bodypilot90 0 #1 June 12, 2009 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. Give me a break, http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/miranda_rights_for_terrorists.asp Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #2 June 12, 2009 Abrogating the rights of suspects to make yourself feel "safer" is about as wise as suspending the 2nd Amendment to make yourself feel "safer." In either case, you're giving up essential freedom for a temporary (feeling of) security. I would rather live in dangerous freedom than safe bondage.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #3 June 12, 2009 They are terroists, not criminals and not even on US soil, a very bad idea, but what I have come to expect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #4 June 12, 2009 QuoteThey are terroists, not criminals... Terrorists are a subset of criminals. They are breaking laws. They should be dealt with as criminals. Their motivations for breaking those laws are irrelevant. You can (legally) have all the motivations you want, so long as you don't act on them. It's the acts themselves which are criminal, and ought to be punished.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #5 June 12, 2009 QuoteThey are alleged terrorists, not criminals and not even on US soil, a very bad idea, but what I have come to expect. A minor detail that you seem happy to overlook. Many of the allegations are simply hearsay or made by people harboring a grudge. Until the facts are established they should receive the same rights as any other alleged criminal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #6 June 12, 2009 Even if you are personally certain of their guilt, the rule of law demands due process. The definition of a person as a "criminal" indicates that they have been found guilty of a crime. Being found guilty requires due process. Personally, I'm a little taken aback that neither side sees how rights are intertwined and similar. People fight to defend this or that right because they "like" it, but fail to see that the other rights they don't "like" are just as essential. Take away the rights (from anyone) and you've got (maybe) some more safety (or just the impression of it), but you're losing freedom. That applies equally to gun ownership _and_ due process.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #7 June 12, 2009 Please explain how do these "terrorists" who are foreign nationals, not US citizens, not captured in the United States, not committed a crime in the United States get rights that apply to only US citizens in the US? Does this mean that a Kenyan has to receive Miranda warnings if they rob a bank in Kenya? I'm not sure that the Kenyan authorities would agree with you on that."A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #8 June 12, 2009 QuotePlease explain how do these "terrorists" who are foreign nationals, not US citizens, not captured in the United States, not committed a crime in the United States get rights that apply to only US citizens in the US? Does this mean that a Kenyan has to receive Miranda warnings if they rob a bank in Kenya? I'm not sure that the Kenyan authorities would agree with you on that. The Kenyan has whatever rights apply under Kenyan law. And personally, I'm against the US getting involved in that--it's someone else's business. If the apprehending agency is the US government (military, police, or otherwise)? Then I think we've got to play by our own rules, and those involve constitutional protections for the accused. The operative difference is who makes the arrest.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #9 June 12, 2009 QuotePlease explain how do these "terrorists" who are foreign nationals, not US citizens, not captured in the United States, not committed a crime in the United States get rights that apply to only US citizens in the US? Does this mean that a Kenyan has to receive Miranda warnings if they rob a bank in Kenya? I'm not sure that the Kenyan authorities would agree with you on that. You also overlook an important detail - they are in US custody. If they were held by the Kenyan government then the rights of Kenya should apply. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalslug 31 #10 June 12, 2009 Every time I hear Miranda, this movie dialogue comes to mind... QuoteIf a friend of mine got killed... and the only thing between the killer and me was Miranda... You know what I would do? I'd fuck Miranda up the ass, okay? But don't tell anybody, because it's a matter of confidentiality. Sshh. Not a reflection of my real opinion though, I'm in favour of due process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #11 June 12, 2009 In US custody but in a foreign, sovereign country with an elected government. Whose law are they breaking by their acts against the coalition forces in Afghanistan? Did Harry Truman order the US military to "mirandize" North Korean and Chinese soldiers captured during the Korean War...ooops, I mean "police action"? Did Clinton order the Somalis captured in the ill-fated Somali adventure during the 90s to be "mirandized"? Perhaps what should have happened is that Bush should have asked Congress for a declaration of war for the Afghanistan effort. That might have settled the matter of whether they are "enemy combatants" or just lawbreakers or, since they don't wear uniforms, they could be considered spys and simply tried and executed."A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #12 June 12, 2009 QuoteDid Harry Truman order the US military to "mirandize" North Korean and Chinese soldiers captured during the Korean War...ooops, I mean "police action"? Enemy soldiers are soldiers, not criminals. They are following the duly constituted orders of a sovereign national state, to which they owe allegiance. We owe them the respect of the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners, just as they owe our solders the same. We don't put them on trial, we don't hold them after hostilities end, we expect that our own soldiers receive the same treatment. Terrorists are criminals. They do not follow established principles of law, and we don't expect them to. We give them a trial, and incarcerate them for a duration appropriate for their crimes. If our government ordered trials for enemy soldiers, accusing them of criminal actions for only following their lawful orders, I'd have a huge problem with that. "Just following orders" really is a good excuse for a large number of otherwise uncivil acts, when those acts are recognized as normal acts of warfare. There is a world of difference between a soldier and a terrorist. And that applies whichever side the solder is on.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #13 June 12, 2009 "Miranda" is not a granting of rights, it's a "Miranda warning", and if they're going to be prosecuted in a US court, the prosecution must prove that these warnings were given prior to any confession being admitted. They are either entitled to the protections of our constitution or the protections of the Geneva Convention, which also requires the advising of certain rights, and the right to representation in the event of a prosecution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #14 June 12, 2009 You might like to take a closer look at what the Allies did at the end of WWII with German and Japanese military leaders. Many were tried, some were imprisoned, some were executed. And, many POWs were held for a number of years at the end of hostilities...especially by the Soviets but by other Allied powers as well."A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #15 June 12, 2009 "They are either entitled to the protections of our constitution or the protections of the Geneva Convention, which also requires the advising of certain rights, and the right to representation in the event of a prosecution. " What do you base this upon? Can you cite some legal statutes for me. Is there something in the Geneva Convention that specifically cites this? Why have we never done this before? Or, if we have, can you cite examples?"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #16 June 12, 2009 Quote "Miranda" is not a granting of rights, it's a "Miranda warning", and if they're going to be prosecuted in a US court, the prosecution must prove that these warnings were given prior to any confession being admitted. They are terrorists not criminals, there for they should have no access to civilian courts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #17 June 12, 2009 >They are terroists, not criminals and not even on US soil . . . And some are innocent bystanders. Our morality as a nation is not determined by how we treat sad-faced american children when they are hungry. It is determined by how we treat those we fear the most. If we can apply our standards of justice and morality to them, we deserve the same in return, and can rightfully say we are a nation of laws that values justice for all. If we are too afraid to do that, we do not deserve the same consideration in return. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #18 June 12, 2009 >They are terrorists not criminals Are you honestly saying you do not consider terrorists criminals? Well, then, no problem in releasing them; they have committed no crimes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #19 June 12, 2009 QuoteQuote "Miranda" is not a granting of rights, it's a "Miranda warning", and if they're going to be prosecuted in a US court, the prosecution must prove that these warnings were given prior to any confession being admitted. They are terrorists not criminals, there for they should have no access to civilian courts. Terrorism is a crime under United States Code Title 18, section 2332b - "Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #20 June 12, 2009 Quote"They are either entitled to the protections of our constitution or the protections of the Geneva Convention, which also requires the advising of certain rights, and the right to representation in the event of a prosecution. " What do you base this upon? Can you cite some legal statutes for me. Is there something in the Geneva Convention that specifically cites this? Why have we never done this before? Or, if we have, can you cite examples? Sure. Here's a good example: http://www.icrc.org/IHL.NSF/1a13044f3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/4bb162782772c78fc12563cd00428853!OpenDocument Quote Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. Part III : Captivity #Section VI : Relations between prisoners of war and the authorities #Chapter III : Penal and disciplinary sanctions #III. Judicial proceedings ARTICLE 105 - Treaties & Comments', View 'CONVART'. -- PROCEDURE: IV. RIGHTS AND MEANS OF DEFENCE 2. ' Second sentence. -- Notification of the prisoner of war ' In accordance with the present provision, the Detaining Power must advise the prisoner of war of his rights. This obligation for the Detaining Power is broader in scope than Article 41, paragraph 1 Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par Article', which states that the text of the Convention must be posted in every camp. A prisoner of war undergoing confinement is unable to refer to this source of information, and he must therefore be provided with the text of the present paragraph, in his own language or in a language which he understands. The Convention does not state at exactly what moment this information must be [p.488] given, merely saying that prisoners of war must be advised "in due time". It is our opinion that here one may refer to Article 104 Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par Article' and state that this information must be given as soon as possible and, at the latest, at the same time as the notification provided under that Article, that is to say at least three weeks before the opening of the trial. I'm late to this thread, so I'm not going to repeat what Tom Aiello and Nightingale have said, other than to say that everything they've said is 100% correct. That, and: You don't know what the hell you're talking about, and have been totally blowing it out your ass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #21 June 12, 2009 Quote... Is there something in the Geneva Convention that specifically cites this? Why have we never done this before? Or, if we have, can you cite examples? A person is either a criminal and protected by the US Constitution and then they're entitled to Miranda, OR they're a POW and protected by Geneva and entitled to be advised of their rights under Geneva 3, OR they're a civilian and entitled to protection under Geneva 4: "Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." (translation: everyone not covered under Geneva 3). Yes, the Geneva Convention specifically requires POWs to be advised of their rights. It also states that: Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. With regards to being advised of rights: Geneva 3, Art 105: "He shall be advised of these rights by the Detaining Power in due time before the trial" (and it goes on from there detailing all the rights, such as right to counsel, right to call witnesses, right to appeal, etc) With regards to civilians under Geneva "No sentence shall be pronounced by the competent courts of the Occupying Power except after a regular trial." That'd be a regular trial in our civilian courts... So, either they're not POWs and they're criminals and therefore have access to our civilian courts and need Miranda, they're not POWs and they're civilians under Geneva and therefore have access to our civilian courts and need Miranda, or they are POWs and have rights under Geneva. Any way you look at it, we have to be informing them of some rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #22 June 12, 2009 I see them fall under military law not civilian law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #23 June 12, 2009 >I see them fall under military law not civilian law. That's fine. Advise them of their rights under military law, put them in jail and hold a trial in a military court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #24 June 12, 2009 QuoteI see them fall under military law not civilian law. The problem is that President Bush went to a ton of trouble not to classify them as POWs. The issue is that if they are not POWs, then under Geneva 4, they do have access to our civilian courts, with all the rights and protections that come along with that. Apparently, Bush was so focused on denying them the protections of the third Geneva convention that he completely forgot about the fourth one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #25 June 12, 2009 QuoteYou might like to take a closer look at what the Allies did at the end of WWII with German and Japanese military leaders. Many were tried, some were imprisoned, some were executed. And, many POWs were held for a number of years at the end of hostilities...especially by the Soviets but by other Allied powers as well. The fact that things happened does not make them right. Some people really did do terrible things, and deserved punishment. But some probably got scapegoated by the victors, which was pretty unfair.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
