Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Annie, Sep 20, 2006.
A link or two...
Same old culprits:
Didn't read it, but it pushed me to say, more and more I see the, "It's a Law enforcement Issue" group banging their drum, again.
"Miranda" should not apply to either domestic, citizen criminals or alien, enemy combatants. The Constitution does not have a prohibition on "unwarned" statements to begin with. But when "racist" white police officers lay their grubby mitts on the saintly murderer and blessed Hispanic Ernesto Miranda, the Supreme Courts' white liberals get a case of the white guilts and make up a cockamamie rule. Now, the cockamamie rule applies 'round the globe, making law-abiding peaceful folks unsafe, criminals and murderers safe, and white liberals who are rich enough to avoid the whole thing self-satisfied.
But there I go again. Geez, what a hate-filled, bitter creature I am.
Most of the time I do not find you 'hate-filled', you are consistent and have some rationale for why you write what you do. Yes, I mostly disagree with you, but rarely find what you post 'hate-filled.'
What I'm worried about is that if these clowns start pushing these monsters through our courts and then letting them free, soldiers will start pulling Ned and Jimbo via South Park. Whenever they capture a terrorist, they'll get everything they can out of him, then yell, "They're coming right for us," and shoot.
Interesting comment...do those taken as prisoners need to be Mirandized? I would say no as the Miranda warning only applies to those arrested in the USA...as per case law...so if one is taken into custody in a foreign country I would say by the definition of law that Miranda warnings do not apply!...However GW asking for clarity is a good thing...I cannot see why McCain and Powell are confused with this!
I think granting US Constitutional rights to thugs and murderers bent on destroying the versame US Constitution and everything it represents is justa bout as stupid as it can get.
I think that enemies in the traditional sense of the word, i.e. uniformed soldiers in the service of a country who is officially at war with us deserve all the rights and guarantees of international law.
These stateless international terrorists are not really "enemies" and have forfeit their rights by serving masters other than their own nations. If they can't play the game by the rules, why should the rules apply?
Agree. I'll even say we should not torture, which they do. However, the whole arguement that they not be humiliated and such, well screw that.
Separate names with a comma.