Miranda Rights for Terrorists

Redress said:

As I read on the Miranda Warning(note the correct name), they are not giving rights, only informing some one of rights.

Click to expand...

Forgive me but that makes no sense. What's the point of informing someone of rights they do not retain?

A Miranda warning (yes, I know what it is) is simply a communication of rights retained under the US Constitution. By Mirandizing enemy combatants and trying them in the criminal justice system we are conferring substantive legal rights upon them - ones retained specifically by US citizens.

Lerxst said:

We can't do that and here's why. Many people we are detaining are not being captured on the field of battle, they are being turned in on suspicion. They aren't considered soldiers, they belong to no professional military, and we haven't proven that many of them have actually done anything.

How can we hold them until the end of hostilities? The "war on terror" will never end because you can't "beat" terrorism. It's not a tangible enemy, it's tactic. We will always be conducting a "war on terror" so hostilities will never end in that regard.

We have no choice but to take these non-military criminals, because that's what they are essentially (or at least that's what we claim they are) and we need to prosecute our case against them or turn them loose.

Click to expand...

Just speaking about the people we capture during military engagements, I'd be perfectly fine holding them until the end of hostilities, regardless of how long it takes. For the others, I'd be fine if they were treated in a more "criminal justice" fashion.

Your comments on the "war on terror" are rather narrow. I've seen the same thing before by others opposed to it, and I'd like to ask you if we're not fighting a tangible enemy, then who is that keeps attacking us and our allies all over the world? I don't care what it's called, but we are fighting a global war on terrorists that mean to do us harm. That's not fighting an ideal or a tactic or something intangible. It's fighting a very real enemy.

I'm still trying to figure out what Rights are being applied when no Rights are being applied
..yet the first sentence of Miranda says.."You have the 'Right' to...."


I'm also wondering why the USA rules the world according to the left when they're playing cops with Terrorists..but it doesn't whenever the USA does anything else.

Ethereal said:

Forgive me but that makes no sense. What's the point of informing someone of rights they do not retain?

A Miranda warning (yes, I know what it is) is simply a communication of rights retained under the US Constitution. By Mirandizing enemy combatants and trying them in the criminal justice system we are conferring substantive legal rights upon them - ones retained specifically by US citizens.

Click to expand...

I don't remember seeing where in the Constitution it specifically says that these rights apply only to US citizens. Perhaps I've missed something.

As far as I can tell, we treat criminal suspects who are foreigners the same way we treat the home brewed variety of criminal, with the same rights not to incriminate oneself, to have a trial by jury, etc. The one difference would be that with suspects who are foreigners, we can deport them.

I don't see that we give up anything by mirandizing terror suspects. If anything, that would make it more difficult for them to appeal any conviction successfully.

I feel that reading them there rights isnt a big deal on its own. The problem is that it looks like the admin. is trying to turn this into legal matter instead of the millitary matter that it is. I guess it goes right along with the fact that it is not terrisiom any more it is man cause disasters. This is a very bad approach to take on this. And why is the FBI being pushed more into this when the CIA and Millitary intel is supposed to be for outside the US.

Moon said:

Just speaking about the people we capture during military engagements, I'd be perfectly fine holding them until the end of hostilities, regardless of how long it takes. For the others, I'd be fine if they were treated in a more "criminal justice" fashion.

Click to expand...

We are detaining people who are not just captured on the field of battle though. They are being arrested from their homes on suspicion based upon information we obtain from various sources. We are releasing individuals whom we have no case against. Those are not enemy combatants.

Your comments on the "war on terror" are rather narrow. I've seen the same thing before by others opposed to it, and I'd like to ask you if we're not fighting a tangible enemy, then who is that keeps attacking us and our allies all over the world? I don't care what it's called, but we are fighting a global war on terrorists that mean to do us harm. That's not fighting an ideal or a tactic or something intangible. It's fighting a very real enemy.

Click to expand...

Because there will never be an "end to hostilities" in the "war on terror." Terror is not an enemy, terror is a tactic. You can't just hold criminals indefinitely under our system. The terrorist we are fighting are criminals, not an organized military force. Criminal law applies to them because they are murderers, not soldiers. Insurgents are a different story.

And subject we plan on putting on trial has certain rights afforded them. There is already precedent set on this.

Birdzeye said:

I don't remember seeing where in the Constitution it specifically says that these rights apply only to US citizens. Perhaps I've missed something.

As far as I can tell, we treat criminal suspects who are foreigners the same way we treat the home brewed variety of criminal, with the same rights not to incriminate oneself, to have a trial by jury, etc. The one difference would be that with suspects who are foreigners, we can deport them.

I don't see that we give up anything by mirandizing terror suspects. If anything, that would make it more difficult for them to appeal any conviction successfully.

Click to expand...

Those rights apply to any person held within the jurisdiction of the United States. Wherever we are detaining people we have jurisdiction over that person, because they are our prisoner.