Miranda Rights for Terrorists?

[ChrisBaleBatman]

None.

You take arms against our troops, you don't get much compassion.

If a man steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, is he not still a thief in our justice system?

If a man kills someone else because he fears for his family, is he not still a criminal in our justice system?

I thought our justice system didn't play into this?

I think the issues of forced soldiers is something to think about, to consider when wanting to end the war. Can't do anything about the ones fighting right now, they've crossed the line. But it's something to think about in preventing future small conflicts from occurring, atleast in less frequency.

 

[StorminNorman]

Why not America too? A terrorist is a terrorist, no?

Because criminals apprehended within American borders are treated differently than those found on a war zone.

That sounds badass.

But.

Doesn't sound practical in the least. But you get points for sounding cool.

In what way doesn't it sound practical. In fact i think assuming innocence in the middle of the war is the one that lacks practicality.

They might as well, they already should be doing it since they don't get trials. What's the point in bringing them in if they're not going to trial??

To get information. To do all the sort of things that we do with POW's (even though, again, they don't have all those same rights).

Anyone but me, huh?

That's ******** and you know it, man.

Gitmo serves a legal limbo. I made the comparison to the Phantom Zone because people are tossed into that in a supposedly humane way to not kill them, just allow them to live in "limbo".

Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities in making the comparison.

Many people are guilty of the same incorrect comparison.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Because criminals apprehended within American borders are treated differently than those found on a war zone.

So this is just for terrorists outside of U.S.?

What about some terrorist found here after a bombing born in another country?

In what way doesn't it sound practical. In fact i think assuming innocence in the middle of the war is the one that lacks practicality

But your just assuming that everyone we grab is holding a gun and a pair of explosives. I doubt EVERYONE we grab is packing heat or are they packing?

To get information. To do all the sort of things that we do with POW's (even though, again, they don't have all those same rights).

And then when we're done with them? If we can't try them...what do we do? Hand them over to they're country or trial?

Many people are guilty of the same incorrect comparison.

Legal Limbo fits.

 

[The Overlord]

You can be a prisoner of a war, without being a Prisoner of War.

Just like you can be a president without being the President.

Shouldn't an impressed farmer be treated like a POW?

Isn't terrorism a choice, if someone chooses to use violence to achieve a political end, isn't that what makes them a terrorist?

 

[bell110]

If our troops were treated the same way they would be at Gitmo, it would be a substantial upgrade.

Should our troops get compassion? Yes, they should. If we were fighting a recognized army, they may get it. But that's not what the war they are fighting is. If our troops get caught, they won't get any compassion. How Americans treat terrorist won't impact that either.

So because they have no compassion, we should also show them none?

Maybe it won't have an impact on what the terrorist do, but it might have an impact on the innocent civilians that just want us out of there.

 

[bullets]

So because they have no compassion, we should also show them none?

Maybe it won't have an impact on what the terrorist do, but it might have an impact on the innocent civilians that just want us out of there.

I don't see anything we do that compares to beheading someone.

 

[bell110]

I don't see anything we do that compares to beheading someone.

This is what I don't like about this arguement. It's not about whether or not what we do is as bad as what they do, it's that we should not engage in "evil" behavior at all.

Meh... it's a pointless debate. All I'm going to hear are the same justifications I've been hearing for years.

 

[bullets]

This is what I don't like about this arguement. It's not about whether or not what we do is as bad as what they do, it's that we should not engage in "evil" behavior at all.

Meh... it's a pointless debate. All I'm going to hear are the same justifications I've been hearing for years.

Where do we draw the line in "evil". Why should a terrorist be afraid of capture when it might give them the impression they'll get free meals and be taken care of.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I think we have to do things from our moral high ground like America should. We're the leaders of the world, we should lead by example.

I think that trying to justify anything that's against our ideals by saying tit's not as bad as terrorist and that gives us the moral ground to do anything to them is wrong.

Because once you get that edge, it's pretty easy to slide down the slope I think.

 

[bullets]

We use methods that keep the person alive and don't leave them with injury. I think we have done a good job so far. Sompe people might take it too far , it happens. Punishing the people that went overboard should be enough.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

You and I are, overall, in agreement.

 

[StorminNorman]

So this is just for terrorists outside of U.S.?

Yes.

What about some terrorist found here after a bombing born in another country?

I believe they would still fall under the jurisdiction of the federal court system.

But your just assuming that everyone we grab is holding a gun and a pair of explosives. I doubt EVERYONE we grab is packing heat or are they packing?

If you are surrounded by a group of terrorists, then you don't need to be packing heat. Basically, when it comes down to it, I am not going to doubt the decisions made by soldiers and officers on the ground from behind my computer scheme.

And then when we're done with them? If we can't try them...what do we do? Hand them over to they're country or trial?

We hold them, we use military tribunals to try to locate and release those that don't belong. Those that remain, we hold them until we no longer believe them to be threats against this country.

Legal Limbo fits.

People in the phantom zone never get out, people are released from Gitmo all the time.

Shouldn't an impressed farmer be treated like a POW?

No. Because he still does not meet the description of a POW.

Here is a definition of a POW: "One who has been captured while fighting under the banner of some state. He is a prisoner, although never confined in a prison." Your hypothetical farmer does not meet that definition.

So because they have no compassion, we should also show them none?

Who says we lack all compassion? The fact that we acknowledge the fact it's a tragedy when innocent people are confused for terrorist demonstrates compassion.

This is what I don't like about this arguement. It's not about whether or not what we do is as bad as what they do, it's that we should not engage in "evil" behavior at all.

Is war "evil" behavior? Is a bomb, intended to kill terrorist, that kills an innocent person not evil? Is evil not all about intent, more than the act itself?

I think we have to do things from our moral high ground like America should. We're the leaders of the world, we should lead by example.

If the world followed America's example, the world would be a better place now.

I think that trying to justify anything that's against our ideals by saying tit's not as bad as terrorist and that gives us the moral ground to do anything to them is wrong.

Who has said anything about having the luxury of doing "anything we want" to them?

Because once you get that edge, it's pretty easy to slide down the slope I think.

Do you think WWII was fought morally?

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yes.

Okay.

I believe they would still fall under the jurisdiction of the federal court system.

If you are surrounded by a group of terrorists, then you don't need to be packing heat. Basically, when it comes down to it, I am not going to doubt the decisions made by soldiers and officers on the ground from behind my computer scheme.

But that's the thing, soldiers are in the thick of things. I understand that we need to keep them safe, and I agree.

But I think we need to be aware of human error. There's nothing that says that all soldiers, even America soldiers, are given inherent high morals when they put on the uniform. I think it's about protecting our soliders in the long run, by them not being seen as snatchers or anything.

I just don't want to give anyone reasons to hate us and further build up the oppositions army, man.

We hold them, we use military tribunals to try to locate and release those that don't belong. Those that remain, we hold them until we no longer believe them to be threats against this country.

That last part is iffy, but I like the rest.

People in the phantom zone never get out, people are released from Gitmo all the time.

Well, even Zod got out...

But I bet seven or eight years would feel like forever to most.

I was referring to the legal limbo, where since they're not POW's...but not criminals in prison, they're really in the Phatom Zone of law. Just...haning there.

It the future, the "what do we do with them now?" that's really the debate now. But, still...most of them are still just hanging around. Waiting for **** to happen.

Who has said anything about having the luxury of doing "anything we want" to them?

Well, detaining people without charging them is a start, isn't it?

Do you think WWII was fought morally?

Yeah.

But, that doesn't have anything to do with thinking it's okay to do certain things because the enemy does worse.

 

[Superman]

They aren't POW's in legal terms, they are un-lawful enemy combatants. As such they are meant to be treated differently than POW's, but not superior to POW's. Conservatives bring up the POW card when people suggest treating terrorists with more legal rights than afforded to uniformed, state fighters - true POW's.

I'm not saying they are a little bit of a Prisoner of War. I'm saying they are in the context of the word. What else would you call them? If it makes you feel any better when we capture our enemies they become what? A prisoner. What are we fighting? A war. So, in the sense of the term they are prisoners of war based on the word. Do they, terrorists, fall under the same category as a Russian, German, French, British, etc. soldier? NO.

Therefore, I don't think they should be treated with respect. Like I said earlier, unless I'm mistaken, after a war, that is when trials begin. Why should this be any different if not absolutely non-existent after this war?

You two can't have it both ways. Either they are POWs with all the rights that goes with being a POW or they are not. You can't call them POWs just when it suits your needs and then turn around and say "But they don't get the same rights as POWs."

Sorry but it doesn't work that way.

 

[The Overlord]

No. Because he still does not meet the description of a POW.

Here is a definition of a POW: "One who has been captured while fighting under the banner of some state. He is a prisoner, although never confined in a prison." Your hypothetical farmer does not meet that definition.

But is he a terrorist, if he didn't choose to be a terrorist?

Also it seems odd to me that you don't trust to the government to run an education program, but on these matters you are willing to give them a blank check. That seems contradictory.

 

[StorminNorman]

You two can't have it both ways. Either they are POWs with all the rights that goes with being a POW or they are not. You can't call them POWs just when it suits your needs and then turn around and say "But they don't get the same rights as POWs."

Sorry but it doesn't work that way.

Actually...you can. It's called an "enemy combatant" or "unlawful combatant".

But is he a terrorist, if he didn't choose to be a terrorist?

The real question is how do you tell the difference? If claiming to be coerced is enough to get us to drop the label of "terrorist", we are going to find out that we have ended up capturing a lot of farmers who were "forced" to pick up a gun.

Also it seems odd to me that you don't trust to the government to run an education program, but on these matters you are willing to give them a blank check. That seems contradictory.

Because its a different branch of the government. Those involved with National Security tend not to be politicians. They are soldiers, agents and experts who are asked to prove their loyalty to America and her people on a daily basis.

On the other hand, educational programs are developed by politicians, influenced by self serving lobbyist.

If the same people that have orchestrated our educational system were in charge of our national defense, there wouldn't be an America. Our National Security Agency is one of the most powerful, most respected, most envied in the world - our public school system? Not so much.

Given the difference in their successes, why should I treat them equal?

 

[bell110]

Where do we draw the line in "evil". Why should a terrorist be afraid of capture when it might give them the impression they'll get free meals and be taken care of.

Evil is a subjective term, that's why I put it in quotation marks, so we can't draw the line in "evil". Words like "evil" and "terrorist" are starting to lose all meaning to me because they are used as terms of convenience and to incite an emotional reaction. When you label a person as "evil" or "terrorist" it's easier to make people not care about them, as opposed to if you call them, say, "freedom fighters".

And I don't think they are afraid of being capture because of how we treat them as much as not wanting to be captured because the can no longer fight for their cause.

Who says we lack all compassion? The fact that we acknowledge the fact it's a tragedy when innocent people are confused for terrorist demonstrates compassion.

Is war "evil" behavior? Is a bomb, intended to kill terrorist, that kills an innocent person not evil? Is evil not all about intent, more than the act itself?

We don't lack all compassion, but you said when you takes up arms against our troops you don't get much compassion. It makes it seem like you are putting our troops on a higher level then the people fighting against them. And acknowledging that it's a tragedy when innocent people die really doesn't mean much when you shrug it off as collateral damage. And it's really telling when you suggested that troops would rather execute people rather then give them miranda rights.

Is war evil behavior? Not always, in my mind, but the Iraq war is DEFINITELY evil on our part. And as a philosophical/moral question, are the tens of thousands of innocent people killed in Iraq jusifiable to theoretically save a few thousand Americans? And think about that objectively, not just as an American. And no, evil is not just about intent.

 

[StorminNorman]

We don't lack all compassion, but you said when you takes up arms against our troops you don't get much compassion. It makes it seem like you are putting our troops on a higher level then the people fighting against them.

Oh don't get me wrong at all. I absolutely put our troops on a higher level than the people fighting against them.

And acknowledging that it's a tragedy when innocent people die really doesn't mean much when you shrug it off as collateral damage.

Explain to me how morning every death as a loss of American ethics benefits anyone? You HAVE to dehumanize yourself from the conflict to analyze it logically. You have to remove emotion. If we couldn't simply accept that collateral damage happens, we become impotent in our ability to defend ourself.

Our enemies don't share our compassion in the slightest. While idealists would argue that this compassion is what makes us different from them, I disagree - I think what separates us from them is the love of freedom, the respect of other ideas, etc. While our compassion is important, it is a key to why we are better than they are - we cannot allow it to become a weakness in battle.

We are not facing a debate about ideals and philosophy and religion - we are having a war regarding annihilation. There is no such thing as "moral victory" - there is victory, and the protection of the free world with it, or defeat, and the destruction of the free world with it.

And it's really telling when you suggested that troops would rather execute people rather then give them miranda rights.

Yes, let's delude ourselves otherwise. That's really useful.

Making decisions based on "in a perfect world" doesn't make you more moral than I do, or a better person than I do. It makes your decisions based on fallacy. I try to base my beliefs, not on delusion, but reality. The cold, hard, bitter reality.

Is war evil behavior? Not always, in my mind, but the Iraq war is DEFINITELY evil on our part. And as a philosophical/moral question, are the tens of thousands of innocent people killed in Iraq jusifiable to theoretically save a few thousand Americans? And think about that objectively, not just as an American. And no, evil is not just about intent.

I believe that what is best for freedom is the world relies on what is best for America. I believe America, the country, is the most important - not because I am American, but because America is the biggest defended and advocate of freedom. As such I place the safety of America over the safety of other countries and, yes, other people.

For that reason, I believe that the death of an Iraqi civilian or Afghani farmer is less important than the death of an American fighter.

 

[Heretic]

Miranda Rights is a great, yet unused porn name.

 

[StorminNorman]

Miranda Rights is a great, yet unused porn name.

I wish I could close this thread on this comment.

 

[The Overlord]

The real question is how do you tell the difference? If claiming to be coerced is enough to get us to drop the label of "terrorist", we are going to find out that we have ended up capturing a lot of farmers who were "forced" to pick up a gun.

Well there were have to be something to a process to prove that or not, which is what is outlined in the Geneva convention.

Because its a different branch of the government. Those involved with National Security tend not to be politicians. They are soldiers, agents and experts who are asked to prove their loyalty to America and her people on a daily basis.

On the other hand, educational programs are developed by politicians, influenced by self serving lobbyist.

If the same people that have orchestrated our educational system were in charge of our national defense, there wouldn't be an America. Our National Security Agency is one of the most powerful, most respected, most envied in the world - our public school system? Not so much.

Given the difference in their successes, why should I treat them equal?

Who does have the best school system in the world?

The army ultimately answers to the policy makers and they screw up a lot. Why do you think the concept of blow back exists?

No one questioned Rummsfeld plan for handling Iraq and he wasn't a general and that plan was a disaster. Maybe if more people questioned that plan, instead of takings it on blind faith, perhaps we would be in better shape today.

 

[StorminNorman]

Well there were have to be something to a process to prove that or not, which is what is outlined in the Geneva convention.

The Geneva convention wouldn't prove anything. The difference between a farmer who hates America and joins the Taliban and a farmer who hates America and is forced to join the Taliban isn't a lot. Even a farmer who loves America that is forced to join the Taliban. If Americans see a muslim guy with an AK47 shooting up them, the Geneva Convention isn't going to change...well...anything.

Who does have the best school system in the world?

That's a good question. Not one I am interested in looking up, but a good question.

The army ultimately answers to the policy makers and they screw up a lot. Why do you think the concept of blow back exists?

Did I say that the military didn't mess up? I have never stated the military is perfect, that they are above mistakes - they do make mistakes. But, ultimately, the successes tend to be more important than the failures. Again, show me any country in the world who doesn't envy the American military and intelligence programs? In fact, the biggest problem other countries may have with the current American national security group is the human rights/politically correct limits we place on them.

As far as answering to the policy makers, yes and no. Look at Barack. Barack Obama has changed his tune on Iraq, photos, Bagram, etc. after talking to the military and national security.

No one questioned Rummsfeld plan for handling Iraq and he wasn't a general and that plan was a disaster. Maybe if more people questioned that plan, instead of takings it on blind faith, perhaps we would be in better shape today.

Rumsfeld's initial plan of attack in Iraq was VERY successful. He was, however, short sided and did not fully appreciate how difficult it would be to maintain security in Iraq.

 

[The Overlord]

The Geneva convention wouldn't prove anything. The difference between a farmer who hates America and joins the Taliban and a farmer who hates America and is forced to join the Taliban isn't a lot. Even a farmer who loves America that is forced to join the Taliban. If Americans see a muslim guy with an AK47 shooting up them, the Geneva Convention isn't going to change...well...anything.

It govern how treat him if surrendered, not if you kill him on the field. I'm pretty sure the rules state there has to be a process in order to determine whether someone is a unlawful combatant, before you can just assume they are.

That's a good question. Not one I am interested in looking up, but a good question.

So if some European country has a better school system, should everyone just copy their system and assume its the best?

Did I say that the military didn't mess up? I have never stated the military is perfect, that they are above mistakes - they do make mistakes. But, ultimately, the successes tend to be more important than the failures. Again, show me any country in the world who doesn't envy the American military and intelligence programs? In fact, the biggest problem other countries may have with the current American national security group is the human rights/politically correct limits we place on them.

I don't think Chile thinks way.

As far as answering to the policy makers, yes and no. Look at Barack. Barack Obama has changed his tune on Iraq, photos, Bagram, etc. after talking to the military and national security.

Except the policy makers often make immoral and foolish decision that make people less safe, like the sick relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia. That makes people less safe, no one does anything about that.

Rumsfeld's initial plan of attack in Iraq was VERY successful. He was, however, short sided and did not fully appreciate how difficult it would be to maintain security in Iraq.

But ultimately it failed in its objectives of ending violence in about 6 months, like he said it would.

It failed in the long run, which is what really mattered, so if someone questioned the details of the plan, we would be in better shape, in the long run.

 

[Paradyme]

You two can't have it both ways. Either they are POWs with all the rights that goes with being a POW or they are not. You can't call them POWs just when it suits your needs and then turn around and say "But they don't get the same rights as POWs."

Sorry but it doesn't work that way.

You are thinking to much about the label and the legal implications of calling a person that.

Like I said if it makes you feel better they are just a Prisoner.

I'm not going to explain it again because you aren't getting it.

 

[StorminNorman]

Somehow I overlooked this response...

It govern how treat him if surrendered, not if you kill him on the field. I'm pretty sure the rules state there has to be a process in order to determine whether someone is a unlawful combatant, before you can just assume they are.

There is a process, but the farmer would never be treated as a POW because he wouldn't be. If you are found shooting at American soldiers, and you are in civilian clothing, and surrounded by known terrorists...you are going to be treated as an unlawful combatant.

When in American custody you should be subjected to Military Tribunals to decide your innocence.

Now whether the farmers story, that Al Queda forced him to join, would be enough to get him is innocence is another question.

So if some European country has a better school system, should everyone just copy their system and assume its the best?

We should certainly consider it.

I don't think Chile thinks way.

K...

Except the policy makers often make immoral and foolish decision that make people less safe, like the sick relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia. That makes people less safe, no one does anything about that.

Often? Not necessarily. Does it happen? Of course. The relationship between US and Saudi Arabia is built on oil - oil is crucial for our economy to run - since, in large part due to environmental regulations, cannot take advantage of our own oil domestic oil deposits, we are forced to jump in bed with the Saudi devil in order to prevent our economy's collapse.

A big part of my National Security belief is based on the idea that energy self reliance and debt repayment is vital, more so than weaponry, to protect National Sovereignty.

But ultimately it failed in its objectives of ending violence in about 6 months, like he said it would.

It failed in the long run, which is what really mattered, so if someone questioned the details of the plan, we would be in better shape, in the long run.

If someone questioned the details of the plan, we may have been in a better shape. Not necessarily though.