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

[Nik]

How many were released only to be found on the battle field again? War isn’t a pretty, and I trust our troops a lot more than I trust some congressmen or ACLU asshole. Of course I know many troops past and present, dem/rep white, black, brown, red, yellow, and each and every one of them are professional and do what they are commanded to do giving 100 percent. INTEGRITY and our Military personifies it.

Don't know Terry, how many? And of those that were released, how many had nothing to do with terrorism, but having been blindfolded, and kept in terrible conditions for a few years, decided it was payback time?

Could you describe the terrible Red Cross monitored conditions that these detainees lived in please? Nutter.

Well the Red Cross who "monitored" the conditions said they were being tortured. Sort of stupid of you to bring up the fact that ICRC were there at times, as if its some sort of mitigating factor.

 

[Nik]

What our troops have been doing is when they pick up someone from the battle field they either have a gun on them or they are with some serious dudes not with kids or sitting around playing dominoes or something. They are exactly ENENMY COMBANTS therefore they can be held indefinite until the war is over.
Now all Obama has to do is declare the war is over, and release them all. So the ball is in his court but you cannot have your cake and eat it too. My 2 cents

I don't think you will find any argument from anyone if people are firing on US soldiers (unless they are protecting their home). The problem is those who haven't been picked up under those circumstances. Quite a few under those circumstances have been released, but quite a few haven't. What is the US afraid of? If they have the evidence to hold them, they have the evidence, right? Put them on trial, show the evidence, lock 'em up....or let them go if the glove don't fit...

Wars are NOT, repeat NOT! criminal investigations, why is this such a difficult thing to understand for the left?

If you think these people should be tried as criminals, then withdraw the military and fight the war with FBI agents.

Wars usually don't have a huge element of finding out who the enemy is. Finding out who is committing crimes/warlike acts is a job for investigative agencies, not just the military.

 

[Terry]

I don't have time to argue with people who are stuck on stupid. I have to go now.

 

[Citizen]

This has to be a joke, because surely President Obama is not that stupid.

 

[Dr Grump]

Could you describe the terrible Red Cross monitored conditions that these detainees lived in please? Nutter.

I would call any condition where your life is dictated to by others and you live in a shitty little cell with hardly any contact with family or love ones, especially if you are innocent, terrible. If you are convicted of murder in the US and you are innocent, and it is found out after 15 years of living on death row, that indeed you are innocent, would you describe those conditions as great? Try and think past the simple answers. I know you're a right wing whackjob, but that is no excuse...

 

[Dr Grump]

Wars are NOT, repeat NOT! criminal investigations, why is this such a difficult thing to understand for the left?

If you think these people should be tried as criminals, then withdraw the military and fight the war with FBI agents.

What war? The Iraq war is over. Didn't you see the "Mission Accomplished" sign on the aircraft carrier. Didn't you see Sadman hanged? What freaking war?

If you are talking about the "terrorists" at Gitmo, then if they are POWs, treat them as such, if they are criminals, treat them as such. Keeping them in limbo does nothing for anybody. Just costs the US a lot of money and leaves its so-called reputation as the leader of the "free" world in tatters.

Are terrorists criminals or POWs? Which is it?

 

[Dr Grump]

I don't have time to argue with people who are stuck on stupid. I have to go now.

Well stop looking in the mirror and yapping and start debating with real people. Better yet, get educated. You're current intellect looks like you might have not even graduated grade school...

 

[Tech_Esq]

Wars are NOT, repeat NOT! criminal investigations, why is this such a difficult thing to understand for the left?

If you think these people should be tried as criminals, then withdraw the military and fight the war with FBI agents.

What war? The Iraq war is over. Didn't you see the "Mission Accomplished" sign on the aircraft carrier. Didn't you see Sadman hanged? What freaking war?

If you are talking about the "terrorists" at Gitmo, then if they are POWs, treat them as such, if they are criminals, treat them as such. Keeping them in limbo does nothing for anybody. Just costs the US a lot of money and leaves its so-called reputation as the leader of the "free" world in tatters.

Are terrorists criminals or POWs? Which is it?

That's exactly the question I put to NIK earlier in this thread. Bush created an enemy combatant category not recognized by the Geneva Conventions. He then treated them "pretty much" like POWs, with a tinge of criminal. I see no reason to be bound by that. We can just go with what Geneva gives us.

If they are POWs we need to hold them until the end of hostilities. (However long that is).

Or, treat them as unlawful combatants and try and execute them for war crimes. (Just being an unlawful combatant is a war crime.)

That still leaves a few people in limbo, but the vast majority will be cleaned up that way.....It's a good start.

 

[Dr Grump]

That's exactly the question I put to NIK earlier in this thread. Bush created an enemy combatant category not recognized by the Geneva Conventions. He then treated them "pretty much" like POWs, with a tinge of criminal. I see no reason to be bound by that. We can just go with what Geneva gives us.

If they are POWs we need to hold them until the end of hostilities. (However long that is).

Or, treat them as unlawful combatants and try and execute them for war crimes. (Just being an unlawful combatant is a war crime.)

That still leaves a few people in limbo, but the vast majority will be cleaned up that way.....It's a good start.

You and I aren't as far apart really. I just want it sorted once and for all. Make a decision that either puts them behind bars forever (unless they are guilty of horrendous crimes against humanity), or let them go. I mean there must have been some sort of evidence when they were picked up - whether they were wearing the black turbans of the Taliban, or caught planting roadsides bombs, or some third party gave circumstantial evidence against them, there must be something they have on them.......

 

[Tech_Esq]

That's exactly the question I put to NIK earlier in this thread. Bush created an enemy combatant category not recognized by the Geneva Conventions. He then treated them "pretty much" like POWs, with a tinge of criminal. I see no reason to be bound by that. We can just go with what Geneva gives us.

If they are POWs we need to hold them until the end of hostilities. (However long that is).

Or, treat them as unlawful combatants and try and execute them for war crimes. (Just being an unlawful combatant is a war crime.)

That still leaves a few people in limbo, but the vast majority will be cleaned up that way.....It's a good start.

You and I aren't as far apart really. I just want it sorted once and for all. Make a decision that either puts them behind bars forever (unless they are guilty of horrendous crimes against humanity), or let them go. I mean there must have been some sort of evidence when they were picked up - whether they were wearing the black turbans of the Taliban, or caught planting roadsides bombs, or some third party gave circumstantial evidence against them, there must be something they have on them.......

The thing that creates the fundemental problem is that if you intend to put them on trial for some "act" and they were picked up by combat troops, there was no crime scene investigation or chain of evidence or a million other things that we commonly do in criminal investigations. Also, because we were more interested in getting whatever intel these people had rather than convicting them of some crime, we've violated their Miranda rights (if we ever told them what they were). So, anything we obtained from them would be "fruit of the poisonous tree" and unusable.

If they were captured on the battlefield out of uniform, then they should be tried for being an unlawful combatant under the Geneva conventions and it should be left at that.

For those not captured on the battlefield, I guess it should be a case by case basis. But at some point we have to come to an understanding in this country that in order to stop AQ and other multinational terror organizations, the funding and money aspect has to be stopped and unraveled. Some of that may be able to occur within the confines of criminal justice, but developing the intel may require using spies etc. to accomplish it. These will be distinctly outside the CJ realm.

What should we do with the filth that we get information from but because we've violated their "rights" we can't convict of anything?

 

[Nik]

Wars are NOT, repeat NOT! criminal investigations, why is this such a difficult thing to understand for the left?

If you think these people should be tried as criminals, then withdraw the military and fight the war with FBI agents.

What war? The Iraq war is over. Didn't you see the "Mission Accomplished" sign on the aircraft carrier. Didn't you see Sadman hanged? What freaking war?

If you are talking about the "terrorists" at Gitmo, then if they are POWs, treat them as such, if they are criminals, treat them as such. Keeping them in limbo does nothing for anybody. Just costs the US a lot of money and leaves its so-called reputation as the leader of the "free" world in tatters.

Are terrorists criminals or POWs? Which is it?

That's exactly the question I put to NIK earlier in this thread. Bush created an enemy combatant category not recognized by the Geneva Conventions. He then treated them "pretty much" like POWs, with a tinge of criminal. I see no reason to be bound by that. We can just go with what Geneva gives us.

If they are POWs we need to hold them until the end of hostilities. (However long that is).

Or, treat them as unlawful combatants and try and execute them for war crimes. (Just being an unlawful combatant is a war crime.)

That still leaves a few people in limbo, but the vast majority will be cleaned up that way.....It's a good start.

Being an unlawful combatant is a war crime? Really? Says who exactly?

 

[Tech_Esq]

What war? The Iraq war is over. Didn't you see the "Mission Accomplished" sign on the aircraft carrier. Didn't you see Sadman hanged? What freaking war?

If you are talking about the "terrorists" at Gitmo, then if they are POWs, treat them as such, if they are criminals, treat them as such. Keeping them in limbo does nothing for anybody. Just costs the US a lot of money and leaves its so-called reputation as the leader of the "free" world in tatters.

Are terrorists criminals or POWs? Which is it?

That's exactly the question I put to NIK earlier in this thread. Bush created an enemy combatant category not recognized by the Geneva Conventions. He then treated them "pretty much" like POWs, with a tinge of criminal. I see no reason to be bound by that. We can just go with what Geneva gives us.

If they are POWs we need to hold them until the end of hostilities. (However long that is).

Or, treat them as unlawful combatants and try and execute them for war crimes. (Just being an unlawful combatant is a war crime.)

That still leaves a few people in limbo, but the vast majority will be cleaned up that way.....It's a good start.

Being an unlawful combatant is a war crime? Really? Says who exactly?

Look at what you just wrote.

See Article 37 GC

 

[Luissa]

In a story by Stephen F. Hayes in the Weekly Standard, The Obama Administration has ordered the FBI and CIA to give terrorists anywhere in the world the Rights of an American Citizen, they must be read their Miranda rights.

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 speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.

QUESTION?
Has he turned foreign terrorists & enemy combatants into American citizens on the battlefield? Are we the American taxpayer to pay for these enemy combatants attorneys?

Obama is on video during the campaign season specifically stating that HE WOULD NEVER DO THIS. Is this story true?


Miranda Rights for non-American Terrorists

you know what I think is funny is people are bitching about those two journalist not getting a fair trial in North Korea and being sent to prison but we do the same thing here and it is alright. If we want to seperate ourselves from countries like North Korea we need to give them a fair trial and do suck things as read them their miranda rights otherwise we are no better than North Korea.

 

[Tech_Esq]

In a story by Stephen F. Hayes in the Weekly Standard, The Obama Administration has ordered the FBI and CIA to give terrorists anywhere in the world the Rights of an American Citizen, they must be read their Miranda rights.

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 speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.

QUESTION?
Has he turned foreign terrorists & enemy combatants into American citizens on the battlefield? Are we the American taxpayer to pay for these enemy combatants attorneys?

Obama is on video during the campaign season specifically stating that HE WOULD NEVER DO THIS. Is this story true?


Miranda Rights for non-American Terrorists

you know what I think is funny is people are bitching about those two journalist not getting a fair trial in North Korea and being sent to prison but we do the same thing here and it is alright. If we want to seperate ourselves from countries like North Korea we need to give them a fair trial and do suck things as read them their miranda rights otherwise we are no better than North Korea.

We jailed journalists after a sham trial?

Really? I missed that.....link?

 

[Luissa]

In a story by Stephen F. Hayes in the Weekly Standard, The Obama Administration has ordered the FBI and CIA to give terrorists anywhere in the world the Rights of an American Citizen, they must be read their Miranda rights.

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 speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.

QUESTION?
Has he turned foreign terrorists & enemy combatants into American citizens on the battlefield? Are we the American taxpayer to pay for these enemy combatants attorneys?

Obama is on video during the campaign season specifically stating that HE WOULD NEVER DO THIS. Is this story true?


Miranda Rights for non-American Terrorists

you know what I think is funny is people are bitching about those two journalist not getting a fair trial in North Korea and being sent to prison but we do the same thing here and it is alright. If we want to seperate ourselves from countries like North Korea we need to give them a fair trial and do suck things as read them their miranda rights otherwise we are no better than North Korea.

We jailed journalists after a sham trial?

Really? I missed that.....link?

no we have jailed people with no trial at all and I never said it was journalist that we imprisoned did I.
And if you don't see the hyprocrisy that is your problem.

 

[Tech_Esq]

you know what I think is funny is people are bitching about those two journalist not getting a fair trial in North Korea and being sent to prison but we do the same thing here and it is alright. If we want to seperate ourselves from countries like North Korea we need to give them a fair trial and do suck things as read them their miranda rights otherwise we are no better than North Korea.

We jailed journalists after a sham trial?

Really? I missed that.....link?

no we have jailed people with no trial at all and I never said it was journalist that we imprisoned did I.
And if you don't see the hyprocrisy that is your problem.

So you are saying that North Korea is in a war with us captured US journalists and jailed them without a fair trial?

Because we're having a war with the people that we are capturing. So if you are trying to make an apples to apples comparison, all the parties in your analogy need to stand in like stead to each other.

 

[Navy1960]

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Now I have always felt that and still do to this day that persons taken in armed conflit with the U.S. Military are subject to the Geneva convention and should be accorded all the rights and privledges under it. Most of the detainees in GITMO are no exception, they should then be accorded their rights under the UCMJ and be given a Military Tribunal. Still others that were not in armed conflict with the U.S. Military and were taken under other circumstances and handed over to the U.S. Military and this is just a personal opinion here. If they are persons that that have wants or warrants within the U.S. by civilian authority then they should be accorded rights as any other suspect would be.

 

[Luissa]

We jailed journalists after a sham trial?

Really? I missed that.....link?

no we have jailed people with no trial at all and I never said it was journalist that we imprisoned did I.
And if you don't see the hyprocrisy that is your problem.

So you are saying that North Korea is in a war with us captured US journalists and jailed them without a fair trial?

Because we're having a war with the people that we are capturing. So if you are trying to make an apples to apples comparison, all the parties in your analogy need to stand in like stead to each other.

giving the fact we are only at a seize fire with North Korea and occupy their border I would say we are war with them . And I said people are bitching about the fact they did not get a fair trial, I never once gave my opinion on the subject.
And if we want to seperate ourselves from the people we are at war with then yes we should give are prisoners of war a fair trial otherwise we are no better than who we are fighting.

 

[Annie]

scare post against administration

 

[Navy1960]

Your right Luissa the Korean War really never ended. it ended with a cease Fire.

The undersigned, the Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Command, on the one hand, and the Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army and the Commander of the Chinese People's Volunteers, on the other hand, in the interest of stopping the Korean conflict, with its great toil of suffering and bloodshed on both sides, and with the objective of establishing an armistice which will insure a complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved, do individually, collectively, and mutually agree to accept and to be bound and governed by the conditions and terms of armistice set forth in the following articles and paragraphs, which said conditions and terms are intended to be purely military in character and to pertain solely to the belligerents in Korea:

Korean Armistice Agreement - Wikisource