have the first ammendment.
Sorry, my fault for not being specific enough.

I was asking hypothetically if the Muslim terrorists were American citizens and carried out terrorist attacks within the border of the USA, what then would the modus operandi of such a thing be?

I ask because of the clear distinction of Pete Hoekstra who stated, "It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation–lawyering up." While I see where he is coming from, I am playing a sort of Devils Advocate here in trying to figure out what double standard there might be if an American were to commit a terrorist attack, versus a foreigner.

I posit that it would be easier for all cases if we (the Federal US gov't) would just treat all persons in the same manner regardless of citizenship, or lack thereof. I postulate this idea because, like I stated before, I think its insanity to not grant human beings a right to due process because I'm just trying to emulate what it is I think a civilized society would do.

[heelsguy]

Sorry, my fault for not being specific enough.

I was asking hypothetically if the Muslim terrorists were American citizens and carried out terrorist attacks within the border of the USA, what then would the modus operandi of such a thing be?

I ask because of the clear distinction of Pete Hoekstra who stated, "It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation–lawyering up." While I see where he is coming from, I am playing a sort of Devils Advocate here in trying to figure out what double standard there might be if an American were to commit a terrorist attack, versus a foreigner.

I posit that it would be easier for all cases if we (the Federal US gov't) would just treat all persons in the same manner regardless of citizenship, or lack thereof. I postulate this idea because, like I stated before, I think its insanity to not grant human beings a right to due process because I'm just trying to emulate what it is I think a civilized society would do.


well because they would be U.S. Citizens, they would have that right to remain silent and be adivsed of those right. but they would already know of the right, so really it would be no big deal reading them those rights.

so as much as we would like to torture or trick them it would be against the law. period. but what Obama is approving is giving those rights to non-U.S citizen enemy combatants. so there is no legal responsibility to help them cross that proverbial street by saying "look out, there is a truck coming".

this is simply my opinion. to each his or her own.

[Mustard]

well because they would be U.S. Citizens, they would have that right to remain silent and be adivsed of those right. but they would already know of the right, so really it would be no big deal reading them those rights.

so as much as we would like to torture or trick them it would be against the law. period. but what Obama is approving is giving those rights to non-U.S citizen enemy combatants. so there is no legal responsibility to help them cross that proverbial street by saying "look out, there is a truck coming".

this is simply my opinion. to each his or her own.
Ok, I see what you're saying here. Now, I wonder if you would mind expanding on why you feel this way about this quote? To be honest, I'm not all too interested in the legality of the issue insofar as I am interested in your opinion with regards to this matter and the underlying morality and ethics.

they are not american citizens, so they should not be afforded american rights and legal provisions

[hatepoppy]

Ok, I see what you're saying here. Now, I wonder if you would mind expanding on why you feel this way about this quote? To be honest, I'm not all too interested in the legality of the issue insofar as I am interested in your opinion with regards to this matter and the underlying morality and ethics.
so what youre saying is, fuck america. right?

[Mustard]

so what youre saying is, fuck america. right?
I have no idea how you conjectured such a false idea?

[Das Kahlua]

Sorry bud, but I think its insanity to not grant human beings a right to due process. Regardless of who they are or what they have done. I'm just trying to emulate what it is I think a civilized society would do.

Every day I have to live with the fact that not all of my fellow countrymen feel the same way.

So now every human being on the planet has protections under US law? How is this any different from 'imposing American values on the rest of the world,' a charge that was leveled against Republicans for supporting the war in Iraq?

As long as other peoples have the freedom to live their lives apart from American interference, they also don't enjoy the protections of US law--that's the other side of the coin. If I had a nickle for every time that I heard that we can't be the world's policeman I would never need to work again; if we don't have the right to police the world, the rest of the world can't claim protections under out law, including the right of due process.

[tockit]

I really don't understand this at all ???


I'm trying to picture the NVA capturing an American solider during Vietnam, and telling him he had the right to remain silent ???

That's just ridiculous on so many levels.....


I agree that we don't need to hold these people in Gitmo indefinitely, but giving them the same rights as American citizens?

For crying out loud, these are freaking war criminals.


Military tribunals have been used throughout history by George Washington, Andrew Jackson, FDR, etc.

Why are they now contraversial?


Enforce and expedite the tribunal process instead of this BS?

[Das Kahlua]

I really don't understand this at all ???


I try to picture the NVA capturing an American solider during Vietnam, and telling him he had the right to remain silent ???

That's just ridiculous on so many levels.....


I agree that we don't need to hold these people in Gitmo indefinitely, but giving them the same rights as American citizens?

For crying out loud, these are freaking war criminals.


Military tribunals have been used throughout history by George Washington, Andrew Jackson, FDR, etc.

Why are they now contraversial?


Enforce and expedite the tribunal process instead of this BS?

I understand that we're 'better' than the NVA or Hamas or any of these other groups, and I'm not advocating compromising the values that have made America great just to win, but that's really not what we're doing here. This isn't a debate about whether America should stoop to the level of the enemy, it's about whether we should start extending American rights and priviledges overseas to foreign nationals or not.

If the US isn't supposed to impose its will and values on other countries and peoples, fine, but then that means those foreign peoples can't hide behind our laws when it suits them. They have no right to habeas corpus, no right to an attorney, no right to due process or a speedy trial or any other rights under our Bill of Rights. It's the US Bill of Rights, not the World Bill of Rights, and as long as that remains the case we shouldn't try to extend its provisions beyond our borders.

[satandole666]

If the US isn't supposed to impose its will and values on other countries and peoples, fine, but then that means those foreign peoples can't hide behind our laws when it suits them. They have no right to habeas corpus, no right to an attorney, no right to due process or a speedy trial or any other rights under our Bill of Rights. It's the US Bill of Rights, not the World Bill of Rights, and as long as that remains the case we shouldn't try to extend its provisions beyond our borders.

I agree with you completely. But it is a catch-22.

We were forced to impose our will on these people. We might not have thrown the first punch so it isn't our "fault" as a country that this is happening, but we are imposing our will none the less.

Even though they put themselves there, they are now in our legal system (or some bastardized version of it) and deserve the rights and privileges associated with being in that system. What good is hanging these people out to dry if it isn't a fair trial? The system has rules for a purpose, most of which concern making the system fair. If we ignore these rules there is no reason to even put them through.

If the fucking Bush administration just admitted they are PoWs we wouldn't have this problem. Just because the definition of war is constantly evolving doesn't mean all of the associated terminology and theories get thrown out. These people are part of a nation (not a state or nation-state, in most cases) and they are at war with us. There is a process for dealing with this shit already, use it.

[Mustard]

So now every human being on the planet has protections under US law?
Holy cow man, way to totally miss the boat. That was impressive.

Ugh. *sigh* This is what I'm sorta talking about. I make a suggestion, and because your viewpoint is different, you turn my idea into the most extreme version possible, and then try to throw it back in my face, like I'm the idiot here. Thats bullshit man.

All I want to see is people treated with the same civility we would treat one of our own criminals. That includes "illegal enemy combatants" because if we don't look out for them, then we are no more civilized than they are.

Ever hear the saying "you're only as strong as your weakest link"? I believe that holds true when regarding how civilized we are as a nation, and how we treat our prisoners. As in, we are only as civilized as we treat our own prisoners.

How you got, "So now every human being on the planet has protections under US law?"... man, what the fuck?

How is this any different from 'imposing American values on the rest of the world,' a charge that was leveled against Republicans for supporting the war in Iraq?
While we are on the topic of ridiculous questions:

"How is this goat any different than this mountain?"
"How is a gold bar any different than a man named Stephen?"
"How is the day Saturday any different than a fliet mignon?"

Alright, now for the serious answer. It is different because one form of 'imposing American values on the rest of the world' started off with an invasion of a soverign nation, whereas the other form of 'imposing American values on the rest of the world' actually isn't imposing values (rather it is granting priviliges) neither is it on the rest of the world (rather it is only with regards to captured "illegal enemy combatants").

[Das Kahlua]

I agree with you completely. But it is a catch-22.

We were forced to impose our will on these people. We might not have thrown the first punch so it isn't our "fault" as a country that this is happening, but we are imposing our will none the less.

Even though they put themselves there, they are now in our legal system (or some bastardized version of it) and deserve the rights and privileges associated with being in that system. What good is hanging these people out to dry if it isn't a fair trial? The system has rules for a purpose, most of which concern making the system fair. If we ignore these rules there is no reason to even put them through.

If the fucking Bush administration just admitted they are PoWs we wouldn't have this problem. Just because the definition of war is constantly evolving doesn't mean all of the associated terminology and theories get thrown out. These people are part of a nation (not a state or nation-state, in most cases) and they are at war with us. There is a process for dealing with this shit already, use it.

The problem is that most of these 'rules of war' were written back at a point in time when soldiers fought for clearly defined countries in clearly defined conflicts, and all sides respected and honored these rules.

Nowadays, someone we catch on the battlefield in Afghanistan may have been born in Saudi Arabia and trained in Pakistan, and we might not even know the person's real name. Where should be try this person, under what legal standards, and what should we do with the person afterward? Saudi Arabia doesn't want the guy, neither does Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a war zone. According to Obama, we can't keep them in Gitmo, Europe doesn't want them, and no one in America wants them brought here.

Furthermore, under what laws, and in what venue, should they be tried in? Should they be brought to the Hague? Should they be brought to the US? Should they be tried in a military tribunal, or a kangaroo court in some Middle Eastern country?

Even though they put themselves there, they are now in our legal system (or some bastardized version of it) and deserve the rights and privileges associated with being in that system. What good is hanging these people out to dry if it isn't a fair trial? The system has rules for a purpose, most of which concern making the system fair. If we ignore these rules there is no reason to even put them through.

What 'system'? What 'rules'? There is no overarching international court system or legal structure under which to either hold these people accountable or try them. There is no 'International Court of Law' under which we can prosecute anyone we see fit. People who break the laws of 'Country A' can be tried and held accountable in 'Country A,' not shipped off to whatever other country we see fit.

Like it or not, these people do not fit the criteria of the Geneva Convention, and therefore cannot either enjoy its benefits nor be held to its standards, just as if I wear a red shirt in Mexico, where it is not a crime, I cannot be prosecuted in Nigeria where it is a crime.

Much of international law does not exist, for large part because most countries are not willing to sacrifice their individual sovereignty to the will of world community. Therefore, as much as we might like, there is no international court system that we can appeal to to take these people off of our hands. We caught them, now we're stuck with them, if for no other reason than no one else wants them.

[Das Kahlua]

Holy cow man, way to totally miss the boat. That was impressive.

Ugh. *sigh* This is what I'm sorta talking about. I make a suggestion, and because your viewpoint is different, you turn my idea into the most extreme version possible, and then try to throw it back in my face, like I'm the idiot here. Thats bullshit man.

First, I don't think you're an idiot, and I'm not trying to turn anything into an extreme case or throw anything in your face. Just to clear that up.

All I want to see is people treated with the same civility we would treat one of our own criminals. That includes "illegal enemy combatants" because if we don't look out for them, then we are no more civilized than they are.

Ever hear the saying "you're only as strong as your weakest link"? I believe that holds true when regarding how civilized we are as a nation, and how we treat our prisoners. As in, we are only as civilized as we treat our own prisoners.

I'm all for people being treated with 'respect and dignity,' I really am. The problem is that such a standard is not only a loaded term, but it is completely open to interpretation. An example: I personally don't think that women should be treated as second class citizens. Does that mean that, since we as Americans are now promoting 'respect and dignity,' that we should make sure that Muslims do not force women to cover their bodies, walk behind and be escorted by men, and face such horrors as female circumcision?

Furthermore, you said "we are only as civilized as we treat our own prisoners," so should be make sure that everyone on the planet has 3 meals a day, enjoys air conditioning and heat and access to cable television and the internet?

How you got, "So now every human being on the planet has protections under US law?"... man, what the fuck?

Please keep in mind, the values that you are advocating are not shared by the rest of the world. If we are going to be actively promoting 'respect and dignity,' we are by definition furthering our own values on the rest of the world.

Do I necessarily think that this is a bad thing? No, but not everyone agrees with me on that.

While we are on the topic of ridiculous questions:

"How is this goat any different than this mountain?"
"How is a gold bar any different than a man named Stephen?"
"How is the day Saturday any different than a fliet mignon?"

Do you have any idea how many cars I have seen on the road with bumper stickers proclaiming both "No War for Oil" and "Save Darfur"? So, apparently, it's not ok to go to war with Iraq to overthrow a dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, but it is ok to go into Darfur to do the same there.

See a double-standard?

Alright, now for the serious answer. It is different because one form of 'imposing American values on the rest of the world' started off with an invasion of a soverign nation, whereas the other form of 'imposing American values on the rest of the world' actually isn't imposing values (rather it is granting priviliges) neither is it on the rest of the world (rather it is only with regards to captured "illegal enemy combatants").

Do you know how many people ever held at Gitmo were water-boarded? Total? 3. The thousands of other detainees, many of whom were released only to be recaptured on the battlefield, were given 3 meals a day, medical care, shelter, clothing and ample opportunity to exercise and pray. They experienced a lifestyle that was far surperior to hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people all over the globe, including within the US. I would say that they enjoyed much more 'respect and dignity' than they would have if they had never been captured, and continued to hide in caves and shacks in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[satandole666]

Let me try this again.

The problem is that most of these 'rules of war' were written back at a point in time when soldiers fought for clearly defined countries in clearly defined conflicts, and all sides respected and honored these rules.

Nowadays, someone we catch on the battlefield in Afghanistan may have been born in Saudi Arabia and trained in Pakistan, and we might not even know the person's real name. Where should be try this person, under what legal standards, and what should we do with the person afterward? Saudi Arabia doesn't want the guy, neither does Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a war zone. According to Obama, we can't keep them in Gitmo, Europe doesn't want them, and no one in America wants them brought here.

Furthermore, under what laws, and in what venue, should they be tried in? Should they be brought to the Hague? Should they be brought to the US? Should they be tried in a military tribunal, or a kangaroo court in some Middle Eastern country?


You missed the part where I said:

Just because the definition of war is constantly evolving doesn't mean all of the associated terminology and theories get thrown out.

You quoted it, but you missed it. I know the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to these people. But it should. Modernize it and give us another tool to deal with this situation without the International backlash.

If you don't want to make them PoWs and you want to put them through some makeshift version of the US justice system then you have to give them the rights afforded to those who go through it.

This is the catch-22 I was referring to. You are arguing against the only two real options we have. You could make another system to deal with these people and call them something besides PoWs if it really makes you feel better, but that would achieve the same end result so what is the point?

Which do you want?

[satandole666]

I was trying to figure out what the hell happened.

[Feng]

So let me get this straight, we are to read miranda to enemy combatants now? Does this mean we should have uniformed MPs out in the battle field as well as mobile courts not unlike medical facilities?

You know, we have detained until the end of time criminals from Cuba when Castro flushed the toilets of Cuba and dumped all of his criminals onto the US during the Carter Administration. There are hundreds if not thousands that are being held, forever and as far as I know they are outside the courts.

Furthermore, how can the executive branch order this? Doesn't this fall into the realm of the courts with regards to Miranda? Then again, how can we even apply laws that ONLY apply to US citizens/residents.

[Mustard]

First, I don't think you're an idiot, and I'm not trying to turn anything into an extreme case or throw anything in your face. Just to clear that up.

I'm all for people being treated with 'respect and dignity,' I really am. The problem is that such a standard is not only a loaded term, but it is completely open to interpretation. An example: I personally don't think that women should be treated as second class citizens. Does that mean that, since we as Americans are now promoting 'respect and dignity,' that we should make sure that Muslims do not force women to cover their bodies, walk behind and be escorted by men, and face such horrors as female circumcision?
No. Hell no. Lead by example.

I am beginning to think that the notion that I'm making, namely that we should treat our captured "illegal enemy combatants" the same as we would treat our own citizens who are also prisoners, is escaping you. I'm reasonably sure that I never mentioned that the US needs to be the world police, just as I'm pretty sure I never mentioned that every person on the planet should be entitled to being under the umbrella of our constitution.

Furthermore, you said "we are only as civilized as we treat our own prisoners," so should be make sure that everyone on the planet has 3 meals a day, enjoys air conditioning and heat and access to cable television and the internet?
NO! Because "everyone on the planet" are not our prisoners!

Dude... what the hell?


Please keep in mind, the values that you are advocating are not shared by the rest of the world. If we are going to be actively promoting 'respect and dignity,' we are by definition furthering our own values on the rest of the world.

Do I necessarily think that this is a bad thing? No, but not everyone agrees with me on that.
With regards to our prisoners that include illegal enemy combatants, yes.

With regards to everybody else who isn't an American citizen, lead by example.


Do you have any idea how many cars I have seen on the road with bumper stickers proclaiming both "No War for Oil" and "Save Darfur"? So, apparently, it's not ok to go to war with Iraq to overthrow a dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, but it is ok to go into Darfur to do the same there.

See a double-standard?
Of course I see a double standard. Which is why I've never advocated for either the invasion of Iraq OR getting involved in any of the madness taking place in Darfur.


Do you know how many people ever held at Gitmo were water-boarded? Total? 3. The thousands of other detainees, many of whom were released only to be recaptured on the battlefield, were given 3 meals a day, medical care, shelter, clothing and ample opportunity to exercise and pray. They experienced a lifestyle that was far surperior to hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people all over the globe, including within the US. I would say that they enjoyed much more 'respect and dignity' than they would have if they had never been captured, and continued to hide in caves and shacks in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And to me, thats a good thing that we treated them as well as we would treat our own prisoners at home. This is what we, as a civilized nation, should always strive for.

[Das Kahlua]

Normally you are pretty good at reading and comprehending posts. You even quoted where I said:

You're right. Some of the Geneva Convention is outdated and doesn't apply very well to the current situation. Maybe we should fucking get it updated?

There are two choices here. We can update the Geneva Convention to redefine PoWs and their treatment or the US can do it ourselves. Which do you want?

You can't say both are bad are we're going just do whatever the fuck we want with them. They are either PoWs and get treated as such, or we put them through the justice system and treat them as such.

Again, if we just updated (or even just clarified) International law when this first became an issue we wouldn't have a massive shit stain on our reputation and stuff like this wouldn't happen:

I am kind of hopping back and forth between both camps because I'm very torn. I agree that international law is outdated and needs to be either changed or completely scrapped, but I also don't want some massive international power that can trump the sovereignty of the US. I am very anti the UN, and personally think that we should do what Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul advocate, move out of NATO and the UN.

US law should end at our borders. I don't disagree with you at all. But if you aren't willing to classify them as PoWs then what do you want?

I said this before, I was very disappointed with Bush, and have been with Obama as well, when he didn't rebound from the SCOTUS's forbidding of the use of military tribunals for these detainees and try and find some alternative solution that would be deemed Constitutional, or at least put up a larger public fight over how crappy of a decision that that was. Instead, he seemed content with leaving the status quo for Obama to sort out down the line; Obama, also deserving of blame, has yet to address this situation either. Instead, he has tried to take both sides of this issue, wanting to close Gitmo but not finding some workable alternative for the detainees.

The problem is, we can't just return these detainees to the Middle East, lest they reappear on the battlefield; I believe that it would be a huge mistake to attempt to try and/or imprison them within the US; and Europe has already said that they don't want anything to do with this mess. You're right, it is a catch-22, but the only consequence of this mess will be that our soldiers will stop even trying to take prisoners, and just kill every enemy on the battlefield.

[satandole666]

I want our troops to be able to get intel on where they are being attacked from, who the planners are, who the financiers are, where the training camps are, so we can end this and bring them home. If we have to update the Geneva Convention Articles, then FINE. But don't give the Taliban, and Queders ANOTHER way to hurt us, and yes their silence is deadlier than a bomb. Every time they are allowed to sit in a cell and not speak is another time the Taliban is able to pull off a raid that we didn't know about, and sends more Americans home to their caskets and crying mothers.

I want our troops to have these same benefits.

But, we refused to classify these people as PoWs. Instead of treating them as such and affording us legals methods of torture to gather intel, someone wanted to work outside the rules and it fucked the whole situation up.

[Feng]

I am not sure which is the height of insanity....

Reading miranda rights to enemy combatants

or

The executive branch basically usurping 150 years of contract law with Chrysler.

We live in interesting times, and as I was NO fan of Bush, this Administration is starting to worry me somewhat.

[Feng]

I want our troops to have these same benefits.

But, we refused to classify these people as PoWs. Instead of treating them as such and affording us legals methods of torture to gather intel, someone wanted to work outside the rules and it fucked the whole situation up.

These individuals/organizations operate well outside the rules themselves.

The US took in thousands of POWs in Iraq during the invasion, all of which were handled under the Geneva Conventions, and with the watchful eye of the International Red Cross.

[satandole666]

I am kind of hopping back and forth between both camps because I'm very torn. I agree that international law is outdated and needs to be either changed or completely scrapped, but I also don't want some massive international power that can trump the sovereignty of the US. I am very anti the UN, and personally think that we should do what Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul advocate, move out of NATO and the UN.

I said this before, I was very disappointed with Bush, and have been with Obama as well, when he didn't rebound from the SCOTUS's forbidding of the use of military tribunals for these detainees and try and find some alternative solution that would be deemed Constitutional, or at least put up a larger public fight over how crappy of a decision that that was. Instead, he seemed content with leaving the status quo for Obama to sort out down the line; Obama, also deserving of blame, has yet to address this situation either. Instead, he has tried to take both sides of this issue, wanting to close Gitmo but not finding some workable alternative for the detainees.

The problem is, we can't just return these detainees to the Middle East, lest they reappear on the battlefield; I believe that it would be a huge mistake to attempt to try and/or imprison them within the US; and Europe has already said that they don't want anything to do with this mess. You're right, it is a catch-22, but the only consequence of this mess will be that our soldiers will stop even trying to take prisoners, and just kill every enemy on the battlefield.

You grabbed my original post. The post-edited one is cleaned up a bit.

The concept that National Sovereignty trumps all is dying across the world. It sucks for us because any 1v1 or even 1v10 we can win, but if we are legally restricted in our actions and powers then what good does the massive military and economy do us.

I see the Geneva Convention and "the rules of war" as a separate issue, however. All we needed was a simple clarification of whether or not these people are PoWs and how do we treat them if not. We wouldn't be asking permission, we would be working to find a common solution to the problem that the world agrees on.

And you are right about Washington screwing the pooch on this one. If I had to guess, I'd imagine Obama hopes to essentially stall this one out until the world and the US public has forgotten about it. We're nearing major international shakeup already with the economic implosion, I don't think Obama is quite ready the give the UN the finger yet.

[Das Kahlua]

No. Hell no. Lead by example.

I am beginning to think that the notion that I'm making, namely that we should treat our captured "illegal enemy combatants" the same as we would treat our own citizens who are also prisoners, is escaping you. I'm reasonably sure that I never mentioned that the US needs to be the world police, just as I'm pretty sure I never mentioned that every person on the planet should be entitled to being under the umbrella of our constitution.

NO! Because "everyone on the planet" are not our prisoners!

Dude... what the hell?

It's not escaping me, the only alternative to what you're advocating is that our soldiers will have to start taking on the role of police officers, which is not what they're trained to do, nor is it what we should be asking of them. The battlefield is not a crime scene, it is not conducive for collecting evidence, establishing eye-witnesses, and generally preparing a case that would sustain the strict standards for a US court of law.

In short, the only outcome of this would be captured prisoners would be released in droves by opportunistic judges, if they were subjected to civil trials, as the burden of proof would be virtually impossible to be met.

At this point, it would be the only possible alternative, as the SCOTUS already excluded the option of trying these prisoners with military tribunals, and there is no real higher international tribunal to which these people could be held accountable.

Basically, what I'm trying to get at is that our soldiers capturing combatants in Afghanistan is not the same as our police or FBI capturing drug dealers or murders or car thieves anywhere within the US, and we shouldn't try and make the two the same.

And to me, thats a good thing that we treated them as well as we would treat our own prisoners at home. This is what we, as a civilized nation, should always strive for.

Here's what I was trying to get at with the 'wild examples' I was making earlier, our civilian laws have never applied to non-US prisoners captured by our military overseas. In the story that started all of this, KSM said “I’ll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer,” something that even Obama and Harry Reid say should never be allowed to happen, but once we start to grant Constitutional rights to foreign nationals, how can it be prevented? By Mirandizing detainees, we are acknowledging that they have the right to be provided a free attorney, the right to remain silent, so how far off would the right to a trial in a US court be?

Hell, even a US soldier who committed a crime wouldn't have all these rights, he/she would be tried under the rules and regulations of the UCMJ; why should we grant greater rights to terrorists?

I'll just leave it at this: US laws apply to US citizens and those living within our borders. If I, as a US citizen, go to Pakistan and break a law there, I'm going to be tried in a Pakistani court; I will not have due process or the right to an attorney, and it will probably end very badly for me. Whey should there be a higher standard for an enemy combatant?

[satandole666]

These individuals/organizations operate well outside the rules themselves.

The US took in thousands of POWs in Iraq during the invasion, all of which were handled under the Geneva Conventions, and with the watchful eye of the International Red Cross.

You're right. We haven't abandoned the proper procedures for handling PoWs. We just like to pick in choose who we label as a PoW so we can work outside the rules.

And about the first part, it is worn out but two wrongs don't make a right. I feel like Arch but a civilized country shouldn't resort to barbarism to combat it. Regardless of what our enemy does, we should win the engagement and sort out the mess in a civilized (read: moral) manner.

[Mustard]

Here's what I was trying to get at with the 'wild examples' I was making earlier, our civilian laws have never applied to non-US prisoners captured by our military overseas. In the story that started all of this, KSM said “I’ll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer,” something that even Obama and Harry Reid say should never be allowed to happen, but once we start to grant Constitutional rights to foreign nationals, how can it be prevented? By Mirandizing detainees, we are acknowledging that they have the right to be provided a free attorney, the right to remain silent, so how far off would the right to a trial in a US court be?
I'm no prophet, but hopefully it wouldn't be that far off. In my mind, that would be the next logical step a civilized nation like we are would do with regards to your postulation.
Hell, even a US soldier who committed a crime wouldn't have all these rights, he/she would be tried under the rules and regulations of the UCMJ; why should we grant greater rights to terrorists?
The soldier's have the full understanding that they will be held to the UCMJ if they fuck up, and they voluntarily accept those terms. There is no distinction here, even if you want there to be.
I'll just leave it at this: US laws apply to US citizens and those living within our borders. If I, as a US citizen, go to Pakistan and break a law there, I'm going to be tried in a Pakistani court; I will not have due process or the right to an attorney, and it will probably end very badly for me. Whey should there be a higher standard for an enemy combatant?
Stooping to their level of barbarism is unacceptable, as a civilized nation.

Being a civilized nation means (to me) that we hold our prisoners, all of them, to the same standards we hold our own prisoners at home. And I would want that standard to be high. Not as much as a free citizen obviously, just as well as would be expected from society. Nothing more, nothing less. Agree or disagree, I will leave it at that.

[satandole666]

Leading by example is fine in Sunday School. You have to draw a line somewhere when Leading By Example is getting our men killed daily.

Give them a special classification of POW, try them in a tribunal, provide them food and shelter, we can't hook up a generator to their balls so make them WORK for that food and shelter. Work their asses off sandbagging, breaking rocks, carrying a bucket of water up and down a hill all day WHATEVER, give them a reason to talk. When they talk then sentence them. if they don't then they are earning their meals.

As long as they can't be detained indefinitely without meeting some criteria of proof, I'm game with that.

I don't really give a shit how they are treated. It is pretty well known (and I think it might have been mentioned in this thread) that Guantanamo isn't all that bad.

The immorality of the situation comes from us thinking we can do whatever we want to do to them indefinitely. If it is deemed morale to execute those who were involved in terrorist attacks, go for it. If you want to force them into manual labor (which, if I am correct is legal under the Geneva Convention to an extent) go for it.

Just make a set of rules and stick to them. Don't argue semantics so you can make the rules up as you go to serve your purpose.

[fuldstændigamok]

I do think this is really bad. America would have never thought of reading Miranda rights to the Japanese in WWII or to the Chinese who went to fight Americans in Korea. You enemy in a war is NOT covered under the constitution. I can see being open minded and treating them as humans, because regardless, they ARE humans, but the ONLY way we are going to catch Bin Laden is if we catch someone who knows where he is, and if he doesn't have to talk then he won't. The hate us, the wants us judged under their laws and to behead us as infidels, yet we say they have the right to remain silent, you have the right not to tell us where Bin Laden is? Fuck that noise.

There is no reason to ever take a prisoner again. Every battle from now on should end with every enemy combatant dead. There is no use taking a prisoner anymore.

Lulz, you still think that you are going to catch Bin Laden? Or that he still is the guy in charge nowadays, for that matter?

[heelsguy]

Ok, I see what you're saying here. Now, I wonder if you would mind expanding on why you feel this way about this quote? To be honest, I'm not all too interested in the legality of the issue insofar as I am interested in your opinion with regards to this matter and the underlying morality and ethics.

It is one thing to not torture someone (someone who would glady murder thousands of innocent people just to make a political/religious statement/terror).

It is another thing in my opinion to offer U.S. Miranda legal protection to those captured fighting. If they were wearing the uniform of a country then it would fall under Geneva.

I just do not see a problem with it. Not torturing? = yes. denying Miranda?= NO

[satandole666]

How is holding someone indefinitely not a form of torture?

You're essentially caging them and washing your hands of it. Sure they eat 3 square meals a day, have decent facilities, and probably stay fairly well entertained...but that's not the definition of being human. What about their families, friends, dreams, goals, blah blah blah?

If you can't prove, with a reasonable expectation of evidence, that these people are guilty then you shouldn't remove their free will.

[heelsguy]

something needs to be decided as far as enemy combatants go. as was pointed out earlier here, this is not one country fighting against another country, with each soldier required to be in uniform so that you know who is a soldier and who is a civilian. You have everyone who is fighting against us dressing basically the same and when you come across a camp where bombs are being made, we go in a round up all 20 guys in the tent.

How in the world are we supposed to tell who is who? In my example above, one of those 20 guys could have blown up a U.S. convoy last week, and another one among those 20 could honestly be "innocent" (of course, why was he in the tent, then curiosity?)

[Okie Medicvet]

During WWII, our captured soldiers were treated abhominably by the Japanese, but we did not treat Japanese captured POW's the same way. Just because the enemy acts wrong does not give us carte blanche to do the same.

And as far as having mp's on the frontlines, I got news for ya'll, it's already there, mp's ARE on the frontlines in Iraq these days. Matter of fact, one mp who was told to help torture prisoners killed herself rather than do what she felt to be morally wrong.

So tell me how on earth we are helping anything by the torturing that was done, if it is debatable if that is even what worked in getting accurate information.

We do need a status for the detainees at gitmo and elsewhere, something official that will either have them face a trial and be found guilty, or status at POW's. We have to regain the moral high ground in this, or the US will continue to have egg on its face over this. We need to lable them criminals with the same rights criminals have, or POW's, with the same rights they have. period.

[Hanover Fist]

During WWII, our captured soldiers were treated abhominably by the Japanese, but we did not treat Japanese captured POW's the same way. Just because the enemy acts wrong does not give us carte blanche to do the same.


Okie we treated US citizens abominably during WWII, we incarcerated them indefinitely in camps all over the place without any charges whatsoever. They weren't even people actively warring against us, their only crime was being asian. It included far more people than we have ever held at GITMO and in most cases they were US citizens. It was even upheld by the Supreme Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

[Okie Medicvet]

Yes, the internment of the Japanese was the most wrong thing the US had done since slavery. However, we didn't torture them for information, nor did we torture Japanese PoW's. Look at the Bataan death march for an example of what the Japanese did to US PoW's. We didn't do the same then, when the stakes were as high as they could be, nor should we be doing the same now. We need to do what is right, not what is expedient.

[hatepoppy]

bin laden ditnt blow up tha projects! it was you *****! tell that truth, *****!

[Insomniac]

Well the FBI and Justice Department are domestic organizations. If you pick up an illegal immigrant Mexican drug trafficker in the U.S., it doesn't matter how morally terrible they are, they still have rights.

If the CIA or military picks up someone overseas, I didn't see anything in the article that said they'd have to follow the same guidelines.

Anyway, this just seems a way to move from "indefinite" and "detainee" toward a more sustainable long-term policy. Grabbing suspects and holding them without rights and without any review, especially in the U.S., is far more frightening and has far more of an effect on all of us than terrorists.

[hatepoppy]

I was unaware that the WTC was the projects.
yeah i never understood that shits. immortal techniqu ftstupid.

[Das Kahlua]

How is holding someone indefinitely not a form of torture?

You're essentially caging them and washing your hands of it. Sure they eat 3 square meals a day, have decent facilities, and probably stay fairly well entertained...but that's not the definition of being human. What about their families, friends, dreams, goals, blah blah blah?

If you can't prove, with a reasonable expectation of evidence, that these people are guilty then you shouldn't remove their free will.

We have released hundreds of detainees that we previously held. Dozens of the ones we released were recaptured on the battlefield.

There are two separate issues here: 1) ideally, what should our actions be/what would I want to have happen to me, and 2) what rights do these people have that the US has an obligation to be held to.

If you want to say that the US shouldn't torture, because it's a higher moral issue, one that the majority of the rest of the world agrees with, fine. Whether or not I agree with you, I can respect your position.

That is massively different from saying that American rights, rights that certainly aren't even close to being universal throughout the rest of the world, should be extended to foreign nationals. This is a position that the US has never adopted, and IMO it would be dangerous to try and change that.

We don't have to be happy or satisfied with the current arrangement for detainees and want things to change, I can agree with that, but these people are not US citizens who robbed a liquor store, they are illegal enemy combatants caught on the battlefield. Our front line soldiers are not the police, and it would only be dangerous for them if they were to start acting that way.

[Okie Medicvet]

Grabbing suspects and holding them without rights and without any review, especially in the U.S., is far more frightening and has far more of an effect on all of us than terrorists

and that is the MAIN reason, more than anything else, why I am so concerned about this matter, because it affects ME and what rights I do or don't have.

[hatepoppy]

fuck foreigners!

for real tho, is it not a slippery slope to allow our government to treat foreigners with less moral regard than citizens? are the alleged self-evident truths like 'all men created equal,' 'inalienable rights' etc just lip service?

how long until someone like me, who for instance openly claims to disbelieve the 9/11 commision report, is considered a terrorist and 'detained' without rights?

(assuming again that the official story of the OKC bombing is valid)
was timothy mcveigh read his rights and allowed counsel when he was taken into custody? did he commit a lesser crime?

[hatepoppy]

ZOMG!

does 'unalienable rights' mean that they are not transferable to aliens? maybe the powdered merkins a couple hundred years ago rry DID hate non-americans. the country definitely had their doors closed to them at the time.

[freegood]

I think this is a matter of getting solid (at worst, on the level of military courts) convictions by reducing the use of tainted evidence.

Even if we could keep people indefinitely and openly admit it, I doubt world opinion would agree to it.

Obama is slowly, “quietly” taking away the rights of American citizens while providing US Constitutional rights to Jihadists.

That's a pretty charged statement. I glossed at the site and he seems to have an issue about restricting executive pay even though companies on the Socialist dole are the ones that fall under the restrictions...

[freegood]

I thought this was related to Bush detaining people without enough due cause, and Obama having to bribe them richly and the country that takes them in...
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/uighur-problem/

“And so ends a demagoguery-laced vignette from the Age of Terrorism,” writes Spencer Ackerman today of the deal to send most or all of the 17 Uighur detainees — “whom the Bush administration no longer considered enemy combatants” — from Guantanamo to the Pacfic island nation Palau.

Having no basis under which to detain the Uighurs, and being prevented from sending them back to China where they’d likely be tortured, both the Bush and the Obama administrations had little idea what to do with the Uighurs. Some in the Uighur community in Northern Virginia initially agreed to take in the detainees, but that proposal met loud objections from Republican members of Congress — joined by fearful Virgina Democratic politicians like Sen. Jim Webb — who transmogrified the freeing of the Uighurs into an imaginary Obama administration plot to have Khalid Shaikh Mohammed rent the foreclosed house in your exurban cul-de-sac.

“One can’t blame Palau for taking the deal,” which reportedly includes $200 million in new U.S. aid, writes Ed Morrisey at Hot Air.

First, their entire GDP for 2008 was $164 million, according to the CIA Factbook. Over 85,000 tourists visited Palau and provided about $120 million of that. Now 17 Uighurs will come to Palau with $12 million each. If they’re truly rehabilitated, well, what a deal, right? Plus, Palau gets to stick a finger in Beijing’s eye; they don’t recognize the communist regime at all and have close ties to Taiwan.

Why Palau? At the New Republic, Jason Zengerle shares the analysis of an anonymous friend who has “deep knowledge” of the country: “It’s funny how perfect the whole thing is.”

It’s really not a very big amount of money for the US, they get this plus defense rights plus a UN vote whenever they need it (for a while every year there would be some Cuba UN vote with only Palau, the Marshall Islands and Israel joining the US). . . .

Meanwhile, Palau has no reason to avoid making China mad — they already recognize Taiwan, so China doesn’t like them anyway — which apparently was one of the big problems with some of the other possibilities. But it has a decent sized Chinese population (much of which is tied to the prostitution industry), and, best of all, the conversations between the Mormon missionaries who go over and the Uighurs will be epic (and would be an awesome reality show).

Like most of the issues emanating from Bush’s Global War on Terror, the response to the Uighurs’s situation breaks down along left-right lines, and there is no agreement on even the most basic issue of whether the Uighurs ever were a threat to anyone.

According to Thomas Joscelyn at the Weekly Standard, the Times story today leaves out crucial details about the detainees’ associations:

The Times blames the reticence of other foreign governments [to take the Uighurs] on pressure from Beijing. But, the Times does not mention that all 17 Uighur detainees are either members or associates of the Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement (also known as the Turkestan Islamic Party), a U.S. and UN-designated al Qaeda affiliate. Most of the Uighur detainees have admitted they were trained at ETIM/TIP training camps. And at least eight of them have admitted that Abdul Haq, a member of al Qaeda’s elite Shura council, ran the training camps where they learned to wage jihad.

Ed Morrisey thinks there is some risk to Palau citizens and tourists:

Of course, with a recidivism rate for released Gitmo detainees of around 14%, odds are that a couple of the Uighurs might not be quite as cuddly as Obama promises. Hopefully it will work out all right for Palau and its tourists, but if I were making decisions on expensive South Pacific vacations, I’d start looking elsewhere.

More in link

[Rover]

And two months after his Inauguration, President Obama reiterated (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/obama-fires-back-cheney-60-minutes), "Now, do these folks deserve miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not."


http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/flashback_obama_said_terrorist_1.asp
I miss having a president who said everything he believed and believed everything he said. I guess Obama's changed his mind in 2 months.

[Stax]

if I understand your hypothetical correctly, you're asking what if they were U.S citizens but, who were in afganistan fighting against the U.S?

to me, that is no different. There are laws against attempting to overthrow our governement. Hell, you can't even say outloud that you wanted to do such and such to the president, and we have the first ammendment.

No right is absolute, so the invocation of the first amendment doesn't really matter. The rights of your fist end where the rights of my nose begin, the right to free speech ends where it begins to infringe on the safety of others and our society determined that threatening the president, even verbally, crosses that line.

[Stax]

something needs to be decided as far as enemy combatants go. as was pointed out earlier here, this is not one country fighting against another country, with each soldier required to be in uniform so that you know who is a soldier and who is a civilian. You have everyone who is fighting against us dressing basically the same and when you come across a camp where bombs are being made, we go in a round up all 20 guys in the tent.

How in the world are we supposed to tell who is who? In my example above, one of those 20 guys could have blown up a U.S. convoy last week, and another one among those 20 could honestly be "innocent" (of course, why was he in the tent, then curiosity?)

Through the same process that has for centuries allowed us to catch all other forms of criminals. Criminals also don't wear uniforms or announce themselves and they live amongst the general population. But through the legal structure that has been polished and formed over hundreds of years we properly investigate, catch, prosecute, and punish said criminals.

[hatepoppy]

well, a goodish portion of them anyway. what, maybe 30%?

[hatepoppy]

i made that stat up!

[Grieves]

It doesn't sound like Obama's trying to surrender to the terrorists or give poor dirt eaters some ray of hope and justice, he's just trying to close a possible legal loop hole. If they can be or will be tried in a U.S. court of law then they should be read their Miranda rights. If it's some military tribunal or the heads of all the royal families or whatever's court of law, then whether or not they were read Miranda rights will make no difference, as those do not apply in that particular court so no harm done there.

Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but it looks like he's doing something smart, on purpose.

[heelsguy]

Through the same process that has for centuries allowed us to catch all other forms of criminals. Criminals also don't wear uniforms or announce themselves and they live amongst the general population. But through the legal structure that has been polished and formed over hundreds of years we properly investigate, catch, prosecute, and punish said criminals.


how are we suppposed to do that with enemy combatants? fingerprint them, set up a database, release them like a tagged animal on Animal Planet and then if they miss bombing us a second time we'll have them dead-to-rights?

let's get real.

[Weenis]

We also tell that to murderers, rapists, etc. Does the representative suggest we don't wish to stop future murders/rapes/etc? The law does not only apply when it is considered convenient.

Not to mention, it's so naive that these people are either monumentally stupid or trying to insult our intelligence.

As if some suspected terrorist is concerned with whether he has the "right" to remain silent.

How dumb do they think people are? Do these GOP senators think if we didn't read them miranda rights they'd all just spill their guts immediately?

[Weenis]

Well the FBI and Justice Department are domestic organizations. If you pick up an illegal immigrant Mexican drug trafficker in the U.S., it doesn't matter how morally terrible they are, they still have rights.

If the CIA or military picks up someone overseas, I didn't see anything in the article that said they'd have to follow the same guidelines.

Anyway, this just seems a way to move from "indefinite" and "detainee" toward a more sustainable long-term policy. Grabbing suspects and holding them without rights and without any review, especially in the U.S., is far more frightening and has far more of an effect on all of us than terrorists.

I was wondering this myself. Shouldn't the FBI be mirandizing anyone they arrest anyway?

Totally different than the CIA or military arresting someone.