|
Post by D.E.E. on Jun 11, 2009 19:37:30 GMT -6
homesubscribe to the RSS Feed Thursday, June 11, 2009 Supreme Court orders Military to Read Miranda Rights to Enemy Before Shooting Them Posted by Anthony on June 12, 2008
Well, not yet, anyway. Just crossing the wire is the news that the Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 decision (Liberals+Kennedy versus the Conservatives) that detainees at Gitmo have the same Federal rights under the constitution as any other American, at least insofar as being able to access Federal courts. I’ll issue the same caveat I’ve heard elsewhere- this has just been released so more details on the decision might clear things up. At this point, however, it looks like the Supreme Court has just extended the privileges and immunities of the Constitution to ‘enemy combatants.’
I am just curious to know where such logic ends. If they can make use of the civilian courts it surely would follow that they would fall under civilian law. If it doesn’t mean that then it is an irrational and disjointed opinion (and it might prove to be just that). If it does mean that, let us consider the implications: our soldiers will have to take into account the rights under American law that those shooting at them have. After all, even gangsters shooting at cops have rights. Will our soldiers have to get warrants before breaking into buildings the enemy is thought to be hiding in? Will they have to prove ‘probable cause’ to obtain those warrants? Will they have to read them their rights before shooting? Will they have to collect and document evidence?
Can the enemy upon arrest seek bail? Get parole? Demand a jury trial of their peers? “Your honor, we don’t believe we can get a fair trial in the states. We’d like to move the trial to Pakistan…” Perhaps this is a Democrat led attempt to bring enemy soldiers under Federal law so that they can now tax them.
In the end, besides the absurdities that I suspect our soldiers will have to ponder and may actually be the actual implications of the decision (again, pending further review), the real net effect seems to me that if the rights of the Constitution extend to those who are not citizens in Gitmo, then they are to be extended to anyone who is not a citizen anywhere. Why it should apply only to our detainees is beyond me. Has the entire world now been extended the rights of American citizens? Can they all sue in Federal courts? Or must they first get themselves detained?
What about illegal immigrants, then? When they get detained should they be able to sue in Federal courts?
Where does this madness end?
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jun 11, 2009 20:40:41 GMT -6
homesubscribe to the RSS Feed Thursday, June 11, 2009 Supreme Court orders Military to Read Miranda Rights to Enemy Before Shooting Them Posted by Anthony on June 12, 2008 Well, not yet, anyway. Just crossing the wire is the news that the Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 decision (Liberals+Kennedy versus the Conservatives) that detainees at Gitmo have the same Federal rights under the constitution as any other American, at least insofar as being able to access Federal courts. Perhaps it should be considered a good thing that there are only 5 insane jurists on the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 11, 2009 22:28:33 GMT -6
Ok. Looking at it from another angle...can it be seen as trying to promote peace? Being the better country?
Just a thought anyway. I know many will disagree with this but in the end I thought the war on terror was to promote peace as the end result.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Jun 11, 2009 23:01:06 GMT -6
Ok. Looking at it from another angle...can it be seen as trying to promote peace? Being the better country? Just a thought anyway. I know many will disagree with this but in the end I thought the war on terror was to promote peace as the end result. The problem is it is either a war or it is a law enforcement action. One deals with soldiers the other criminals, they are asking soldiers in combat to Mirandize the enemy soldiers. This is a crock it does nothing but put our soldiers at greater risk and of course makes the Administration look good to some in Europe but weak as he11 to our enemies.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jun 11, 2009 23:20:18 GMT -6
Miranda Rights for Terrorists 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. Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. “I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal – read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up,” Tenet wrote in his memoirs. If Tenet is right, it’s a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, 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. 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.” That effort, which elevates the FBI and other law enforcement agencies and diminishes the role of intelligence and military officials, was described in a May 28 Los Angeles Times article. 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. Thanks in part to the popularity of law and order television shows and movies, many Americans are familiar with the Miranda warning – so named because of the landmark 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda vs. Arizona that required police officers and other law enforcement officials to advise suspected criminals of their rights. "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense." A lawyer who has worked on detainee issues for the U.S. government offers this rationale for the Obama administration’s approach. “If the US is mirandizing certain suspects in Afghanistan, they’re likely doing it to ensure that the treatment of the suspect and the collection of information is done in a manner that will ensure the suspect can be prosecuted in a US court at some point in the future.” But 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.” One thing is clear, though. A detainee who is not talking cannot provide information about future attacks. Had Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had a lawyer, Tenet wrote, “I am confident that we would have obtained none of the information he had in his head about imminent threats against the American people.” Posted by Stephen F. Hayes on June 10, 2009 02:05 PM www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/miranda_rights_for_terrorists.asp
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Jun 12, 2009 0:06:26 GMT -6
All men are equal under God, so they say. Why shouldnt they have the same rights as any American regarding the law. How would you feel in a foriegn land if you were not offorded the same right if in trouble? Its civilised, irs respectful and it places you morally above them. Well done the SC.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Jun 12, 2009 0:20:12 GMT -6
David, they should fall under civilian law, they ARE civilians, Terrorists yes, but still civilians, if you treat them as combatants then you recognize them as soldiers. Just think of the publicity that would give them. Its not illogical to do this, its common sense. You president wants a better American foreign policy abroad. After 8 years of that last idiot its about time America leads with dignity and respect, one which takes the moral high ground rather then with the bomb and bullet. You will get far more support that way. Trust is a hard thing to gain and even harder to keep. If you have it, look at what power you will have in influencing policy around the world. Its good business.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2009 0:34:58 GMT -6
David, they should fall under civilian law, they ARE civilians, Terrorists yes, but still civilians, if you treat them as combatants then you recognize them as soldiers. Just think of the publicity that would give them. Its not illogical to do this, its common sense. You president wants a better American foreign policy abroad. After 8 years of that last idiot its about time America leads with dignity and respect, one which takes the moral high ground rather then with the bomb and bullet. You will get far more support that way. Trust is a hard thing to gain and even harder to keep. If you have it, look at what power you will have in influencing policy around the world. Its good business. Fine treat them that way, they are fighting out of uniform, line em up and shoot them as spies.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jun 12, 2009 0:45:15 GMT -6
All men are equal under God... Guess Evan Thomas of Newsweek was right.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Jun 12, 2009 0:56:52 GMT -6
Excellent idea Doc, that should have been done 8 years ago dont you think? a little late now, so who caused this embarressemtn? Bush did, hes now gone (thank God) but that still leaves the Americans (i.e. the West) with a delimma. Unfortunately no matter how bad the taste in the mouth they ARE civilians. Therefore unfortunately they MUST be treated as civilians and equally. Ive said this all along. I dont like it as im sure most are scummers but the fact remains , they are civilians. So with that fact lets get on with it and get them tried and jailed and then lets move on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2009 1:15:00 GMT -6
Excellent idea Doc, that should have been done 8 years ago dont you think? a little late now, so who caused this embarressemtn? Bush did, hes now gone (thank God) but that still leaves the Americans (i.e. the West) with a delimma. Unfortunately no matter how bad the taste in the mouth they ARE civilians. Therefore unfortunately they MUST be treated as civilians and equally. Ive said this all along. I dont like it as im sure most are scummers but the fact remains , they are civilians. So with that fact lets get on with it and get them tried and jailed and then lets move on. To late to deal with them as spies now I agree. Also I doubt the current administration has the balls to do in the future. It is a shame that Reagan is not the president I had more faith in him than I have in any world leader. The same goes for Maggie. I know the Brits like to bash her but she had the guts to get the job done, any of the current leaders would still be negotiating with the Argentines.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Jun 12, 2009 1:35:49 GMT -6
Agreed, politicians with balls now are a rare commodity. I too wish we could turn back the clock in some respects. In all seriousness, i cant understand how Bushes Administration made this pretty schoolyard error taking into consideration everything. *deleted* poor advice i suspect by idiots riding on the anger from 9/11.
All i know is this, the longer this goes on the more Obama's America will be ridiculed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2009 1:42:56 GMT -6
Agreed, politicians with balls now are a rare commodity. I too wish we could turn back the clock in some respects. In all seriousness, i cant understand how Bushes Administration made this pretty schoolyard error taking into consideration everything. *tick* poor advice i suspect by idiots riding on the anger from 9/11. All i know is this, the longer this goes on the more Obama's America will be ridiculed. I felt a chill of doom when i read that Obama and the frog president were acting like the best of buddies.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Jun 12, 2009 5:26:11 GMT -6
This is a real mess. It is important to realise why it has come to this, though. The Bush administration wanted to avoid the Geneva Convention by arguing that these people weren't fighting under a national flag. Eventually, they have to be dealt with in some legitimate fashion. I think Cali had it right when he said that if they were a genuine threat they should have been shot on the battle field. To hold them without the rights of either a criminal or a POW just makes them a cause celebre and provides propaganda for terrorists. I can't see what choice the current administration has but to afford them criminal rights.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Jun 12, 2009 8:43:08 GMT -6
All men are equal under God, so they say. Why shouldnt they have the same rights as any American regarding the law. How would you feel in a foriegn land if you were not offorded the same right if in trouble? Its civilised, irs respectful and it places you morally above them. Well done the SC. How would I feel if I were shooting at a group of men in uniform and caught on the battle field in a foriegn land. I would not feel I had the same rights as I have here at all, why would I? This is not the same as breaking a simple law that is handled by law enforcement is it. They are not Americans and they are not in America why should they even thing they deserved the same rights as someone in America? If being civilised means placing our troops at higher risk I will stay a barbarian that you. I care little about being respectful to them and no it does not place us morally above them it makes us stupid.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Jun 12, 2009 8:48:17 GMT -6
All men are equal under God, so they say. Why shouldnt they have the same rights as any American regarding the law. How would you feel in a foriegn land if you were not offorded the same right if in trouble? Its civilised, irs respectful and it places you morally above them. Well done the SC. How would I feel if I were shooting at a group of men in uniform and caught on the battle field in a foriegn land. I would not feel I had the same rights as I have here at all, why would I? This is not the same as breaking a simple law that is handled by law enforcement is it. They are not Americans and they are not in America why should they even thing they deserved the same rights as someone in America? If being civilised means placing our troops at higher risk I will stay a barbarian that you. I care little about being respectful to them and no it does not place us morally above them it makes us stupid. If rights are not extended to all, regardless of nationality then they are not rights therefore they are privileges. What you are suggesting is actually closer to the feudal system in Britain and is decidedly unAmerican. American human rights , in theory at least, lead the world and are supposed to be something more backward nations can aspire to. If you only afford those rights based on nationality then you betray them.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Jun 12, 2009 8:51:26 GMT -6
How would I feel if I were shooting at a group of men in uniform and caught on the battle field in a foriegn land. I would not feel I had the same rights as I have here at all, why would I? This is not the same as breaking a simple law that is handled by law enforcement is it. They are not Americans and they are not in America why should they even thing they deserved the same rights as someone in America? If being civilised means placing our troops at higher risk I will stay a barbarian that you. I care little about being respectful to them and no it does not place us morally above them it makes us stupid. If rights are not extended to all, regardless of nationality then they are not rights therefore they are privileges. What you are suggesting is actually closer to the feudal system in Britain and is decidedly unAmerican. American human rights , in theory at least, lead the world and are supposed to be something more backward nations can aspire to. If you only afford those rights based on nationality then you betray them. If this happened in the US you may have a point but it is not and they are not, should we then start enforcing our rights in every country on all people? All people on US soil are extended our rights.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Jun 12, 2009 8:53:33 GMT -6
If rights are not extended to all, regardless of nationality then they are not rights therefore they are privileges. What you are suggesting is actually closer to the feudal system in Britain and is decidedly unAmerican. American human rights , in theory at least, lead the world and are supposed to be something more backward nations can aspire to. If you only afford those rights based on nationality then you betray them. If this happened in the US you may have a point but it is not and they are not, should we then start enforcing our rights in every country on all people? All people on US soil are extended our rights. The problem is that Bush wouldn't allow them the rights of POW either, you can't have it both ways and a choice between the two options has to be made.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Jun 12, 2009 9:17:06 GMT -6
They werent (i assume) in Uniform David, the Taliban doesnt were a uniform. Docs right what Bob said, they should have been shot in theartre. Ben is also right in what he said. Its now a bloody farce and its embarressing your country. All this title tattle is doing is handing good publicity to the terrorists. I share your anger and your thoughts but we cant go down that road. they have to tried in a civilian court. They have too. If not, then they have won. We, the West cant afford them that publicity victory.
Gitmo is American terrortory is it not, they are in American custody and have been for nearly 8 years. Without Trial David.
How would you feel being taken from your country and locked up for that amount of time without trial. How would Americans feel if this was happening to US civilians say in NK.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Jun 12, 2009 9:20:45 GMT -6
They werent (i assume) in Uniform David, the Taliban doesnt were a uniform. Docs right what Bob said, they should have been shot in theartre. Ben is also right in what he said. Its now a bloody farce and its embarressing your country. All this title tattle is doing is handing good publicity to the terrorists. I share your anger and your thoughts but we cant go down that road. they have to tried in a civilian court. They have too. If not, then they have won. We, the West cant afford them that publicity victory. Gitmo is American terrortory is it not, they are in American custody and have been for nearly 8 years. Without Trial David. How would you feel being taken from your country and locked up for that amount of time without trial. How would Americans feel if this was happening to US civilians say in NK. If memory serves me right the US behaved the same way on US soil towards the americanised Japanese in the the war? I wish they had hung onto AKU's relatives though! ;D
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Jun 12, 2009 9:32:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Jun 12, 2009 10:03:27 GMT -6
How would you feel being taken from your country and locked up for that amount of time without trial. How would Americans feel if this was happening to US civilians say in NK. If I'm not mistaken it's happening right now, Lawrence. Aren't there these American women who are in a North Korean prison for espionage? Yes, they were sentenced in contrast to the Guantanamo inmates but it was a North Korean trial. These trials there are most likely......umm.......fast. - Concerning the actual topic - I cannot say I'm totally against the detention of those people, it's just the practices which were - or maybe still are - used there that annoy me. It's a miserable situation for the US, we have to acknowledge that. If you wanted to try them as usual criminals you would have some mighty problems starting with the struggle about the right jurisdiction and evidence that couldn't be collected - at least not properly - let's say during a fire fight by US soldiers who are not familiar with this practice. Furthermore many of those who were captured in Afghanistan during battle would be charged with murder if a law of parties applies. This could result in the DP and even more negative press for the US. If you grant them combatant status (which they definitely do not have) you rise them to one level with your own soldiers. But I haven't heard that it's US military practice to decapitate captured infidels in front of a running camera to get 20+ mio clicks on aljazeera.com. Aditionally you would have to release some day when the war is over. This would raise two questions: 1. is the war on terror really a "war" and if it is 2. when is it over - when all Islamists have signed a document of surrender? You would enter a legal jungle there, I guess. Still I see the necessity to give them some status just to have transparent guidelines how to treat them, what's legal and what's not, i. e. defining their rights. But this is would be up to the international law makers and I cannot imagine a compromise on this one.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Jun 12, 2009 10:35:27 GMT -6
If this happened in the US you may have a point but it is not and they are not, should we then start enforcing our rights in every country on all people? All people on US soil are extended our rights. The problem is that Bush wouldn't allow them the rights of POW either, you can't have it both ways and a choice between the two options has to be made. I have no problems giving them rights once they are in the rear a and under guard, having troops do it on the battle field is not sane. There is a choice as to when but that is taken away and puts our troops at risk. While that may not be a big deal to you and those like you it is to me.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Jun 12, 2009 10:37:44 GMT -6
They werent (i assume) in Uniform David, the Taliban doesnt were a uniform. Docs right what Bob said, they should have been shot in theartre. Ben is also right in what he said. Its now a bloody farce and its embarressing your country. All this title tattle is doing is handing good publicity to the terrorists. I share your anger and your thoughts but we cant go down that road. they have to tried in a civilian court. They have too. If not, then they have won. We, the West cant afford them that publicity victory. Gitmo is American terrortory is it not, they are in American custody and have been for nearly 8 years. Without Trial David. How would you feel being taken from your country and locked up for that amount of time without trial. How would Americans feel if this was happening to US civilians say in NK. It does happen, if you travel to another country you take your chances. As to the rest see my post to Brums.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jun 12, 2009 11:07:18 GMT -6
miranda rights for enemy combatants? hell, I'm against Miranda for our homegrown criminals.
as I read the posts I see a common misunderstanding. they are commonly called miranda rights but they are simply OUR (U.S.)constitutional rights, primarily the 5th and 6th amendments.
Miranda is simply a ruling that these rights must be given under a distinct set of circumstances, custody and questioning. I can arrest someone take them to jail, charge them with a crime and NEVER have to give them their miranda "rights". It's typically just easier to do it and be done with it. they seldom ever pay attention to it anyway.
I personally call miranda the mother of all bad case law. if criminals want to know their constitutional rights, then they can take a dam civics class.
but for enemy combatants?? that's simply insanity
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Jun 12, 2009 11:29:34 GMT -6
miranda rights for enemy combatants? hell, I'm against Miranda for our homegrown criminals. as I read the posts I see a common misunderstanding. they are commonly called miranda rights but they are simply OUR (U.S.)constitutional rights, primarily the 5th and 6th amendments. Miranda is simply a ruling that these rights must be given under a distinct set of circumstances, custody and questioning. I can arrest someone take them to jail, charge them with a crime and NEVER have to give them their miranda "rights". It's typically just easier to do it and be done with it. they seldom ever pay attention to it anyway. I personally call miranda the mother of all bad case law. if criminals want to know their constitutional rights, then they can take a dam civics class. but for enemy combatants?? that's simply insanity That is the way it is in Texas as well, the arresting officer does not have to read them their rights. Our troops are not police officers they are soldiers and to make them read the rights on the battle field is truly insane. Of course those who have no vested intrest in this find it good because the like the way it sounds and think it does something good which it does not.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Jun 12, 2009 14:03:52 GMT -6
The problem is that Bush wouldn't allow them the rights of POW either, you can't have it both ways and a choice between the two options has to be made. I have no problems giving them rights once they are in the rear a and under guard, having troops do it on the battle field is not sane. There is a choice as to when but that is taken away and puts our troops at risk. While that may not be a big deal to you and those like you it is to me. Could you make this a bit clearer I don't understand your point. Also omit the part about my not caring about troops being harmed it's cheap and inaccurate.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Jun 12, 2009 14:42:56 GMT -6
I have no problems giving them rights once they are in the rear a and under guard, having troops do it on the battle field is not sane. There is a choice as to when but that is taken away and puts our troops at risk. While that may not be a big deal to you and those like you it is to me. Could you make this a bit clearer I don't understand your point. Also omit the part about my not caring about troops being harmed it's cheap and inaccurate. A bit dense arn't you. The statement about you not caring seems to fit you very well so it gets to stay. I do not retract that bit it seems accurate about you. Now since you are a bit slow, I do not mind if they use the Miranda rights once they are off the battle field and in a safe area, but that is not what the troops are being told. They are having to do it on the battle field and that is insane. The fact is cops in the US have a choice on when to give the "Miranda" rights to a suspect the troops should have the same choice. Is that clear enough for you.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Jun 12, 2009 15:30:52 GMT -6
Could you make this a bit clearer I don't understand your point. Also omit the part about my not caring about troops being harmed it's cheap and inaccurate. A bit dense arn't you. The statement about you not caring seems to fit you very well so it gets to stay. I do not retract that bit it seems accurate about you. Now since you are a bit slow, I do not mind if they use the Miranda rights once they are off the battle field and in a safe area, but that is not what the troops are being told. They are having to do it on the battle field and that is insane. The fact is cops in the US have a choice on when to give the "Miranda" rights to a suspect the troops should have the same choice. Is that clear enough for you. Yes I get it now, and actually agree with you. You're wrong about me , though, that's not how I feel at all. My view is once the body politic commits troops to war they should kill anybody who is a possible threat. It is fudging the difference between a war and a policing action which puts troops at risk.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Jun 12, 2009 15:43:15 GMT -6
On US soil, Miranda rights must be given (with a few limited exceptions) when the suspect is both in "custody" and is presented with questions or statements designed to elicit an "incriminating response." However, a violation of Miranda does (generally) not occur until such statements are used against the defendant at trial. If an in-custody defendant voluntarily tells the authorities something in violation of Miranda, the fruits of that statement can be used under the federal Constitution in the prosecution of that individual. Only the statement itself is inadmissible at trial. Not sure how that plays out in the international context, but I hope I helped explain it a bit.
|
|