Turns out reading Miranda rights works fine after all

[Vast LWC]

An Ideology has declared war on us and our way of life. That Ideology is rooted in extremist Islam. It transcends borders and countries. You really need to deal with your denial. Touchy-feelly on the matter may be the PC thing, but that has nothing to do with what is right. The strike capability is changing rapidly, you are running out of time to choose sides.

Ominous words.

This means that any American citizen who believes in an ideology that the majority considers to "be at war on us and our way of life", then they can have their constitutional rights taken away from them.

I believe McCarthy said the same thing about communism.

Let's say, due to attacks like the IRS suicide pilot, the current administration decided that the Tea Party's ideology was "at war with our way of life", and started applying the tactics you seem to be in support of to YOU, how would you feel about it?

 

[Vast LWC]

Well, anyone want to answer the last question?

 

[mudwhistle]

These new arrests, plus the arrests in Pakistan that immediately followed the bombing, sure seem like the guy is talking to me.

Anyone else have a different opinion?

Obviously he waved his rights....or was never given them.

There was alot at stake here. Obama was looking like he didn't care about security.

He may have made an exception with this latest bomber.

I might add that I'm not impressed with this half-hearted approach to fight terrorism.

 

[Intense]

An Ideology has declared war on us and our way of life. That Ideology is rooted in extremist Islam. It transcends borders and countries. You really need to deal with your denial. Touchy-feelly on the matter may be the PC thing, but that has nothing to do with what is right. The strike capability is changing rapidly, you are running out of time to choose sides.

Ominous words.

This means that any American citizen who believes in an ideology that the majority considers to "be at war on us and our way of life", then they can have their constitutional rights taken away from them.

I believe McCarthy said the same thing about communism.

Let's say, due to attacks like the IRS suicide pilot, the current administration decided that the Tea Party's ideology was "at war with our way of life", and started applying the tactics you seem to be in support of to YOU, how would you feel about it?

This is a big leap that misses one critical point LWC, what did the IRS attack have to do with the Tea Party Movement??? Nothing.

The focus is on the commission of a violent crime or act of illegal warfare, and the ideology behind it, and affiliation, being a motive. Extremist Islam has declared Jihad against us and our way of life, their solution being conversion, imprisonment, slavery, or death.

What illegal activity do you credit to the tea party movement? Are you trying to slander and discredit a movement that to date totally rejects violence as a means to it's end??? What is your point here???

The IRS Kamikaze was on a suicide trip of his own design, I believe his political leaning was left, not right, though still insignificant, he was crazy either way.

In a nut shell you have a right to your belief, however popular or unpopular. There are beliefs however that you do not have a right to Act on. This distinguishes between innocence and guilt, through due process.

The current administration could even institute a new Sedition act, it's been done a few times before. This will however do more harm than good, like before, and only diminish credibility and Power over the general population. Truth does matter and cannot be hid under a bushel. There is no hiding from cause and effect either way.

 

[Intense]

These new arrests, plus the arrests in Pakistan that immediately followed the bombing, sure seem like the guy is talking to me.

Anyone else have a different opinion?

Obviously he waved his rights....or was never given them.

There was alot at stake here. Obama was looking like he didn't care about security.

He may have made an exception with this latest bomber.

Image over substance every time.

 

[frazzledgear]

HA! This coming from a DIPSHIT that makes a boneheaded statement such as the following:
Terrorists are criminals - not "enemy combatants."
Yeah Right Georgie. Get lost you poseur loser.

Calling a terrorist an "enemy combatant" is merely a tactic for shoving them into a category where they are not entitled to procedural safeguards, i.e., rights. Once a person is designated an "enemy combatant," they can be tortured, held for long periods without counsel, denied speedy trial rights, etc., as you well know.

So don't be so quick to defend this practice unless you want to be honest about the basis of your defense.

If I go to a downtown building, plant a bomb in it and set it off, I will be arrested and approriately charged. My case will proceed through the criminal justice system as would any other criminal case - and I will be afforded full constitutional protection while my case proceeds through the system.

When someone from the Middle East does the same thing, how is that any different? It isn't - except, when someone from the Middle East does it, in today's climate following 9/11, mass hysteria/lynch mob mentality immediately swings into effect, and all everyone wants to do is string the guy up without a trial.

There is no organized "enemy" when a terrorist strikes. He may be doing it for political reasons, and these reasons may even be shared by others of his religion or ethnic grouping. But religions or ethnic groupings or loosely organized terrorist cells are not an "enemy" in the sense contemplated by our laws and treaties which would change procedural safeguards for a true, enemy combatant in time of war.

So I repeat my "boneheaded" statement, which you so easily dismiss. Whether you like it or not, there is a considerable body of thought that agrees with my position here.

Sorry but terrorists ARE enemy combatants -the only thing that determines whether someone is an enemy combatant is whether they fight on behalf of a foreign entity or not. THAT'S IT -it doesn't get any more complicated than that. An enemy combatant may ALSO be a criminal guilty of individual crimes or war crimes but he does NOT have to be guilty of any crime AT ALL in order to be detained and kept as a prisoner of war until hostilities end. There is NO time restrictions on this -hostilities are over when they are over and no one is warring anymore.

If a US citizen had left that bomb in Times Square because he wanted to watch body parts fly through the air, he would be arrested for attempted murder and any relevant crimes that may apply to what he did. HOWEVER, if he as a US citizen did this same act on behalf of a foreign entity, he is eligible to charged with TREASON and crimes against humanity since targeting unarmed civilians while carrying out an act on behalf of a foreign entity is a war crime and not the same as attempted murder by some sociopath looking to get his jollies.

It never fails to amaze me when Americans do not even understand how their own system works as well as those who think the Geneva Conventions are intended to hamstring the more powerful nations during the course of an asymmetrical war. Crimes against society are NOT the same as those committed on behalf of a foreign entity. Intermingling them as if there are no differences benefits no one and certainly does NOT benefit this nation whatsoever. It does NOT have to be an established nation for which a person carries out such an act -it only has to be on behalf of a foreign ENTITY. That foreign entity does NOT have to first be well organized before it qualifies as a foreign entity whatsoever -no such requirement. Insisting we cannot recognize that foreign entity as an enemy waging an asymmetrical war against us until AFTER that foreign entity has gained even more strength and has become even better organized and has a better chain of command or something -is a boneheaded BULLSHIT demand for suicide.

The Geneva Conventions require that combatants, regardless for whom they battle -distinguish themselves from civilians for the express purpose of NOT putting the lives of civilians into even more danger. It DOES recognize there are times when those waging war are NOT doing so on behalf of a nation and times when they do NOT have an established military AND times when they may actually be a very small group that are self-directed -but it STILL demands that such combatants distinguish themselves from noncombatant civilians. That is one all combatants are expected to abide by even if fighting on behalf of an entity that never signed the Conventions. Failing to do so makes a combatant an ILLEGAL combatant. The fact such people deliberately seek to increase the danger to unarmed civilians, deliberately hide among them and so often target them for mass murder -only increases their illegal status and means many of them are also guilty of war crimes. Not ALL terrorists are guilty of war crimes but all terrorists are illegal combatants because they wage war in the name of that foreign entity -yet fail to distinguish themselves from noncombatant civilians.

There is no such thing as a right to not incriminate oneself in the US military -if a soldier is questioned about a possible crime he is REQUIRED to answer honestly and fully and they can and will be charged with a crime if they lie or refuse to do so. No soldier will receive a Miranda warning before being questioned because that right to not self-incriminate does not exist in the military. Entering the military means forfeiting some rights that exist for civilians that are not available to soldiers. If a General gave me an order to do something as a civilian -I can give him the finger and he can't do anything about it. If a soldier did that -he will end up serving time for insubordination as well as face the possibility of a dishonorable discharge, an increase in his term of service or a loss of rank and pay. In order for a military to effectively function, it means a reduction in the rights that soldier had as a civilian which have been turned over to the military instead -which will be fully reinstated to that individual upon his discharge from the military and return to civilian life. Soldiers do not enjoy civilian rights while serving in the military -which is why if charged with ANY crime, they are put on trial in a military court and NEVER in a civilian one. And we all certainly understand that military justice works just fine since NO ONE is demanding our soldiers be tried in our civilian courts! But apparently some people think what is good enough for OUR combatants is not good enough for the combatants they fight!

But that also means a combatant fighting on behalf of a foreign entity has NO greater rights than our own soldiers! The idea that an enemy combatant has greater rights than our OWN soldiers and combatants or those of any other soldiers anywhere else in the world is ridiculous and false. This CAN hold true even when that enemy combatant turns out to be a US civilian and since that person is waging war against our country on behalf of a foreign entity, such people CAN and have been tried by our military instead of a civilian court.

WAR is not a crime -only how someone may choose to wage that war can be a crime and when it may be a crime is spelled out. Combatants captured who are NOT guilty of war crimes or personal crimes -are merely prisoners of war. BUT the Geneva Conventions specify that all prisoners of war may be -and SHOULD BE - imprisoned until all hostilities end. The GC specifically encourages that warring parties NOT release POWs until all hostilities end and discourages prisoner exchanges since that tends to lengthen the war because such people are likely to return to battle. The ONLY purpose for charging someone with crimes after being captured as a POW is to they cannot be released even after hostilities end. It is NOT so they can be detained while hostilities are still ongoing because NO NATION ON EARTH is required to release POWs while hostilities still continue and the Geneva Conventions even specifically encourage nations NOT to do that!

There are SHARP distinctions made between a prisoner of war guilty of no crime at all and is someone who can be held until hostilities end but then MUST be released -and those prisoners of war who are also guilty of committing either PERSONAL crimes that were not in furtherance of war (like stealing or rape) and those who may be guilty of crimes committed in the furtherance of the war effort itself -like lining up the men and boys of a captured village and shooting them all. While all three examples can and should be held until all hostilities are over, the last two can be charged with crimes for the purpose of keeping them in prison even after hostilities end. Since even our military law makes a distinction between crimes of a personal nature and crimes against the nation or humanity -the penalties for each MUST reflect that magnitude of difference.

The Times Square bomber claims to have been trained by and acting on behalf of a foreign entity yet posed as a civilian and is therefore an illegal combatant. In addition, as an American citizen, he committed treason by waging war on his own nation and on behalf of that foreign entity. AND he is guilty of an attempted crime against humanity for a bomb that was intended to kill unarmed civilians. NONE of which is the legal equivalent of an armed robbery! And NO amount of shrill squealing by those who want to see it treated the same -can make it the legal equivalent.

 

[Intense]

HA! This coming from a DIPSHIT that makes a boneheaded statement such as the following:
Terrorists are criminals - not "enemy combatants."
Yeah Right Georgie. Get lost you poseur loser.

Calling a terrorist an "enemy combatant" is merely a tactic for shoving them into a category where they are not entitled to procedural safeguards, i.e., rights. Once a person is designated an "enemy combatant," they can be tortured, held for long periods without counsel, denied speedy trial rights, etc., as you well know.

So don't be so quick to defend this practice unless you want to be honest about the basis of your defense.

If I go to a downtown building, plant a bomb in it and set it off, I will be arrested and approriately charged. My case will proceed through the criminal justice system as would any other criminal case - and I will be afforded full constitutional protection while my case proceeds through the system.

When someone from the Middle East does the same thing, how is that any different? It isn't - except, when someone from the Middle East does it, in today's climate following 9/11, mass hysteria/lynch mob mentality immediately swings into effect, and all everyone wants to do is string the guy up without a trial.

There is no organized "enemy" when a terrorist strikes. He may be doing it for political reasons, and these reasons may even be shared by others of his religion or ethnic grouping. But religions or ethnic groupings or loosely organized terrorist cells are not an "enemy" in the sense contemplated by our laws and treaties which would change procedural safeguards for a true, enemy combatant in time of war.

So I repeat my "boneheaded" statement, which you so easily dismiss. Whether you like it or not, there is a considerable body of thought that agrees with my position here.

Sorry but terrorists ARE enemy combatants -the only thing that determines whether someone is an enemy combatant is whether they fight on behalf of a foreign entity or not. THAT'S IT -it doesn't get any more complicated than that. An enemy combatant may ALSO be a criminal guilty of individual crimes or war crimes but he does NOT have to be guilty of any crime AT ALL in order to be detained and kept as a prisoner of war until hostilities end. There is NO time restrictions on this -hostilities are over when they are over and no one is warring anymore.

If a US citizen had left that bomb in Times Square because he wanted to watch body parts fly through the air, he would be arrested for attempted murder and any relevant crimes that may apply to what he did. HOWEVER, if he as a US citizen did this same act on behalf of a foreign entity, he is eligible to charged with TREASON and crimes against humanity since targeting unarmed civilians while carrying out an act on behalf of a foreign entity is a war crime and not the same as attempted murder by some sociopath looking to get his jollies.

It never fails to amaze me when Americans do not even understand how their own system works as well as those who think the Geneva Conventions are intended to hamstring the more powerful nations during the course of an asymmetrical war. Crimes against society are NOT the same as those committed on behalf of a foreign entity. Intermingling them as if there are no differences benefits no one and certainly does NOT benefit this nation whatsoever. It does NOT have to be an established nation for which a person carries out such an act -it only has to be on behalf of a foreign ENTITY. That foreign entity does NOT have to first be well organized before it qualifies as a foreign entity whatsoever -no such requirement. Insisting we cannot recognize that foreign entity as an enemy waging an asymmetrical war against us until AFTER that foreign entity has gained even more strength and has become even better organized and has a better chain of command or something -is a boneheaded BULLSHIT demand for suicide.

The Geneva Conventions require that combatants, regardless for whom they battle -distinguish themselves from civilians for the express purpose of NOT putting the lives of civilians into even more danger. It DOES recognize there are times when those waging war are NOT doing so on behalf of a nation and times when they do NOT have an established military AND times when they may actually be a very small group that are self-directed -but it STILL demands that such combatants distinguish themselves from noncombatant civilians. That is one all combatants are expected to abide by even if fighting on behalf of an entity that never signed the Conventions. Failing to do so makes a combatant an ILLEGAL combatant. The fact such people deliberately seek to increase the danger to unarmed civilians, deliberately hide among them and so often target them for mass murder -only increases their illegal status and means many of them are also guilty of war crimes. Not ALL terrorists are guilty of war crimes but all terrorists are illegal combatants because they wage war in the name of that foreign entity -yet fail to distinguish themselves from noncombatant civilians.

There is no such thing as a right to not incriminate oneself in the US military -if a soldier is questioned about a possible crime he is REQUIRED to answer honestly and fully and they can and will be charged with a crime if they lie or refuse to do so. No soldier will receive a Miranda warning before being questioned because that right to not self-incriminate does not exist in the military. Entering the military means forfeiting some rights that exist for civilians that are not available to soldiers. If a General gave me an order to do something as a civilian -I can give him the finger and he can't do anything about it. If a soldier did that -he will end up serving time for insubordination as well as face the possibility of a dishonorable discharge, an increase in his term of service or a loss of rank and pay. In order for a military to effectively function, it means a reduction in the rights that soldier had as a civilian which have been turned over to the military instead -which will be fully reinstated to that individual upon his discharge from the military and return to civilian life. Soldiers do not enjoy civilian rights while serving in the military -which is why if charged with ANY crime, they are put on trial in a military court and NEVER in a civilian one. And we all certainly understand that military justice works just fine since NO ONE is demanding our soldiers be tried in our civilian courts! But apparently some people think what is good enough for OUR combatants is not good enough for the combatants they fight!

But that also means a combatant fighting on behalf of a foreign entity has NO greater rights than our own soldiers! The idea that an enemy combatant has greater rights than our OWN soldiers and combatants or those of any other soldiers anywhere else in the world is ridiculous and false. This CAN hold true even when that enemy combatant turns out to be a US civilian and since that person is waging war against our country on behalf of a foreign entity, such people CAN and have been tried by our military instead of a civilian court.

WAR is not a crime -only how someone may choose to wage that war can be a crime and when it may be a crime is spelled out. Combatants captured who are NOT guilty of war crimes or personal crimes -are merely prisoners of war. BUT the Geneva Conventions specify that all prisoners of war may be -and SHOULD BE - imprisoned until all hostilities end. The GC specifically encourages that warring parties NOT release POWs until all hostilities end and discourages prisoner exchanges since that tends to lengthen the war because such people are likely to return to battle. The ONLY purpose for charging someone with crimes after being captured as a POW is to they cannot be released even after hostilities end. It is NOT so they can be detained while hostilities are still ongoing because NO NATION ON EARTH is required to release POWs while hostilities still continue and the Geneva Conventions even specifically encourage nations NOT to do that!

There are SHARP distinctions made between a prisoner of war guilty of no crime at all and is someone who can be held until hostilities end but then MUST be released -and those prisoners of war who are also guilty of committing either PERSONAL crimes that were not in furtherance of war (like stealing or rape) and those who may be guilty of crimes committed in the furtherance of the war effort itself -like lining up the men and boys of a captured village and shooting them all. While all three examples can and should be held until all hostilities are over, the last two can be charged with crimes for the purpose of keeping them in prison even after hostilities end. Since even our military law makes a distinction between crimes of a personal nature and crimes against the nation or humanity -the penalties for each MUST reflect that magnitude of difference.

The Times Square bomber claims to have been trained by and acting on behalf of a foreign entity yet posed as a civilian and is therefore an illegal combatant. In addition, as an American citizen, he committed treason by waging war on his own nation and on behalf of that foreign entity. AND he is guilty of an attempted crime against humanity for a bomb that was intended to kill unarmed civilians. NONE of which is the legal equivalent of an armed robbery! And NO amount of shrill squealing by those who want to see it treated the same -can make it the legal equivalent.

We have three categories. Criminal. Legal Enemy Combatant. Illegal Enemy Combatant. Illegal Enemy Combatants have the least amount of protections.

 

[frazzledgear]

Calling a terrorist an "enemy combatant" is merely a tactic for shoving them into a category where they are not entitled to procedural safeguards, i.e., rights. Once a person is designated an "enemy combatant," they can be tortured, held for long periods without counsel, denied speedy trial rights, etc., as you well know.

So don't be so quick to defend this practice unless you want to be honest about the basis of your defense.

If I go to a downtown building, plant a bomb in it and set it off, I will be arrested and approriately charged. My case will proceed through the criminal justice system as would any other criminal case - and I will be afforded full constitutional protection while my case proceeds through the system.

When someone from the Middle East does the same thing, how is that any different? It isn't - except, when someone from the Middle East does it, in today's climate following 9/11, mass hysteria/lynch mob mentality immediately swings into effect, and all everyone wants to do is string the guy up without a trial.

There is no organized "enemy" when a terrorist strikes. He may be doing it for political reasons, and these reasons may even be shared by others of his religion or ethnic grouping. But religions or ethnic groupings or loosely organized terrorist cells are not an "enemy" in the sense contemplated by our laws and treaties which would change procedural safeguards for a true, enemy combatant in time of war.

So I repeat my "boneheaded" statement, which you so easily dismiss. Whether you like it or not, there is a considerable body of thought that agrees with my position here.

Sorry but terrorists ARE enemy combatants -the only thing that determines whether someone is an enemy combatant is whether they fight on behalf of a foreign entity or not. THAT'S IT -it doesn't get any more complicated than that. An enemy combatant may ALSO be a criminal guilty of individual crimes or war crimes but he does NOT have to be guilty of any crime AT ALL in order to be detained and kept as a prisoner of war until hostilities end. There is NO time restrictions on this -hostilities are over when they are over and no one is warring anymore.

If a US citizen had left that bomb in Times Square because he wanted to watch body parts fly through the air, he would be arrested for attempted murder and any relevant crimes that may apply to what he did. HOWEVER, if he as a US citizen did this same act on behalf of a foreign entity, he is eligible to charged with TREASON and crimes against humanity since targeting unarmed civilians while carrying out an act on behalf of a foreign entity is a war crime and not the same as attempted murder by some sociopath looking to get his jollies.

It never fails to amaze me when Americans do not even understand how their own system works as well as those who think the Geneva Conventions are intended to hamstring the more powerful nations during the course of an asymmetrical war. Crimes against society are NOT the same as those committed on behalf of a foreign entity. Intermingling them as if there are no differences benefits no one and certainly does NOT benefit this nation whatsoever. It does NOT have to be an established nation for which a person carries out such an act -it only has to be on behalf of a foreign ENTITY. That foreign entity does NOT have to first be well organized before it qualifies as a foreign entity whatsoever -no such requirement. Insisting we cannot recognize that foreign entity as an enemy waging an asymmetrical war against us until AFTER that foreign entity has gained even more strength and has become even better organized and has a better chain of command or something -is a boneheaded BULLSHIT demand for suicide.

The Geneva Conventions require that combatants, regardless for whom they battle -distinguish themselves from civilians for the express purpose of NOT putting the lives of civilians into even more danger. It DOES recognize there are times when those waging war are NOT doing so on behalf of a nation and times when they do NOT have an established military AND times when they may actually be a very small group that are self-directed -but it STILL demands that such combatants distinguish themselves from noncombatant civilians. That is one all combatants are expected to abide by even if fighting on behalf of an entity that never signed the Conventions. Failing to do so makes a combatant an ILLEGAL combatant. The fact such people deliberately seek to increase the danger to unarmed civilians, deliberately hide among them and so often target them for mass murder -only increases their illegal status and means many of them are also guilty of war crimes. Not ALL terrorists are guilty of war crimes but all terrorists are illegal combatants because they wage war in the name of that foreign entity -yet fail to distinguish themselves from noncombatant civilians.

There is no such thing as a right to not incriminate oneself in the US military -if a soldier is questioned about a possible crime he is REQUIRED to answer honestly and fully and they can and will be charged with a crime if they lie or refuse to do so. No soldier will receive a Miranda warning before being questioned because that right to not self-incriminate does not exist in the military. Entering the military means forfeiting some rights that exist for civilians that are not available to soldiers. If a General gave me an order to do something as a civilian -I can give him the finger and he can't do anything about it. If a soldier did that -he will end up serving time for insubordination as well as face the possibility of a dishonorable discharge, an increase in his term of service or a loss of rank and pay. In order for a military to effectively function, it means a reduction in the rights that soldier had as a civilian which have been turned over to the military instead -which will be fully reinstated to that individual upon his discharge from the military and return to civilian life. Soldiers do not enjoy civilian rights while serving in the military -which is why if charged with ANY crime, they are put on trial in a military court and NEVER in a civilian one. And we all certainly understand that military justice works just fine since NO ONE is demanding our soldiers be tried in our civilian courts! But apparently some people think what is good enough for OUR combatants is not good enough for the combatants they fight!

But that also means a combatant fighting on behalf of a foreign entity has NO greater rights than our own soldiers! The idea that an enemy combatant has greater rights than our OWN soldiers and combatants or those of any other soldiers anywhere else in the world is ridiculous and false. This CAN hold true even when that enemy combatant turns out to be a US civilian and since that person is waging war against our country on behalf of a foreign entity, such people CAN and have been tried by our military instead of a civilian court.

WAR is not a crime -only how someone may choose to wage that war can be a crime and when it may be a crime is spelled out. Combatants captured who are NOT guilty of war crimes or personal crimes -are merely prisoners of war. BUT the Geneva Conventions specify that all prisoners of war may be -and SHOULD BE - imprisoned until all hostilities end. The GC specifically encourages that warring parties NOT release POWs until all hostilities end and discourages prisoner exchanges since that tends to lengthen the war because such people are likely to return to battle. The ONLY purpose for charging someone with crimes after being captured as a POW is to they cannot be released even after hostilities end. It is NOT so they can be detained while hostilities are still ongoing because NO NATION ON EARTH is required to release POWs while hostilities still continue and the Geneva Conventions even specifically encourage nations NOT to do that!

There are SHARP distinctions made between a prisoner of war guilty of no crime at all and is someone who can be held until hostilities end but then MUST be released -and those prisoners of war who are also guilty of committing either PERSONAL crimes that were not in furtherance of war (like stealing or rape) and those who may be guilty of crimes committed in the furtherance of the war effort itself -like lining up the men and boys of a captured village and shooting them all. While all three examples can and should be held until all hostilities are over, the last two can be charged with crimes for the purpose of keeping them in prison even after hostilities end. Since even our military law makes a distinction between crimes of a personal nature and crimes against the nation or humanity -the penalties for each MUST reflect that magnitude of difference.

The Times Square bomber claims to have been trained by and acting on behalf of a foreign entity yet posed as a civilian and is therefore an illegal combatant. In addition, as an American citizen, he committed treason by waging war on his own nation and on behalf of that foreign entity. AND he is guilty of an attempted crime against humanity for a bomb that was intended to kill unarmed civilians. NONE of which is the legal equivalent of an armed robbery! And NO amount of shrill squealing by those who want to see it treated the same -can make it the legal equivalent.

We have three categories. Criminal. Legal Enemy Combatant. Illegal Enemy Combatant. Illegal Enemy Combatants have the least amount of protections.

You certainly managed to use a lot fewer words than I did! I would only emphasize that ONLY those who fall in the last two categories can also be guilty of personal crimes -such as theft and smuggling - and/or guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity such as genocide. A distinct difference from someone who commits your everyday crimes such as pickpocket, armed robbery or murder-for-greed criminal who commits crimes against society. So those who insist captured terrorists should be read their Miranda rights and tried in a civilian court are not only saying that our enemy has greater rights than our own soldiers who fight them -but are insisting on the very venue that should hear them is the very one that would most "cleanse" the true magnitude of their acts and reduce them to the same level as the actions of a pickpocket -with the same judge hearing their case that would hear the case of the pickpocket! And people need to wrap their minds around this one because insisting such cases belong in our civilian courts means assigning a judge to hear such cases as would be assigned to hear the case of pickpocket as well. A criminal judge is NOT restricted from sitting on cases of ANY kind of criminal charges -but judges assigned to criminal courts are NEVER required to have ANY experience or knowledge of international law, the Geneva Conventions, military law, crimes against humanity, war crimes or the internationally accepted rules of war expertise or knowledge whatsoever.

So who do you REALLY want hearing these cases? A judge who is required to know these things or a judge who is NOT?

The distinctions between the original three categories you named kick in FIRST -then any additional charges kick in. Except liberals keep trying to change the rules -but ONLY for the US of course -by pretending terrorism on behalf of a foreign entity is actually nothing more serious than sticking up a gas station. Being an illegal enemy combatant accused of crimes against humanity should be tried in a military court and facing the death penalty while liberals want that to be considered on the same level as pickpocketing and tried by the same judge who would hear that kind of case.