• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Miranda Rights for Terrorists

Lerxst said:
In my opinion these warnings should be extended to anyone in U.S. custody on U.S. controlled soil who will be prosecuted.

Miranda is a set of warnings, not rights by the way. And once they are placed into our legal system, they automatically get the same rights we get.
Click to expand...

That's just it. They shouldn't be in our legal system. We need to hold them until the end of hostilities, just like we did with Japanese and German combatants. Those are the long accepted rules of war.
 
Triad said:
Miranda is a warning instituted in the 60's as a means to preserve an American defendants 5th Ammendemnt Right under the Constitution of the USA.

'We the People of the United States of America'..is who the warning for the Right applies to ..nobody else.


Otherwise..welcome to the United States of Earth.:roll:
-I never knew the left was so Imperialistic minded that it applies the Laws of the United States over all peoples on the earth. Next thing you know they'll be wearing powdered whigs!
Click to expand...

Here is a list of countries who use the Miranda Rights or something similar:
Australia
Canada
England and Wales
France
Germany
European Union
Switzerland
Israel
Spain
Philippines

The Miranda Rights are not so much a gift to the accused, but a way to guarantee a fast and sure prosecution.
 
I don't have a huge issue with this in an isolated thing.

I have a problem with what it represents and is being done all throughout the Obama administration in regards to terrorism and that is going back fully and completely to a Clinton-esque view of Terrorism being completely and utterly a criminal, legal, issue.

This is a flawed and failed way of thinking that when propogated help lead to many of the deficiencies in our intelligence and anti-terrorism activites that caused us to be plagued with terrorism through the 90's and into early 00's.

The Bush model of treating it as a full and complete military thing is also a flailed model, but the idiocy of both Bush and Obama seeing this as some kind of black and white issue, either full military or full criminal, is mind boggling but not surprising, especially from an ideolog such as Obama.

Until we have someone in power who can look at this and think outside of the box and find a new solution for a very new and modern problem in the way terrorism presents itself we will continue to watch Presidents make bone headed moves in regards to this.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
I have a problem with what it represents and is being done all throughout the Obama administration in regards to terrorism and that is going back fully and completely to a Clinton-esque view of Terrorism being completely and utterly a civil, legal, issue.
Click to expand...

He's not treating it as a civil issue, he's treating it as a criminal issue.
 
Moon said:
That's just it. They shouldn't be in our legal system. We need to hold them until the end of hostilities, just like we did with Japanese and German combatants. Those are the long accepted rules of war.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lerxst said:
He's not treating it as a civil issue, he's treating it as a criminal issue.
Click to expand...

Thanks, was typing quick at work and mistyped it as civil when criminal was exactly what I was meaning. I shall go edit. I knew there was a word I was going for but it was early and brain foggy and just wasn't coming.
 
Triad said:
Miranda rights are for Americans in the USA not Jihadist we're fighting a global war with.

With the ongoing gitmo fiasco, the bush bash memo release flop, Pelosi&TheCIA, this will likely cause a crapstorm for Obama.
Click to expand...

I believe you're wrong, in more ways than one.

Miranda rights are for all criminal suspects, with no exceptions for the worst of the worst.

IMO, we lose nothing by reading them their rights. I doubt that Mirandizing them, or not, will change the likelihood of them talking.

Mirandizing them takes away from them one legal loophole that they could otherwise exploit if they are convicted and put away for good (which I hope happens). They won't be able to have their convictions overturned on the technicality that they weren't advised of their legal rights.

I'm all for this, because I want these creeps put away for good if they get convicted.
 
WillRockwell said:
Here is a list of countries who use the Miranda Rights or something similar:
Australia
Canada
England and Wales
France
Germany
European Union
Switzerland
Israel
Spain
Philippines

The Miranda Rights are not so much a gift to the accused, but a way to guarantee a fast and sure prosecution.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Miranda Rights in this is USA Miranda Rights applied in 1966.....Not stuff that might kinda be..
...btw the European Union is not a nation.

//////////////////////


Seriously..

1. The USA rules the world and everyone on it is their subjects.

2. US law applies in the USA. Iranian law in Iran, German Law in Germany, etc.


PICK ONE!

One thread many of you say the USA has no right t do that to x over there..in this one you say they not only have it everyone has to accept it.

You and many others don't make sense. You have two wildly different realities depending on the threads subject.
 
Lerxst said:
Because on the battlefield we are engaging an armed combatant who is intent on killing us.

It's not about giving them American citizens rights. It's about addressing a potential legal challenge in advance so that it doesn't come back to haunt us later.
Click to expand...

What legal challenge could possibly arise from a failure to Mirandize an enemy combatant?
 
Miranda Rights are read to AMERICAN CITIZENS. If we are reading these to non-citizens and enemy combatants, then doesnt that in effect, make them citizens?

Anyways, here is Obama on Miranda Rights back during the campaign:

Obama's Reversal on Terrorist Miranda Rights - Hannity - FOXNews.com

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not.
Click to expand...

Compare that to what is happening right now.
 
Ethereal said:
What legal challenge could possibly arise from a failure to Mirandize an enemy combatant?
Click to expand...

From what I read the warnings are being read to high level detainees who are being interrogated and may face trial in a U.S. court of law.

Do I need to go any further?
 
Last edited:
TheHat said:
Miranda Rights are read to AMERICAN CITIZENS. If we are reading these to non-citizens and enemy combatants, then doesnt that in effect, make them citizens?

Anyways, here is Obama on Miranda Rights back during the campaign:

Obama's Reversal on Terrorist Miranda Rights - Hannity - FOXNews.com



Compare that to what is happening right now.
Click to expand...

Wrong again Hat. Miranda is read to anyone who is arrested and asked guilt seeking questions. Citizen or not. Illegal immigrants are mirandized all the time.
 
Illegal Immigrants in Afghanistan?
:sarcasticclap
 
Last edited:
TheHat said:
Miranda Rights are read to AMERICAN CITIZENS. If we are reading these to non-citizens and enemy combatants, then doesnt that in effect, make them citizens?

.
Click to expand...

Duh, no. Does this sound familiar?
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 an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?

Call it what you will, this is what is read to you if you are arrested in the PHILLIPINES. Miranda is not an American concept, only the name is.
 
Lerxst said:
Wrong, Miranda rights are for anyone we plan to put on trial in an American court of law. All this is doing is making sure we've closed a potential legal loophole.

I've heard cops complain all the time that they wished they didn't have to read a suspect Miranda because it makes them clam up. Bull****. A good interrogator is not worried about Miranda. In fact once you've read it you can rest easy knowing that closed that loophole. This means nothing, in fact it's a good thing.

Only if you're ignorant about what Miranda is, have no clue as to what kind of impact this won't have, and buy into this being an actual story.
Click to expand...

If we read them Miranda and they request a lawyer we won't be able to interrogate them. And these people should be tried by military tribunal not civilian courts anyways.
 
Lerxst said:
I'm calling bull****. It takes about twenty seconds to read Miranda. Miranda doesn't stop a subject from talking.

So are they doing it to select high profile targets in the detention facilities or out in the field with everyone? Some clarification would be nice.
Click to expand...

If they are granted Miranda rights if they request a lawyer no more interrogation. That would seem like a pretty big impediment to intelligence collection to me.
 
Lerxst said:
What are you talking about man? Your comment is absolutely without merit in this situation and completely irrelevant.

And read some new material on 9/11 because you are way off the radar.
Click to expand...

Oh really you mean the Clinton-Gorelick wall established to insure a fair civilian trial for Ramzi Yousef and the Blind Sheik didn't have anything to do with Operation Able Danger not being able to communicate to the FBI actionable intelligence which could have prevented 9-11?
 
Degreez said:
If they're talking before you read Miranda rights, none of that stuff can be used in a court of law.

Which is why I don't see why so many conservatives are getting upset. A terrorist could confess to something before being read his rights, and that evidence would HAVE to be suppressed in court. Miranda usually stops a subject from talking :p
Click to expand...

And if you grant them Miranda rights and they request a lawyer you can't interrogate them at all.

It's not that we oppose reading them Miranda rights we flat out reject giving them Miranda rights at all.
 
danarhea said:
I disagree with you. Miranda rights are interpreted by SCOTUS from the Bill of Rights, and our founding fathers designated those rights as "inalienable", meaning inherent, and given by God, not by any government.
Click to expand...

The Declaration of Independence has no force of law and the Preamble of the Constitution clearly implies that the Constitution was written by the people of the United States for the people of the United States. Furthermore; the Constitution itself is quite explicit that Habeas Corpus can be rescinded in times of insurrection and invasion and I feel that non-uniformed terrorists crossing into our borders on false premises in order to commit mass murder against our civilian citizenry would qualify as both.
 
Lerxst said:
Wrong. Miranda is only required when you have a suspect in custody and you are asking guilt seeking questions. Voluntary admissions are not restricted and not considered "fruit of the poisonous tree."

Miranda does not "usually" stop someone from talking. Occasionally it does, not very often though. Good interrogators do not fear or lament Miranda. They deal with it. I've had suspect lawyer up immediately upon Miranda only to turn around two minutes later and say "I wanna talk."

If a suspect doesn't want to talk, Miranda is irrelevant because they won't talk regardless of what you say.
Click to expand...

Lol, a trained AQ operative is going to lawyer up. They're trained to use the U.S. legal system against us.
 
Lerxst said:
In my opinion these warnings should be extended to anyone in U.S. custody on U.S. controlled soil who will be prosecuted.

Miranda is a set of warnings, not rights by the way. And once they are placed into our legal system, they automatically get the same rights we get.
Click to expand...

Reading them their Miranda rights won't bestow upon them their Miranda rights? :roll:
 
Lerxst said:
From what I read the warnings are being read to high level detainees who are being interrogated and may face trial in a U.S. court of law.

Do I need to go any further?
Click to expand...

I see your point, but we shouldn't be conferring the substantive legal rights of American citizen upon enemy combatants.
 
Ethereal said:
I see your point, but we shouldn't be conferring the substantive legal rights of American citizen upon enemy combatants.
Click to expand...

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

What you're saying doesn't even make sense.

Miranda is meant to inform someone of 'their' Rights. That being specifically those granted to US Citizens under the 5th Ammendment.

There is not point to informing someone of their rights under Miranda if they are not being granted those rights.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom