DOJ: No Miranda rights

[IlarMeilyr]

Doesn't matter. A federal magistrate (note the word, Yurt the ButtHurt) gave the accused his warning today.

Unsubscribe.

And that's the first time in history the ******* idiot ever HEARD "you have the right to remain silent?"

Damn.

That poor ******* Chechnyan scumbag never saw any American television, perhaps.

 

[AmyNation]

US law prohibits US citizens from being tried in military commissions, and I'm not even sure it's constitutional to label an American who committed a crime against other Americans on American soil as an enemy combatant. If it was attempted, most likely it would end up in front of the Supreme Court.

US law does no such thing.

Yes, it does.

 

[Yurt]

Doesn't matter. A federal magistrate (note the word, Yurt the ButtHurt) gave the accused his warning today.

Unsubscribe.

so what jakeyfakey? did i say he should never be given the warning?

no

you're full of meadowmuffins as usual. poor jake. failing all over the board.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

US law prohibits US citizens from being tried in military commissions, and I'm not even sure it's constitutional to label an American who committed a crime against other Americans on American soil as an enemy combatant. If it was attempted, most likely it would end up in front of the Supreme Court.

US law does no such thing.

Yes, it does.

Not really.

You previously cited (correctly) the MCA, as amended in 2009. THAT one is absolutely limited (as you contend) to Aliens.

But that does not mean that any law has ever denied that the President can (consistent with precedent) craft a military commission for U.S. citizens, too.

If you believe that some law has specifically denied the President the ability to do so, please cite it.

 

[Yurt]

US law prohibits US citizens from being tried in military commissions, and I'm not even sure it's constitutional to label an American who committed a crime against other Americans on American soil as an enemy combatant. If it was attempted, most likely it would end up in front of the Supreme Court.

US law does no such thing.

Yes, it does.

what about jose padilla?

see also:

The Supreme Court in 2004 issued three decisions related to the detention of
“enemy combatants,” including two that deal with U.S. citizens in military custody
on American soil. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a plurality held that a U.S. citizen allegedly
captured during combat in Afghanistan and incarcerated at a Navy brig in South
Carolina is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard by a neutral decisionmaker regarding the government’s reasons for detaining him. The Court in Rumsfeld
v. Padilla overturned a lower court’s grant of habeas corpus to another U.S. citizen
in military custody in South Carolina on jurisdictional grounds. The decisions affirm
the President’s powers to detain “enemy combatants,”including those who are U.S.
citizens, as part of the necessary force authorized by Congress after the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. However the Court appears to have limited the scope
of individuals who may be treated as enemy combatants pursuant to that authority,
and clarified that such detainees have some due process rights under the U.S.
Constitution. This report, which will be updated as necessary, analyzes the authority
to detain American citizens who are suspected of being members, agents, or
associates of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and possibly other terrorist organizations as
“enemy combatants.”

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31724.pdf

In March 2009, the Obama Administration announced a new definitional standard for the
government’s authority to detain terrorist suspects, which does not use the phrase “enemy
combatant” to refer to persons who may be properly detained. The new standard is similar in
scope to the “enemy combatant” standard used by the Bush Administration to detain terrorist
suspects. The standard would permit the detention of members of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and
associated forces, along with persons who provide “substantial support” to such groups,
regardless of whether such persons were captured away from the battlefield in Afghanistan.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33180.pdf

 

[Yurt]

an excellent read on the issue:

A plurality of the Supreme Court held in 2004 in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,
164 that the President has the
authority to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants pursuant to the AUMF,165 but that the

determination of combatant status is subject to constitutional due process considerations. The
Hamdi plurality was limited to an understanding that the phrase “enemy combatant” means an
“individual who ... was ‘part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition
partners’ in Afghanistan and who ‘engaged in an armed conflict against the United States’
there,”166 but left it to lower courts to flesh out a more precise definition. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that the definition continued to apply to a U.S. citizen who
returned to the United States from Afghanistan and was arrested at the airport.167 More recently,
the Fourth Circuit appeared to have expanded the definition of “enemy combatant” to individuals
arrested in the United States on suspicion of planning to participate in terrorist acts without
necessarily having engaged in hostilities in Afghanistan, but this ruling was part of a judgment
that was thereafter vacated by the Supreme Court. (See discussion of Al-Marri, supra.)
In theory, the executive branch could detain a citizen as an enemy belligerent and argue that the
definition of “unprivileged enemy belligerent” provided in the 2009 MCA, which does not
explicitly limit its definitional scope to aliens, bolsters the detention authority already possessed
by virtue of the AUMF. Constitutional due process would apply, and the citizen could petition for
habeas corpus to challenge his detention. However, under the 2006 MCA the citizen-combatant
would not be able to assert rights based on the Geneva Convention in support of his contention
that he is not an enemy belligerent. In that sense, U.S. citizens could be affected by the 2006 and
2009 MCAs even though they do not directly apply to U.S. citizens.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33180.pdf

 

[IlarMeilyr]

A military commission might be invalid if it purports to deny an enemy combatant U.S. citizen detainee with some Constitutional rights. Like, for example, such a citizen enemy combatant detainee should have a right to habeas corpus and a right to appellate review of any Military Commission determination.

But if those defects are properly addressed, even if the MCA of 2009 does not authorize the President to create one for a U.S. citizen, that does not mean that the President could not do so anyway.

There is a bit of a disconnect here, however. For as I noted with AmyNation, it's not like President Obama would ever agree to creating such a Military Commission, anyway.

 

[Flopper]

CBS reported that during the carjacking, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev asked the driver if he had heard about the bombing. They he said, "We did it".

There is so much evidence, I don't think a prosecutor will need any of his statement to police to convict him.

 

[hortysir]

CBS reported that during the carjacking, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev asked the driver if he had heard about the bombing. They he said, "We did it".

There is so much evidence, I don't think a prosecutor will need any of his statement to police to convict him.

And, reportedly, didn't kill him because he wasn't American