Miranda Rights for Terrorists

[tomtom83]

Not sure what all this fuss is about. I have always read them their Miranda rights.

But since the bastards understood no English and it was from about 1,200 m away, some of it may have gotten lost in translation. :confused:

All I know is that after taking a bullet they all permanently exercised their right to remain silent. Not ONE asked to speak to an attorney. :cool:

[Brendon]

If they were captured in the United States, sure, read them their rights, it's the law.

But in Afghanistan, America's laws shouldn't need to apply.

Um Plazoo you obviously don't follow the news.

(Political Ranting)

EDIT: Ok I just thought about this and I'm scared now.

However, Michael Steele is right, you people have lost your minds. I love it that all the people who yelled for 8 years that Bush can only be judged in the rear view mirror of history, suddenly feel that Obama can be judged a failure in the first 100 days.

[Brendon]

Well, if he doesn't look like a fool, an apologist, or a liar by now, than most of the US must be blind or communists.

You've got to be kidding, Obama has done a lot more to repair US relations overseas in less time than it took Bush to destroy them. While this doesn't have much to do with what you're talking about, I can easily see that it's taking this route.

Nixon shook hands with Chairman Mao and even his harshest critics will say that his efforts to repair Sino-American relations is one of the shining moments of his administration. Reagan extended the olive branch to Gorbachev and helped bring an end to the Cold War.

[CityOfChicago]

You've got to be kidding, Obama has done a lot more to repair US relations overseas in less time than it took Bush to destroy them. While this doesn't have much to do with what you're talking about, I can easily see that it's taking this route.

Nixon shook hands with Chairman Mao and even his harshest critics will say that his efforts to repair Sino-American relations is one of the shining moments of his administration. Reagan extended the olive branch to Gorbachev and helped bring an end to the Cold War.

Nixon did such a great job with China that we get rubber dog**** and cheap plastic toys for a dollar, Nike gets to have factories full of cheap labor, and 20 years after thousands of stiudents are attacked and killed in Tiananmen Square that part of Chinese history is forbidden from discussion in China and the troops surround the square 'just in case' people call out for basic human rights again. Our businesses get benefits from relationships with China on the backs of its people. And when the President resigns in disgrace, "shining moment" is a relative term.

And Reagan took a much harder stance then you recall. He walked out of the SALT II talks in Finland after claiming the Soviets violated the treaty and after he refused to budge on the SDI. He was critcized pretty hard for walking away from the olive branch Gorby was offering. Reagan made it clear that the Soviets would have to make the steps first (Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall). So really, Reagan maintained the US position while it was Gorby who worked to meet us.

And either way, the fanaticism in the MidEast doesnt even compare. Do the ramblings out of Iran sound like the ramblings of a sane man? You wanna compare, compare him to Kruschev with Cuba, then add to that the 'legitimacy' of a hijacked God.

What about the responsibility of those in power in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia? Or the responsibility of the good people in those countries? Why is everything our fault? Whats wrong with saying "Yeah, we've namde some mistakes. But so have you, and you need to clean up your own backyards and clean up those fanatics who have stolen your religion, and you need to teach and apply human rights. You are responsible for this, too"? But that is not said. We take all the blame.

I take the blame. I take the blame for advancing freedom, liberty, and human rights around the world. I take responsibility for ensuring that there is no better friend and no wrose enemy. I take responsibility for protecting Americans wherever they may currently be around the world (read: North Korea). And I take responsibility for having the courage to stand up to tyranny and uttlery destroy anyone who would seek to do my country harm.

Guilty.

[Brendon]

Of course it he doesn't sounds like a sane man, he's anything but. It's still not our job to even care about the civil rights abuses there. We cannot act as the world police.

North Korea when you think about it, is exactly like a spoiled 4 year old. Acting out and behaving badly whenever they need something such as food or oil. We can't ignore them, because then they might do something drastic, but we also can't give into their needs. Nobody really knows what to do with them at this point.

The last time we tried to 'utterly destroy' a country, we had no exit strategy and no weapons of mass destruction, either. At this point Mexico is more of a threat to the United States seeing as we're trying to stop rogue Mexican Army units who are helping the cartels and kidnapping people from towns in Texas and Arizona.

From what I understand at this point, Obama is ending the war and replacing it with a “Global Inter-Agency Law Enforcement Initiative” and the FBI will be sending agents to go right down to the squad level with each deployed US military unit to make sure that any future battlefield captee's will be properly Mirandized and all evidence bagged in the field, and individual depositions taken.

I don't like that either, because that can only come about if the US is now declaring worldwide primacy of US Law and Constitutional Rights. Yes, it's very confusing at this point, and you put up a good argument. I completely agree that we shouldn't mirandize people who aren’t even covered by the Geneva Convention, but at what point are we going too far with this whole thing? How will these torture pictures shatter our strong nation?

[CityOfChicago]

I didn't and don't advice a 'world police'. But we can still be spoken advocates of freedom and human rights. And we can tell these nations that the abuses they endorse and the hatred they live with inside their borders is their responsibility, and they need to deal with their own issues before they blame us for everything. And certainly the President should not go around saying its our fault. He should be singing the praises of his nation, not its failures and shortcomings. And he should expect the same from other nations.

You don't destroy a nation - you destroy the enemy's center of gravity. This is something we could have done in Vietnam, but chose not to. It's something we can do here.

Mexico is a threat, to be sure, and it should be dealt with. But again, there are political reasons we do not, and those are wrong, too.

[vacop4274]

If they were captured in the United States, sure, read them their rights, it's the law.

But in Afghanistan, America's laws shouldn't need to apply.



However, Michael Steele is right, you people have lost your minds. I love it that all the people who yelled for 8 years that Bush can only be judged in the rear view mirror of history, suddenly feel that Obama can be judged a failure in the first 100 days.

Just because they are captured on our land does not mean they should be given, or afforded the opportunity that we should give American Citizens. I beleive Miranda and the constitution is only for citizens of the USA not people who come here illegally or those who are from other countries and attempt to do us harm. My 2 cents. I won't even get into your Bush debate. But, I supported him even though I didnt agree with some things he did. I do not support Obama, not because of things he does (which I do not support) but I do not share any of his views or beleifs (plus, I am not a democrat).

[Brendon]

I don't know if those rights of Miranda also apply to anyone who isn't a US Citizen but is on US land, so I can't reply to that. As I said before, I don't agree with Mirandizing hostile fighters in other countries. The only reason I replied is because one of the posters was going completely off topic and responded to that, and I guess I kinda did too along with that.

One thing I can appreciate is that most of the time in political threads elsewhere, it turns to name-calling and mudslinging on parties. I really wasn't keen on Bush, and am currently unsure about Obama. I'd actually like the troops to stay in Afghanistan, and get out of Iraq, but that's for a different thread.

[CityOfChicago]

Well, I'm certainly no apologist for Bush. He danced on his d1ck enough to make us all look foolish. But I will say that he always put America first, and that's to his credit.

I have never been a fan of the patriot act. Once that pandora's box has been opened, its difficult to close. I don't think gov should have such sweeping entrance into my personal life. And I dont agree with the people who say "I have nothingto hide, so I dont care if they listen in". The point is, they have no right to listen in. Your life is your own, free from unnecessary gov intrusion. I don't mind reducing probable cause to reasonable suspicion.

I dont like to resort to name calling. Thats a cheap way out of an argument that you recognize you cant win.

[vacop4274]

I agree Chicago, name calling is something that happens in elementary school and think we are above that. I also agree that Bush put the country first. I do not agree with things he did, but he did them because he thought he was helping our country. As for Obama, well, if he can do something that helps the country I am all for it. SO far I have not seen anything that has helped us out truly. Politicians lie, we all know that, it is just the way it is. Finding the one who lies the least is the hard part. Because Obama is the POTUS, I will support him in that regard but there are so many policies he is fast tracking it is scary.

Patriot act was and is a mistake, I do not care if I have nothing to hide or if I have everything to hide, I dont want big brother eavesdropping on me.

But as to the topic of this thread, no, I do not think foriegn terrorists should be read Miranda. But that is my opinion. I am glad we can debate this topic in a nice way, I have been to other sites and seen some very harsh things done to posters based on thier views.

[Jynkxxie]

If they were captured in the United States, sure, read them their rights, it's the law.

And IF they are citizens. I'm tired of listening to the all stars for non citizens justice. Too many from the past have given up their lands so that American's could make this land free. Too many American's have died defending those rights afforded to citizens who've staked their "ownership" here. I thought we had this thing called military law, and I thought that it was different than our country's law for a reason. But...I've been wrong before so.

[CityOfChicago]

I'm taking note of day and time - Jynkxxie admits that she has been wrong before.

I would think that people who believe in and love their God would condemn those who would murder and terrorize in His name.

[Brendon]

I'm not sure if non-citizens apply to Miranda. I don't believe they do, but I'm still not sure. Do they? I'm more curious of how it works if someone was on vacation here and was arrested for a bar brawl, say from London.

Yes, I don't like the illegal aliens coming over here and then suing people for things either. I also hate when people call them 'undocumented workers'. That's like calling a heroin dealer an 'undocumented pharmacist!"

[CityOfChicago]

I'm not sure if non-citizens apply to Miranda.

Yes, Miranda applys to non-citizens. First, many departments have policies that specifically state that officers CANNOT inquire about a person's residency status. It's actually a good idea. And if you committ a crime in the US, you enter the US crim justice system, and Miranda is part of that system.

[vacop4274]

After rereading my posts and some others I guess I was looking at Miranda from a militaristic view regarding "prisoners of war" as opposed to law enforcement arresting someone!!!! My apologies in that regard!!!!:D