Miranda Rights for Terrorists

reply to post by jsobecky


whilst we don`t usually agree - fo this i do , they have rights allready - so why offer them hotel , free meals and access to everything? when those very same rights are being taken away from honest to God citizens?

[edit on 11/6/09 by Harlequin]

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Hunka, I appreciate and respect your post big time! You are basing your logic solely on the Framers and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

We must return to basing our legal and political philosophies from this foundation.

reply to post by WhatTheory


so where does one draw the line regarding who should and shouldn't receive the miranda right? if someone else's rights are not secure, then it is just a matter of time before our own is not.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Given the fact that we've wrongfully accused innocent people of being terrorists, and after all this Guantanamo nonsense... I'm going to go ahead as token liberal to say- this is a good idea.

You are acting like a typical liberal. You react and make decisions based on emotion instead of logic and the law. This is not a good trait.

then please tell me why the release of additional abu greib photos will not be released? these guys too were "suspected" terrorists.

i'm getting sick of the word "terrorist". it's a cia op term used to sway the populace into becoming brain dead and controlled.

what is a terrorist? the cia could be easily labled a terrorist, as well as many others. in their own definition, they fit the profile.

the truth isn't pretty.

we need to clean up our own back yard.

reply to post by HunkaHunka

And our rights, are "INALIENABLE" which means they don't have a border... they are given to us by the creator... that's it.

Muslim's do not believe the same things we believe in. They believe in honor killings and other crazy non-sense, and women are a lower class than men.

I guess you want to convert them all to being Christians too?

The rights afforded to us by our constitution are founded upon the principle that our rights are inalienable. These people already have rights under the Geneva Conventions.

These people are making a mockery out of justice system. These people are FOREIGNERS!.

No... the constitution does not simply apply to it's citizens... it applies to mankind... How does that go again.. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL AND ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS"

That is the Deceleration of Independence, Which means we were declaring our independence from Great Britain. Making America a Sovereign country. Where these principles could be practiced.

The Founding fathers wanted us to be Allies with none and trade with all. If you wanted the rights afforded under the constitution then you would have to immigrate here and become an American citizen to have those rights.

What's wrong with Globalization? Because they are busy trying to negate the US Constitution. They want to give our sovereignty away to the UN.

You are lost you have no understanding of what the founding fathers wanted or meant.

These people are not American Citizens and have rights given to them by the Geneva Conventions.

Illegal Aliens don't even have American Citizens rights. They get deported.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Hasto...here is a friendly break-down of the CONSTITUTIONALITY of imprisoning federal/international persons deemed terrorists. In short, the Supreme Court found it to be UNCONSITUTIONAL.

Because of this, President Obama has enacted a "global initiative" which has basically eliminated the CIA from handling terrorists and now uses the FBI. The FBI MUST provide Miranda Rights to anybody we call a suspect, so we can convict them in US Court. Do you want POWs or convictions for their acts of terrorism against the United States? Whatever your answer, we are a nation of laws...and our laws must be CONSTITUTIONAL.

Enjoy some background reading...

The November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order purported to give the President of the United States the power to detain non-citizens suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as enemy combatants. As such, that person could be held indefinitely, without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without legal counsel. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus, and the United States Bill of Rights.

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), re-confirmed the right of United States citizens to habeas corpus even when declared an enemy combatant. The Court affirmed the basic principle that habeas corpus of a citizen could not be revoked.

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), Salim Ahmed Hamdan petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging that the military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay "violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions." In a 5-3 ruling the Court rejected Congress's attempts to strip the court of jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals by detainees at Guantánamo Bay. Though Congress had previously passed the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006 which stated in Section 1005(e), "Procedures for Status Review of Detainees Outside the United States.":

"(1) Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

(2)The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on any claims with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to the consideration of whether the status determination ... was consistent with the standards and procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense for Combatant Status Review Tribunals (including the requirement that the conclusion of the Tribunal be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and allowing a rebuttable presumption in favor of the Government's evidence), and to the extent the Constitution and laws of the United States are applicable, whether the use of such standards and procedures to make the determination is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States."

On 29 September 2006, the U.S. House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a bill which suspended habeas corpus for any alien determined to be an "unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States"[2][3] by a vote of 65-34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48-51.[4]) President Bush signed the Military Commissons Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006.

With the MCA's passage, the law altered the language from "alien detained ... at Guantanamo Bay":

"Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination." §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the MCA constituted an unconstitutional encroachment of Habeas Corpus rights, and established jurisdiction for federal courts to hear petitions for habeas corpus from Guantanamo detainees tried under the Act.[5]

Under the MCA, the law restricted habeas appeals for only those aliens detained as enemy combatants, or awaiting such determination. Left unchanged was the provision that, after such determination is made, it is subject to appeal in U.S. Court, including a review of whether the evidence warrants the determination. If the status was upheld, then their imprisonment was deemed lawful; if not, then the government could change the prisoner's status to something else, at which point the habeas restrictions no longer applied.

Wikinews has related news: President Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006
There is, however, no legal time limit which would force the government to provide a Combatant Status Review Tribunal hearing. Prisoners were, but are no longer, legally prohibited from petitioning any court for any reason before a CSRT hearing takes place.

In January 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee that in his opinion: "There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There's a prohibition against taking it away." He was challenged by Sen. Arlen Specter who asked him to explain how it is possible to prohibit something from being taken away, without first being granted.[6]

As Robert Parry writes in the Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel:

“ Applying Gonzales’s reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn’t explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully.
Ironically, Gonzales may be wrong in another way about the lack of specificity in the Constitution’s granting of habeas corpus rights. Many of the legal features attributed to habeas corpus are delineated in a positive way in the Sixth Amendment...[7]
”

The Department of Justice has taken the position in litigation that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 does not amount to a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed in a 2-1 decision, on February 20, 2007,[8] which the U.S. Supreme Court initially declined to review. The U.S. Supreme Court then reversed its decision to deny review and took up the case in June 2007. In June 2008, the court ruled 5-4 that that the act did suspend habeas and found it unconstitutional.[9]
en.wikipedia.org...

Gee people we do have a dilemma here don't we. I say give them their miranda rights. Treat them fairly and justly. Show the world that we are a better people. Don't sink to their level. But most of all remember that now according to DHS many here are now considered terrorists. Does this make some of you think twice? maybe it should.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

Originally posted by reluctantpawn
But most of all remember that now according to DHS many here are now considered terrorists. Does this make some of you think twice? maybe it should.

This is the part so many are missing. Everybody is SO quick to strip Miranda rights from detainees suspected of international/domestic terrorism.

Careful...Americans within our domestic borders may soon be clumped into this category. And the Obama administration will always gladly say, "well the people were against Miranda rights all along."

BASE DECISIONS ON CONSTITUTIONALITY EVERYBODY, NOT EMOTION. No wonder our country is going down the can and the US Constitution is being shredded.

Our own citizenry pick-and-choose when it's "convenient" and "right" to actually follow it.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by MOFreemason]

reply to post by MOFreemason

Hasto...here is a friendly break-down of the CONSTITUTIONALITY of imprisoning federal/international persons deemed terrorists. In short, the Supreme Court found it to be UNCONSITUTIONAL.

Yea, like I'm going to listen to what the supreme court says after they went and trashed contract law.

Maybe everybody should read the fifth amendment again, here I'll post it here

U.S. Constitution

The Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Oh, what does that say right there? Due Process doesn't apply in times of War?

Wow, imagine that, the Supreme Court reinterpreted yet another amendment to benefit a political agenda.

Talk about trashing the constitution, people want to give our enemies the same rights as American Citizens when our on Constitution states that they don't get the same rights.

Edit to add -

If we are a nation of laws then maybe the freaking people enforcing the laws should pay attention to them. By people supporting Foreign Terrorist getting Miranda Rights your trashing the very constitution that you say you are upholding.

I'll state this again, if you are an American Citizen then you are protected under the constitution. Foreign Nationalist have no bearing on that. By you supporting this move you support eroding our rights as American Citizens.


[edit on 11-6-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


I enjoy this discourse...and even more appreciate that we can engage in discussion about this topic, without sounding angry/irrational with one another. Thank you.

Our laws are based on legal precedent. We have to look at the court decisions made to date, which led to the Miranda rights being administered to detainees.

The 5th Amendment has been enacted, challenged, and defined for enemy combatants/terrorists. As of today, the Court has determined it is unconstitutional to detain and hold an international "terrorist."

So...President Obama is playing WITHIN our legal system and will afford them a Miranda right. By doing so, we can actually enter them into our US legal system and try/convict them for their crimes against the United States. As you've indicated, we "know" they are guilty of their crimes. But, we haven't tried these high-level detainees. This is scary and un-American, as soon it could be American domestric "terrorists" following the same suit. No charges, no trial. It's a scary idea.

Here is some recent legal renderings that led to the decision to ultimately close down Guantanamo and then begin giving other detainees Miranda rights. The end goal--charge and try them as actual criminals.

To date, there has been at least one confirmed case in which non-American civilians have been incorrectly classified as enemy combatants.[15]

On June 7, 2007, the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee with an 11-8 vote split along party lines, with all but one Republican voting against it.[16] Although the Act would restore statutory habeas corpus to enemy combatants, it would not overturn the provisions of the AEDPA which set a statute of limitations on habeas corpus claims from ordinary civilian federal and state prisoners.[citation needed]

On June 11, 2007, a federal appeals court ruled that Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a legal resident of the United States, could not be detained indefinitely without charge. In a two-to-one ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court held the President of the United States lacks legal authority to detain al-Marri without charge; all three judges ruled that al-Marri is entitled to traditional habeas corpus protections which give him the right to challenge his detainment in a U.S. Court.

On June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Boumediene v. Bush that terror suspects detained by the United States in Guantanamo Bay detainment camp have the right to seek a writ of habeas corpus in US Federal Court.[17]

In July 2008, the Richmond-based 4th Circuit Court rules: "if properly designated an enemy combatant pursuant to the legal authority of the President, such persons may be detained without charge or criminal proceedings for the duration of the relevant hosilities."[18]

On October 7, 2008, US District Court judge Ricardo M. Urbina ruled that 17 Uyghurs, Muslims from China's northwestern Xinjiang region, must be brought to appear in his court in Washington, DC, three days later: "Because the Constitution prohibits indefinite detentions without cause, the continued detention is unlawful." [19]

On January 21, 2009, US President Barack Obama issued an executive order regarding the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and the individuals held there. This order asserted that "[they] have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus". [20]
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by MOFreemason

Our laws are based on legal precedent.

No they aren't. Even if they were it doesn't apply anymore. Not since the Supreme Court shot down the appeal by the Indiana Pension Fund. They completely blew all precedent out of the water.

This is what I don't get, how can people twist what is a clearly worded document to fit their political agenda.

Read the fifth amendment again. The Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme Law of the land.

If we can go and interpret the Constitution, to mean anything that we want, then what does it mean?

It doesn't mean jack, that is what it means. So the question is what do you support the political agenda of 9 people in black robes that were appointed by corrupt politicians to further their political agenda.

Are the very Document that our Country was founded on? If you believe in the constitution then Our enemies don't get red their rights, in fact the fifth amendment even says that in times of war enemies do not get due process.

You have to ask yourself a question, what do you believe in, the Constitution or a political agenda?

Edit - Let me explain a little further my first paragraph.

Our rights are not based upon legal precedent, our rights are based on the US Constitution. Our rights have been constantly eroded since the induction of the Constitution. The laws that congress' passes that does not infringe on our rights are established by legal precedent.

By listening to everything the Supreme Court says means you are allowing them to think for you.


[edit on 11-6-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

Originally posted by rcwj75

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
Wow, its amazing how many savage barbarians have posted on this thread.

Oh so we are barbarians for wanting to punish those for doing violent acts, and do whats needed to NOT become victims of their actions??? wow

No. You are savage barbarians for thinking he is not subject to the same basic human rights (see Hunka Hunka's post) that you are.

You are, in my opinion, exactly as base and low as this terrorist, as you completely see the situation as "them and us". It is not "good vs evil", to you, because the things you are in support of are evil. You don't care how 'revenge' is had, you just care that it is had. Thus, you have no moral high ground from which to preach down to another, and your country has absolutely no moral standing with which to invade and decimate multiple countries.

If you were to insist, nay, demand that this man be treated humanely, as one human being should treat another, as you would probably insist on being treated yourself, not for any reasons of self but purely because this is how you and your nation treats your fellow man because it is what is fundamentally right, then I would support you completely.

It doesn't matter whether he's maimed and eaten a thousand babies or cured cancer; all men should be treated with the same dignity. Whether he is executed or praised is ancillary. What matters is how you conduct yourself.

And as it is, you are, put simply, another savage barbarian. You are just lucky your country has better toys than his country.

Originally posted by MOFreemason....
So...President Obama is playing WITHIN our legal system and will afford them a Miranda right. By doing so, we can actually enter them into our US legal system and try/convict them for their crimes against the United States. As you've indicated, we "know" they are guilty of their crimes. But, we haven't tried these high-level detainees. This is scary and un-American, as soon it could be American domestric "terrorists" following the same suit. No charges, no trial. It's a scary idea.

Here is some recent legal renderings that led to the decision to ultimately close down Guantanamo and then begin giving other detainees Miranda rights. The end goal--charge and try them as actual criminals.

well put. now i would like to see something done about the unconstitutional aspects of the patriot act. now that's a scary piece of work.

to think i voted twice for bush and thought cheney was a nice guy. whoever it is that has that bush / cheney avatar... it triggers me

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Given the fact that we've wrongfully accused innocent people of being terrorists, and after all this Guantanamo nonsense... I'm going to go ahead as token liberal to say- this is a good idea.

You are acting like a typical liberal. You react and make decisions based on emotion instead of logic and the law. This is not a good trait.

What's the point of having a U.S. Constitution for Americans if we are going to apply it to everyone? Might as well rip it up.

What does miranda rights have to do with Guantanamo and your wrong opinion of having wrongfully accused innocent terrorists? Answer: Nothing!

Wow, turning this into a libs/conservative thread. Well played. Seems like someone has an agenda to me

Let me ask you this: If these people are captured by america, detained by america, and tried based on american laws, how is it logical to say they do not deserve the legal rights of the accused that americans have?\

Also, some estimates put 1 out of 4 detainees at gitmo in actual terror related activities. What about those other 3 out of every 4?

reply to post by The Last Man on Earth


What it must be like to live in a world outside the REALITY of evil. To not be touched by it, or never having to see it first hand. To be able to sit at home with a normal life away from it all....watch TV, never having to deal with it....its sooooo easy to be in your shoes and think your way is the "high moral right" way....when really you have no idea....its nice though...you keep living that way....away from the evil, the death, the destruction....

I know a guy who had your beliefs too...he said ALL HUMANS need to be treated fairly and humanely...and he said we ALL have rights....of course how that changed when his 17 year old daughter was raped and stabbed to death by a 33 year old guy who laughed at his trial and told the father to his face that his daughter deserved it...he then pled not guilty by reason of insanity...and guess what...he won...he was sentenced to 5 years in a mental hospital for treatment, then 5 more for monitoring....that was 13 years ago...he is now a free man living on lifetime probation...but free to go to movie, and walk the streets....guess who is no longer a bleeding heart LOVE all men, they all deserve rights spewing father anymore? Yeah now he hates the system, now he bitches pisses and moans about how we give to many rights to scum, etc.....bottom line...BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR!!!!!!!!!

Good news. Glad to hear that we're taking another semi-reasonable step in dealing with this sorta thing.

(And please spare me - I know I'm an ungawdly America-hater who sympathizes with the terra'ists and those shady, unamerican foreigners)

I think if they release those pictures than they should play the videos of those TERRORISTS chopping off the heads of Americans.Just for perspective.

Originally posted by debz325
I think if they release those pictures than they should play the videos of those TERRORISTS chopping off the heads of Americans.Just for perspective.

Not that this has anything to do with the subject at hand, but, I have to wonder, do you have proof that any of the detainees cut off people's heads before they were tortured?

reply to post by rcwj75


i'm sorry to hear that story rc. it's easy for me to say that this is only a part of the reality of our constitution. on another note, that lady who drowned all her children.. she should have been deemed mentally unstable and sent to a mental institution.

unfortunately, she half-way knew that what she was doing was wrong (but in the "best interest" of her children)

i forgot her name.

anyways, i am sorry to hear of your story.

what is the alternative?

Originally posted by miasria
so where does one draw the line regarding who should and shouldn't receive the miranda right?

Umm.....U.S. citizens. Why is this so difficult to understand?

What's next? Hey, after we read them their miranda rights, lets put them on government welfare, give them a brick of government cheese and put them up in public housing until their trial.

Good Lord, what is wrong with you sheeple? Please stop and try thinking for yourself instead of spewing and allowing yourself to be brainwashed by liberal/fascist policies.