Are you kidding me?

[vampsoul]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...sible-changes/

[Maximus]

We knew about this when Obama ran, it appears many want to erode the Constitution down to nothing. Soon, Obama will have his way, and Soldiers will be "Mirandizing" combatants on the battlefield.
Don't laugh, it's coming and Holder is just the radical to do it.

[linkgmr]

Originally Posted by Maximus

We knew about this when Obama ran, it appears many want to erode the Constitution down to nothing. Soon, Obama will have his way, and Soldiers will be "Mirandizing" combatants on the battlefield.
Don't laugh, it's coming and Holder is just the radical to do it.

Um....What? One of the first things the man did was to order airstrikes in Pakistan. Give him a little credit where credit is due.

Why shouldn't they be read their rights? The heinousness of a crime committed doesn't factor in to the professionalism with which law enforcement is expected to act. Besides, the rule of law must prevail. Otherwise, what use is the law?

[Zaphod]

Originally Posted by linkgmr

Um....What? One of the first things the man did was to order airstrikes in Pakistan. Give him a little credit where credit is due.

Why shouldn't they be read their rights? The heinousness of a crime committed doesn't factor in to the professionalism with which law enforcement is expected to act. Besides, the rule of law must prevail. Otherwise, what use is the law?

Holy shit. If this is indicative of the mindset of people joinging the military these days, then I'm glad I'm no longer in uniform.

Only in modern-day America can a terrorist scumbag have to have his rights read to him, but American Marines can be proclaimed as being guilty of murder by a Congressman without even having had a trial.

[linkgmr]

Originally Posted by Zaphod

Holy shit. If this is indicative of the mindset of people joinging the military these days, then I'm glad I'm no longer in uniform.

Only in modern-day America can a terrorist scumbag have to have his rights read to him, but American Marines can be proclaimed as being guilty of murder by a Congressman without even having had a trial.

I'm not sure you understand me. The terrorist was brought into custody by law enforcement officials, acting in the capacity of law enforcement officials. If he was apprehended by military personnel, it would be an entirely different situation, but the day police stop reading people their rights will be a sad day indeed for this country. So, yes, I think they acted appropriately.
In the case of the Marines, the Congressman was completely out of line, HOWEVER, that is an unrelated matter, and I'm not sure why you'd think I would support the words or actions of people like that.

[scoutpilot]

Originally Posted by Zaphod

Holy shit. If this is indicative of the mindset of people joinging the military these days, then I'm glad I'm no longer in uniform.

Only in modern-day America can a terrorist scumbag have to have his rights read to him, but American Marines can be proclaimed as being guilty of murder by a Congressman without even having had a trial.

If that's all the deeper you can think about this issue, I'm glad you're not in uniform anymore either.

[osdad]

The rights of the people (yes this includes all people) are spelled out in the Constitution (that, btw, all service members are sworn to protect and defend) and are not granted by being read Miranda.

Reading of Miranda is done so that evidence gathered can be used in court.

Two completely different things.

[Luigi59]

Let me try to understand the positions taken in this thread:

• vampsoul - you are against AG Holder's decision to stop reading Miranda rights to suspected terrorists?
  
  
• Maximus - you want terrorists to continue to be read their Miranda rights?

I would think that "law and order" conservatives would applaud a decision to treat suspected terrorists as enemy combatants, and not giving them a right to remain silent would be something they favor.

In this particular case, Holder states that the suspect did indeed keep talking AFTER he was read his rights, but he (Holder) wants to explore the possibility of NOT reading those rights to suspected terrorists in the future, possibly getting more info about other activities.

If that's the case, I support the AG 100% - everyone suspected of terrorist crimes should be held as a prisoner of war/enemy combatant and should be deprived of a Miranda warning. Let's get as much info from them as possible, interrogate them non-stop without a lawyer, sleep-deprive, whatever it takes to save additional American lives.

[Livinlarger]

Originally Posted by Luigi59

If that's the case, I support the AG 100% - everyone suspected of terrorist crimes should be held as a prisoner of war/enemy combatant and should be deprived of a Miranda warning. Let's get as much info from them as possible, interrogate them non-stop without a lawyer, sleep-deprive, whatever it takes to save additional American lives.

For this type of a position you’re going to need to define "suspected of terrorist crimes". Police can question someone for a myriad of reasons so long as they have reasonable suspicion. Questioning with the purpose of gathering information in relation to reasonable suspicion requires Miranda. Reasonable suspicion and probable cause to arrest are two different things. My point is this: If you (or lets say member of your family) had shown up on one the surveillance cameras in times square at the time in question the police would have reasonable suspicion to question you (or your family member) as being suspected of terrorist crimes. Should they be treated as a war/enemy combatant and not afforded the rights guaranteed under our laws? If that’s the case we have skipped a large step in our due process.

I have been in law enforcement for over 20 years and don't agree with criminals being afforded more rights that the average citizen. Our system is far from perfect, however I will never endorse the violation of constitutional rights.

[Luigi59]

Originally Posted by Livinlarger

Questioning with the purpose of gathering information in relation to reasonable suspicion requires Miranda.

Not for enemy combatants.

The attempted crime would classify the suspect.

Suspected of terrorism against the United States = no Miranda right to an attorney, no Miranda right to remain silent.