Can it be true? Obama orders Miranda Rights for Foreign enemies!!!

Article 31 provides servicemembers with a broad protection against being compelled to incriminate themselves. The text of Article 31 provides as follows:

a. No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to incriminate himself or to answer any questions the answer to which may tend to incriminate him.

b. No person subject to this chapter may interrogate or request any statement from an accused or a person suspected of an offense without first informing him of the nature of the accusation and advising him that he does not have to make any statement regarding the offense of which he is accused or suspected, and that any statement made by him may be used as evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.

c. No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to make a statement or produce evidence before any military tribunal if the statement or evidence is not material to the issue and may tend to degrade him.

d. No statement obtained from any person in violation of this article, or through the use of coercion, unlawful influence, or unlawful inducement, may be received in evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.

Military Justice 101 - Part 5, Right to Remain Silent (Article 31 Rights)

That's Article 31, UCMJ, plain and simple. Note ~ you should not talk to the investigators without first talking with an attorney.

Say: "I do not waive my right to silence; I want to stop this interview; I want to talk to a lawyer; I want to leave."

They will try to get you to stay and engage in "chit-chat" or "background information."

Say: "I do not waive my right to silence; I want to stop this interview; I want to talk to a lawyer; I want to leave."


DO NOT MAKE ANY STATEMENT (oral or written)!
If you say anything at all it could be used against you. It doesn't matter if you "only say" something and then decline to put it in writing or sign the investigators written statement. What you say can be used.

If you say anything to a friend, supervisor, or other non-law enforcement person, that statement might be used against you. This area of military law can be confusing so the best course of action is to say and do nothing to anyone but your attorney. Read United States v. Guyton-Bhatt, 56 M.J. 484 (C.A.A.F. 2002).

Your Rights!

I'm sorry but this is really not new in the military however there are some differences. As Stand correctly pointed out there is a huge difference between those individuals labeled as "unlawful enemy combatants" and have zero right under the constitution but as you can see above do have some rights under the UCMJ and those that are captured by the FBI or any other civilian authority.
 
Wouldn't be an issue, individuals classified as unlawful/enemy combatants aren't afforded any constitutional rights anyways, thus they're not entitled to a trial in civil courts. They'd be tried by a military court as directed by the UCMJ (if I'm not mistaken).

No constitutional rights?

The US Supreme Court's 'Enemy Combatant' Decisions: A 'Major Victory for the Rule of Law'? -- Moeckli 10 (1): 75 -- Journal of Conflict and Security Law

Are you attempting to say assert that enemy/unlawful combatants do or do not enjoy constitutional rights, if you are attempting to assert that they do, perhaps you should actually read the article you linked first.

actually, i'd direct you to what the court said and what it's intent was so you can even possibly consider what it might do in the future.

what i wouldn't do if i were you is pretend that no rights attach to people we hold prisoner.
 
Wouldn't be an issue, individuals classified as unlawful/enemy combatants aren't afforded any constitutional rights anyways, thus they're not entitled to a trial in civil courts. They'd be tried by a military court as directed by the UCMJ (if I'm not mistaken).

Incorrect. USSC has declared that they be given habeus rights.

Which decision was that ? I'm only (vaguely) familiar with the case that afforded habeus corpus to gitmo prisoners which I don't believe equates carte blanche to all enemy/unlawful combatants... I'm no lawyer (thank the lord) but that's my understanding of it.

Boumediene. Miranda rights only apply to people you are going to try, so it is irrelevant whether it applies to all enemy combatants or not.
 
Article 31 provides servicemembers with a broad protection against being compelled to incriminate themselves. The text of Article 31 provides as follows:

a. No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to incriminate himself or to answer any questions the answer to which may tend to incriminate him.

b. No person subject to this chapter may interrogate or request any statement from an accused or a person suspected of an offense without first informing him of the nature of the accusation and advising him that he does not have to make any statement regarding the offense of which he is accused or suspected, and that any statement made by him may be used as evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.

c. No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to make a statement or produce evidence before any military tribunal if the statement or evidence is not material to the issue and may tend to degrade him.

d. No statement obtained from any person in violation of this article, or through the use of coercion, unlawful influence, or unlawful inducement, may be received in evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.

Military Justice 101 - Part 5, Right to Remain Silent (Article 31 Rights)

That's Article 31, UCMJ, plain and simple. Note ~ you should not talk to the investigators without first talking with an attorney.

Say: "I do not waive my right to silence; I want to stop this interview; I want to talk to a lawyer; I want to leave."

They will try to get you to stay and engage in "chit-chat" or "background information."

Say: "I do not waive my right to silence; I want to stop this interview; I want to talk to a lawyer; I want to leave."


DO NOT MAKE ANY STATEMENT (oral or written)!
If you say anything at all it could be used against you. It doesn't matter if you "only say" something and then decline to put it in writing or sign the investigators written statement. What you say can be used.

If you say anything to a friend, supervisor, or other non-law enforcement person, that statement might be used against you. This area of military law can be confusing so the best course of action is to say and do nothing to anyone but your attorney. Read United States v. Guyton-Bhatt, 56 M.J. 484 (C.A.A.F. 2002).

Your Rights!

I'm sorry but this is really not new in the military however there are some differences. As Stand correctly pointed out there is a huge difference between those individuals labeled as "unlawful enemy combatants" and have zero right under the constitution but as you can see above do have some rights under the UCMJ and those that are captured by the FBI or any other civilian authority.

Actually being labeled an enemy combatant doesn't mean you have no constitutional rights. See Boumediene.
 
Actually being labeled an enemy combatant doesn't mean you have no constitutional rights. See Boumediene.

That was specifically applied to gitmo detainees, correct? for example if you're a foreign national and decide to pick up a rifle in Iraq and start shooting at U.S. Military personel I don't see how you would not be tried in a military court instead of civilian one, in which case you'd be under the jurisdication of the UCMJ and not the Federal Constitution.
 

Are you attempting to say assert that enemy/unlawful combatants do or do not enjoy constitutional rights, if you are attempting to assert that they do, perhaps you should actually read the article you linked first.

actually, i'd direct you to what the court said and what it's intent was so you can even possibly consider what it might do in the future.

what i wouldn't do if i were you is pretend that no rights attach to people we hold prisoner.

What the heck are you talking about? you mean this (from the article you linked):
"For the court has upheld, in principle, the government’s power to designate terrorist suspects as ‘enemy combatants’ and to hold them without charging them with a criminal offence or according them prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions"
 
Actually being labeled an enemy combatant doesn't mean you have no constitutional rights. See Boumediene.

That was specifically applied to gitmo detainees, correct? for example if you're a foreign national and decide to pick up a rifle in Iraq and start shooting at U.S. Military personel I don't see how you would not be tried in a military court instead of civilian one, in which case you'd be under the jurisdication of the UCMJ and not the Federal Constitution.

Actually most of those individuals are tried in Iraq, in which case the UCMJ and the US Constitution is irrelevant. However if WE hold them and WE intend to try them, they MUST be given habeus protections.
 
Actually being labeled an enemy combatant doesn't mean you have no constitutional rights. See Boumediene.

That was specifically applied to gitmo detainees, correct? for example if you're a foreign national and decide to pick up a rifle in Iraq and start shooting at U.S. Military personel I don't see how you would not be tried in a military court instead of civilian one, in which case you'd be under the jurisdication of the UCMJ and not the Federal Constitution.

Actually most of those individuals are tried in Iraq, in which case the UCMJ and the US Constitution is irrelevant. However if WE hold them and WE intend to try them, they MUST be given habeus protections.

Right, so we should clarify this by not creating a separate category of captive under Geneva and just live with what we have in there already.

Therefore, we can choose to legitimize them as POWs and not try them and hold them until the end of hostilities.

Or, we can treat them as unlawful combatants on the battlefield and summarily execute them for war crimes.

Which do you favor NIK?
 
That was specifically applied to gitmo detainees, correct? for example if you're a foreign national and decide to pick up a rifle in Iraq and start shooting at U.S. Military personel I don't see how you would not be tried in a military court instead of civilian one, in which case you'd be under the jurisdication of the UCMJ and not the Federal Constitution.

Actually most of those individuals are tried in Iraq, in which case the UCMJ and the US Constitution is irrelevant. However if WE hold them and WE intend to try them, they MUST be given habeus protections.

Right, so we should clarify this by not creating a separate category of captive under Geneva and just live with what we have in there already.

Therefore, we can choose to legitimize them as POWs and not try them and hold them until the end of hostilities.

Or, we can treat them as unlawful combatants on the battlefield and summarily execute them for war crimes.

Which do you favor NIK?

Oh, summarily executing them. Of course. I mean why not do something that goes against numerous international and domestic laws?

What in hell would make you think that those are the only two options, or that summarily executing prisoners is somehow an acceptable option? What kind of a sick fuck are you?
 
Oh man...Obama is doing things which make it easier to try terrorists...what an evil, evil guy he is. :cuckoo:

NIK this only makes sense if you immediately withdraw the military and replace them all with FBI agents.

Starting to see the absurdity yet?

Anyone who is qualified to interrogate someone is qualified to memorize a short paragraph to say before they start interrogating them.

Or do you think members of the US military are too stupid to memorize a few lines?

How exactly do you interrogate someone that you gave "the right to remain silent" to. What a bone headed idea this was...stupid ass democrats.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: 007
NIK this only makes sense if you immediately withdraw the military and replace them all with FBI agents.

Starting to see the absurdity yet?

Anyone who is qualified to interrogate someone is qualified to memorize a short paragraph to say before they start interrogating them.

Or do you think members of the US military are too stupid to memorize a few lines?

How exactly do you interrogate someone that you gave "the right to remain silent" to. What a bone headed idea this was...stupid ass democrats.

The same way the FBI does in America. Or do you think Miranda warnings think nobody ever confesses/talks in the US?
 
shoot them on site, problem solved!

No shit. Between this shit and the ridiculous rules of engagement our guys are forced to observe, it's a wonder we have any live soldiers left...

Maybe they could think you are an enemy combatant and shoot you on site. Awesome idea that :clap2:

I see how you ass backwards liberal turds think now... shoot American citizens on site, but read miranda rights to terrorists who would saw your fucking head off given the chance.
 
No shit. Between this shit and the ridiculous rules of engagement our guys are forced to observe, it's a wonder we have any live soldiers left...

Maybe they could think you are an enemy combatant and shoot you on site. Awesome idea that :clap2:

I see how you ass backwards liberal turds think now... shoot American citizens on site, but read miranda rights to terrorists who would saw your fucking head off given the chance.

Wow. Way to miss the dripping and completely obvious sarcasm. :clap2:
 
Maybe they could think you are an enemy combatant and shoot you on site. Awesome idea that :clap2:

I see how you ass backwards liberal turds think now... shoot American citizens on site, but read miranda rights to terrorists who would saw your fucking head off given the chance.

Wow. Way to miss the dripping and completely obvious sarcasm. :clap2:

No... that's what you liberal morons messiah is DOING.... :eusa_eh:
 
I see how you ass backwards liberal turds think now... shoot American citizens on site, but read miranda rights to terrorists who would saw your fucking head off given the chance.

Wow. Way to miss the dripping and completely obvious sarcasm. :clap2:

No... that's what you liberal morons messiah is DOING.... :eusa_eh:

Hes shooting Americans on sight? Really? Care to provide a link to this?
 
shoot them on site, problem solved!

No shit. Between this shit and the ridiculous rules of engagement our guys are forced to observe, it's a wonder we have any live soldiers left...

Maybe they could think you are an enemy combatant and shoot you on site. Awesome idea that :clap2:
I doubt our Service men/woman would mistake a white woman for a brown skinned person that smells of Lamb:lol:
 

Forum List

Back
Top