Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by vampsoul, May 9, 2010.
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?
Holy ****. 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.
If that's all the deeper you can think about this issue, I'm glad you're not in uniform anymore either.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Again, I don't understand what your definition is. What is your bright line rule to become a person "suspected of terrorism"?
Terrorism is the use of force or violence against persons or property in violation of the criminal laws of the United States for purposes of intimidation, coercion, or ransom.
Acts of terrorism include threats of terrorism; assassinations; kidnappings; hijackings; bomb scares and bombings; cyber attacks (computer-based); and the use of chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological weapons.
Thanks, I never thought to look up terrorism in the dictionary.
The question is not what is terrorism. The question is what defines a "suspect" in this case ( and I don't mean the Webster's definition).
Hold the phone. If we're going off of mere suspicion, there's gotta be some seriously compelling evidence before the taking away of rights even BEGINS to appear justified.
Otherwise, classifying people as being suspected terrorists is a system that is simply BEGGING to be abused.
Thank you for making the distinction between conservatives and "law and order conservatives." The latter are pseudo-conservatives, which is to say they are not really conservatives at all. Rather they are reactionaries who believe in the primacy of the state and its agents, and not the primacy of laws.
I'm sure someone will soon trot out the old Ben Franklin axiom, which posits that those who seek to gain security by trading essential liberties deserve neither. Hackneyed though it may be, the quote does present us with some insight into the thoughts of the "founding fathers" on this subject--those same founding fathers whom the reactionary "law and order conservatives" claim to admire so much.
Such reactionary views are evidence of a disturbing political wind across the landscape of American public ideals. We live in a nation which has enjoyed a rich history of novel freedoms. Our abilities to exercise those freedoms are based on inalienable principles of the law: legal rights, due process, reasonable doubt, and equal protection, to name but a few. We suddenly find ourselves faced with the prospect of allowing the government, and its agents of enforcement across various bureaus, to dole out or deny rights to American citizens as they see fit based on the suspicion of a terrorist act, or complicity to commit such an act.
The pseudo-conservatives love this idea, as they wave their flags and pump their fists, touting their love of country and their dedication to "protecting American lives." In their fervor, though, they show a carefully hidden disdain for the application of rights to all citizens. The Constitution (however inconvenient we may find this to be) affords the due process of law to all citizens. The sociopathic nature of terrorist acts suspected to have been commited by American citizens does not disabuse those citizens of their constitutional right to equal protection under the law, including the right to remain silent.
Central to the argument, especially since it was started with such vigor following 9/11, has been the "protection of American lives." As the great anti-Soviet dissident Solzhenitsyn told us, "it is in the nature of the human being to seek a justification for his actions." The protection of the people, and thereby the protection of the country, has been the argument of totalitarian regimes throughout the last two centuries in their quest to quiet concerns about the rights they denied. Do we, as a nation, seek to use their arguments as the cornerstone of a new domestic policy?
Eventually, someone may say "If it worked so well against terrorist suspects, why not deny Miranda rights to those suspected of murder and arson and rape? Those crimes are instruments of fear and coercion, are they not? Our evidentiary capabilities are so good now that we have little cause to worry that we might have the wrong man, so it is only to our advantage to deny them the chance to remain silent about a crime of which they are so assuredly guilty." What will you say when that question is asked? How will we draw the line? Terrorism is simply a matter of semantics, the fear of which is an amazing tool for those who seek power. Solzhenitsyn also warned us: "Oh, how hard it is to part with power! This, one has to understand!"
Do you want to live in a country where we give government agents--human beings capable of all manner of unscrupulous and prejudicial behavior just as you and I are--the power to deny equal protection under the law to those whom they deem to be a significant threat? I don't, and I think after a few moments' thought, most of you wouldn't either.
And torture, well, that is simply the logical extension of the denial of legal rights--the denial of human rights. Again, Aleksandr Isayevich has a word of warning for us: "violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence. Any man, who has once proclaimed violence as his method, is inevitably forced to take the lie as his principle."
Think long and hard about who you want protecting the rights of American citizens: the Constitution, or agents of law enforcement.
This is our AG? I have not been briefed yet! It is ten pages long. A lawyer can write ten pages on the possibility of the sky being blue.
scoutpilot's post is exactly why our service members, judges, congress, and the POTUS all pledge to protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION. They do not swear to defend the American people. The brilliant men who wrote it knew that if the Constitution remained intact, the people would remain protected.
Quite honestly I posted the article before I had finished reading it and had yet to form an opinion. The title was just to get people to read the thread and start a debate. I am still in the middle. On one hand, I think someone's right to remain silent ends where their remaining silent endangers the lives of other Americans. On the other hand, if we deny the vital rights we hold so dearly in order to protect the country, what are we trying to protect? I do not think there is an easy answer to this proposition. I defer judgment to the more experienced and will continue to think on it.
Fair enough. If that's the distinction, then fine.
But once law enforcement identifies them as members of Hezboallah, Al Qaeda, or any of those other goons, hand them over to be waterboarded and fed into a woodchipper.
I'm tickled pink. The pay now is better, as are the hours, and I don't have to salute the communist POS currently in the White House.
Have a great day!
Separate names with a comma.