It's NOT a criminal matter!!

[Navy1960]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u_JfxokkPc&feature=channel]YouTube - Mike Rogers leading the arguement to stop giving Miranda rights to terrorists[/ame]

I could not have said this any better myself, Mr. Roger's makes a clear point about the difference between treating someone on the battlefield the same way you would treat a DUI suspect here.

 

[Nik]

YouTube - Mike Rogers leading the arguement to stop giving Miranda rights to terrorists

I could not have said this any better myself, Mr. Roger's makes a clear point about the difference between treating someone on the battlefield the same way you would treat a DUI suspect here.

It is when you try to convict them in criminal court.

 

[Navy1960]

YouTube - Mike Rogers leading the arguement to stop giving Miranda rights to terrorists

I could not have said this any better myself, Mr. Roger's makes a clear point about the difference between treating someone on the battlefield the same way you would treat a DUI suspect here.

It is when you try to convict them in criminal court.

True enough Nik, but I was looking at it from the military perspective, in that if you capture a combatant on the battlefield they are generally thoought of as being engaged in combat against you in some form or another. I fail to see how in that sense those combatants are engaged in a criminal activity that applies to American civilian law when they are doing so on foreign soil.

 

[Shogun]

I'm sure there was similar fury at the idea of the magna carta too.

 

[Nik]

YouTube - Mike Rogers leading the arguement to stop giving Miranda rights to terrorists

I could not have said this any better myself, Mr. Roger's makes a clear point about the difference between treating someone on the battlefield the same way you would treat a DUI suspect here.

It is when you try to convict them in criminal court.

True enough Nik, but I was looking at it from the military perspective, in that if you capture a combatant on the battlefield they are generally thoought of as being engaged in combat against you in some form or another. I fail to see how in that sense those combatants are engaged in a criminal activity that applies to American civilian law when they are doing so on foreign soil.

Lots of so-called terrorists aren't picked up "on the battlefield".

 

[Shogun]

It is when you try to convict them in criminal court.

True enough Nik, but I was looking at it from the military perspective, in that if you capture a combatant on the battlefield they are generally thoought of as being engaged in combat against you in some form or another. I fail to see how in that sense those combatants are engaged in a criminal activity that applies to American civilian law when they are doing so on foreign soil.

Lots of so-called terrorists aren't picked up "on the battlefield".

Further, if any culture wants to prosecute ANYONE by creating a class who do not qualify for their standard minimum legal rights then it's only a matter of time before that same precedent is used on more than just those we label trrrrrrrrrrists. These people are looking for legal death camps.

 

[pinqy]

Picking just one state,
Code of Virginia:

§ 18.2-46.5. Committing, conspiring and aiding and abetting acts of terrorism prohibited; penalty.

A. Any person who commits or conspires to commit, or aids and abets the commission of an act of terrorism, as defined in § 18.2-46.4, is guilty of a Class 2 felony if the base offense of such act of terrorism may be punished by life imprisonment, or a term of imprisonment of not less than twenty years.

B. Any person who commits, conspires to commit, or aids and abets the commission of an act of terrorism, as defined in § 18.2-46.4, is guilty of a Class 3 felony if the maximum penalty for the base offense of such act of terrorism is a term of imprisonment or incarceration in jail of less than twenty years.

C. Any person who solicits, invites, recruits, encourages, or otherwise causes or attempts to cause another to participate in an act or acts of terrorism, as defined in § 18.2-46.4, is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

So, in Virginia, for one, it is indeed a criminal matter.

Different rules do apply on the battlefield, and an act committed on US soil by a state we are at war with might not be considered terrorism, but otherwise, it's a criminal act.

Additionally, treating terrorist acts as criminal acts seems to have helped the UK against the IRA by denying them POW status and denying them any legitimacy in their campaign.

A terrorist act is either or criminal act, or an act of war to be judged under the laws of war. Domestically, I think it's actually easier and more efficient to deal with it as a criminal act, denying any protections due to enemy combatants. Overseas, when we're dealing with force protection, it's a different story, but here? Do we really want a loophole where an act can just be labeled "terrorist" so that the alleged perpetrator has no rights regardless of actual guilt or actual terrorism? I don't want to give the government that kind of power...history has seen it abused too many times.

 

[Navy1960]

It is when you try to convict them in criminal court.

True enough Nik, but I was looking at it from the military perspective, in that if you capture a combatant on the battlefield they are generally thoought of as being engaged in combat against you in some form or another. I fail to see how in that sense those combatants are engaged in a criminal activity that applies to American civilian law when they are doing so on foreign soil.

Lots of so-called terrorists aren't picked up "on the battlefield".

Well then Nik, I think it's perfectly okay to make a distinction between those engaged in combat against the United States and those that are not. For example, if a person is picked up in his home suspected of making IED's , is that person by definition engaged in combat even though he is not directly engaged. The answer is yes. The problem is that these individuals that are taken prisoner regardless of where they are taken by US Military forces have been allowed to languish in limbo, when there is a clear process within the framework of the UCMJ to provide these people with some form of proceeding. In fact most of the people that have been held in detention for so long would most likely be gone by now had they been tried in the frist place. By gone, I mean back to their countries of origin. The US Military are not civlian authorities and as such when enganged in operations in other nations US civilian law does NOT apply, the UCMJ applies. and the Geneva Conventionof which the US is a party.

 

[Navy1960]

Picking just one state,
Code of Virginia:

§ 18.2-46.5. Committing, conspiring and aiding and abetting acts of terrorism prohibited; penalty.

A. Any person who commits or conspires to commit, or aids and abets the commission of an act of terrorism, as defined in § 18.2-46.4, is guilty of a Class 2 felony if the base offense of such act of terrorism may be punished by life imprisonment, or a term of imprisonment of not less than twenty years.

B. Any person who commits, conspires to commit, or aids and abets the commission of an act of terrorism, as defined in § 18.2-46.4, is guilty of a Class 3 felony if the maximum penalty for the base offense of such act of terrorism is a term of imprisonment or incarceration in jail of less than twenty years.

C. Any person who solicits, invites, recruits, encourages, or otherwise causes or attempts to cause another to participate in an act or acts of terrorism, as defined in § 18.2-46.4, is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

So, in Virginia, for one, it is indeed a criminal matter.

Different rules do apply on the battlefield, and an act committed on US soil by a state we are at war with might not be considered terrorism, but otherwise, it's a criminal act.

Additionally, treating terrorist acts as criminal acts seems to have helped the UK against the IRA by denying them POW status and denying them any legitimacy in their campaign.

A terrorist act is either or criminal act, or an act of war to be judged under the laws of war. Domestically, I think it's actually easier and more efficient to deal with it as a criminal act, denying any protections due to enemy combatants. Overseas, when we're dealing with force protection, it's a different story, but here? Do we really want a loophole where an act can just be labeled "terrorist" so that the alleged perpetrator has no rights regardless of actual guilt or actual terrorism? I don't want to give the government that kind of power...history has seen it abused too many times.

It is a criminal matter in the State of Va. you understand the difference? In addition the state of Va. would have to seek extradtition for any person that violates that law within the borders of that state. There is no loophole, simply put these individuals that are picked up as a reult of combat operations worldwide are subject to the UCMJ. This nation rarely affords those rights to individuals picked up as a result of comabt operations overseas and has not dont so throughout it's history. In fact take Vietnam for example, the US Military picked up countless numbers of V/C for engaging operations against US Military forces however, you would be hard pressed to find few of any cases where they were brought back to the US and tried in a Federal Court for it. While it's not good nor was it every good poilcy for the Military or the pervious Administration to allow these people to languish in limbo for so long it's an even worse policy to set the US Military into the position where is a policing body rather than it's primary mission of defense and force projection.