Miranda Rights for Terrorists

[wisco]

PVB - I am not a legal professional, nor a cop, but you've brought up an interesting twist.

My thoughts would be that the crime of "theft of groceries" would most certainly not rise to the level of being an "enemy combatant"... or, in reference to terrorists an "unlawful enemy combatant."

The precedent for determining an unlawful enemy combatant was the U.S. Supreme Court Case Ex parte Quirin. It is my understanding that that is how we determine who is tried in a military tribunal.

I'm sure someone with more knowledge will be along soon enough who has better answers.

[PVB]

1. ttt

2. Then make it "my annual visit for a killing spree". I come over to kill a bunch of TV anchors to undermine the US news system to bring down the hated imperialistic oppressor...
All that accompanied by some involuntarily funny Youtube videos, showing me (masked and armed), telling the world that my deity (let's call him Gary) doesn't like the way you use your microwaves.

The only difference I see is that above-me is working alone, but would that get me a military trial?

[Curt581]

They are not part of an army (not talking about some self proclaimed army, but a branch of foreign government) or anything...

They may not be actual members of a military organization, but make no mistake... many are sponsored and supported by nation-states and perform actions as suggested or directed by those nations, to further those nations goals and ambitions. Using a terrorist group as opposed to an intelligence or military group unit gives them plausible deniability.

Do you honestly think that Iran gives money, training, weapons and support to certain Islamic fringe groups and says, "We don't care what you with it." ?

When those groups engage in an insurgency operation against US military forces to further a government agenda, why shouldn't they be treated as enemy combatants?

If those same insurgents engage a civilian population, using the same military weapons and the same military tactics, to further the same government agenda, why should they be treated any different?

THEY believe they are at war... and like any holy war throughout history, they believe that no atrocity is beyond the pale, because they believe their cause has been sanctioned by God Himself. They employ weapons of war and use military tactics against civilian targets. All they are lacking is Iranian Revolutionary Guard uniforms. For us to treat them as common criminals is a mistake. It was a mistake to treat the European Marxist terrorists of the 60's and 70's as criminals for the same reasons. At the time, it was believed that treating terrorists as common criminals took away their "political legitimacy". It was a mistake, as some of them walked away laughing.

During the Vietnam War, no Viet Cong insurgents were ever transported to the US and tried in a civilian criminal court. They were treated as the enemy combatants they were. The Geneva Convention applied, not civilian rules of jurisprudence.

[PVB]

They may not be actual members of a military organization, but make no mistake... many are sponsored and supported by nation-states and perform actions as suggested or directed by those nations, to further those nations goals and ambitions. Using a terrorist group as opposed to an intelligence or military group unit gives them plausible deniability.

True, that's possible. But not my point...
That doesn't explain why not to attack (or declare war on) the big supporter (justified or not) or why not to treat those "attackers" as simple criminals.
You have to prove that they are in some way part of or supported by a foreign government (and I have never heard of an Al-Qaeda member to be that. Even their home base, Saudi Arabia, doesn't seem to be directly involved. At least they are not publicly accused of that).
Otherwise, if you can't prove that, they are "just" criminals, mass murderers or whatever you'd call them.

Again. Your statement is plausible, but in my eyes you need prove ...

Do you honestly think that Iran gives money, training, weapons and support to certain Islamic fringe groups and says, "We don't care what you with it." ?

I gather that you put "Iran" there just as an example, right?
Did they ever give money or support to a group that attacked the US directly?
But that's not important as I see that you're making a point.

When those groups engage in an insurgency operation against US military forces to further a government agenda, why shouldn't they be treated as enemy combatants?

Like in Iraq right now? I agree! A simple police force couldn't handle such threats and it would do no good just to knock on a door and ask those fellows to turn themselves in...

But the people you're talking about, they are not.
Am I mistaken that the discussion is about people like the "9/11-guys" or the "underpants bomber"?
They didn't engage anything remotely military, or did they?
(OK the pentagon was a target...But I guess it was more of a symbol like the WTC was)

(reread the thing and you kinda answer that yourself...Now!)

If those same insurgents engage a civilian population, using the same military weapons and the same military tactics, to further the same government agenda, why should they be treated any different?

The use of certain military weaponry is not restricted to military use only. I can only assume, but I think some of you guys have assault rifles in your RMPs. That doesn't make you a combatant, does it?
And I think you can hardly speak of "same military tactics" if you are speaking of terrorism...
They use cowardly methods to kill as many (even "innocent") people as possible. I don't see your marines or our soldiers doing that, using IEDs or flying hijacked planes into buildings or using one of those laser-guided missiles to bust a family gathering.
I can think of no real army who does that, except maybe for laying out mines...

And your remarks about a "government agenda" sound a bit fishy... No offense!
Do the same goals with an otherwise to you totally unrelated entity make you an accomplice to a crime committed by it? (ie I'd like to see those bastards lynched. But if they are, am I an essential part of that process? "Die Gedanken sind frei!")
I know this comparison is flawed, but using an example of "two persons stealing something completely separately and in the end redefining it into a theft by gang" seemed inappropriate.

THEY believe they are at war... and like any holy war throughout history, they believe that no atrocity is beyond the pale, because they believe their cause has been sanctioned by God Himself. They employ weapons of war and use military tactics against civilian targets.

I somewhat hoped that we wouldn't get to that point...
Please don't let us go into that area!
There are plenty of examples for every nation of every century to have waged religious motivated wars with the occasional atrocity.
I'm trying to not making a judgemental statement here!
That's a whole different story and could fill several other threads...

All they are lacking is Iranian Revolutionary Guard uniforms. For us to treat them as common criminals is a mistake. It was a mistake to treat the European Marxist terrorists of the 60's and 70's as criminals for the same reasons. At the time, it was believed that treating terrorists as common criminals took away their "political legitimacy". It was a mistake, as some of them walked away laughing.

But why? Seriously! Tell me.
All I hear is "That's a mistake!", "We can't allow this!" or "They don't deserve that!".
But why?
I don't see any advantage of a military trial over a civil one!
That's my point... Please explain to me why they should be tried in a military court instead of a civil court.
Just because "some walked away laughing"?
I beg to differ! That's the beauty of (at least) our system! Of course does it suck when someone you "knew" was guilty of a crime got away with it.
But in the end that protects the innocent. If you can't prove it... Better luck next time!

Your civil legal system ought to be as capable of convicting the bad guys as ours is.
We put "our terrorists" in prison. Did we have a huge struggle? Yes. Did we explore legal boundaries? Yes. But with all the problems that occurred, we did solve that problem in a civil (non-military) way...
Including the hijacking of the Landshut!
FYI the RAF was a terrorist group, with affiliations to the PLO, within the FRG (West-Germany) it was (not openly) supported by the GDR (East-Germany) and would fit the example you made quite good.

During the Vietnam War, no Viet Cong insurgents were ever transported to the US and tried in a civilian criminal court. They were treated as the enemy combatants they were. The Geneva Convention applied, not civilian rules of jurisprudence.

I think that example is not working in this context...
It was a "regular" war (north vs south) and the POW made were held prisoner in a sovereign country with a "functioning" government...
Or did the US hold any trials than? I don't know...


But back to my original post...
Please answer me, why is it so darn important to have military trials or those attackers seen as combatants?
Why can't a NYC civil court try KSM? (Is that right? I mean that Khaled Sheik guy)
By giving those thugs the status of a combatant they get the opportunity to die in "the field of honor" instead of disgraceful in a hail of bullets during an attempted arrest.
In my opinion those lunatics have been set on eye level to us which they oughtn't have been.

Please excuse this long reply, but I really wanna know why some prefer it the military way...

[PVB]

No one?Come on! I'm curious...^^

[MikeG]

No one?Come on! I'm curious...^^

The rules of evidence, the security and the circus it would create is my reason. They don't get to put deep cover or special forces assets on the stand. They don't get to subpoena foreign nations that have helped us or force us to disclose who helped us. These are battlefield advantages that a military court will weigh as to whether they are necessary or required for a fair trial. They are also more lenient on hearsay evidence as I understand it.

Secondly, it's an awful precedent to set that foreign enemy combatants are entitled to a civilian trial for crimes that occurred as an act of war. Our criminal court system is based on citizens that wish to be exonerated and live in peace in our society. That is not the case with these enemy combatants. They are at a minimum prisoners of war that have been captured on the battlefield. We believe they have committed violations of the laws of war and should be punished. In any event, they would not be let go if found "not guilty", they would just go back to POW status.

Thirdly, if they are tried and convicted in a civilian court for civilian crimes, the first appeal by the defense attorney will be that they are "enemy combatants" and it is against the Geneva convention to try prisoners for crimes that are lawful under the rules of war (i.e. imagine the outrage if our Army soldiers were tried for murder during combat operations against troops). They will argue that the civilian verdicts should be thrown out as civilians are ill-equipped to judge the rules of war and that it would be double jeopardy or other nonsense to retry them in military court.

[JakeLock]

....most of the US must be blind or communists.

DING DING DING!!!! And we have a winner! Tell him what he's won Johnny!