Miranda Rights for Terrorists?

[Paradyme]

Just wanted to point out...weren't we reading miranda rights BEFORE Obama got into office? Before he won the election?

And yes. I think we should.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Either we believe in our own justice, or we don't. Let's not just choose to do so at our own convience.

I mean, we might as well kill them on the spot...since they clearly are terrorists and we don't even need it to go to court. Jeez.

So, you think our soldiers should be reading a Prisoner of War that was captured in a different country their miranda rights?

 

[The Overlord]

So, you think our soldiers should be reading a Prisoner of War that was captured in a different country their miranda rights?

Are you saying they are POWs and should be treated as such then?

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I thought they weren't prisoners of war?

I thought that's why we could hold them in our version of the Phantom Zone known as Gitmo. And ya know...do **** to them there.

 

[Paradyme]

Are you saying they are POWs and should be treated as such then?

They are POW in a sense of the word but not by regular standards or law writ by the U.N. Unless I missed something along the way I feel we can hold them indefinitely without trial since they don't claim a country or wear a uniform. Even if they did the trials from what I remember are normally held after the fact but since they don't.

Foreign born terrorists don't get rights under our Constitution.

American born terrorists do get rights under our Constitution.

Does that make sense?

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

So...they're 1/2 POW's?

 

[The Overlord]

They are POW in a sense of the word but not by regular standards or law writ by the U.N. Unless I missed something along the way I feel we can hold them indefinitely without trial since they don't claim a country or wear a uniform. Even if they did the trials from what I remember are normally held after the fact but since they don't.

Foreign born terrorists don't get rights under our Constitution.

American born terrorists do get rights under our Constitution.

Does that make sense?

What about Afghan farmers forced to fight American troops because a Taliban press gang threatened to kill their family if they don't, what rights does that person get?

 

[StorminNorman]

The black and white way you conceptualize things muddles your argument. It aids the terrorist effort but isn't all that important?

The question of who is morally superior IS a black and white issue. No rational human being that takes a fair look at the issue can dispute that in the least.

But yes, it's possible for a decision to provide some benefit to a terrorist organization while, at the same time, doing a far greater amount of harm.

The risk of pissing off the occasional common muslim does not overtake the potential gains those same actions may bring.

What's your preoccupation with rationality? Where does that even begin to come into it? You're just defining rational people as those that won't take up arms against America, it's a circular argument.

And anyone that would take up arms for the Taliban and AL Queda against America are irrational.

From where? The FBI can say it doesn't work because they didn't support it and attribute everything to standard interrogation. The CIA and the last administration can attribute anything valuable to waterboarding while ignoring all the false leads. Even if anything came from it, it's not a yes or no issue, but whether waterboarding is sufficiently useful or necessary

Correct.

That doesn't explain anything. How do they come to identify with it in the first place?

Identify with what...radical Islam? The same way Christians are indoctrinated, or any other sort of religion really - through the culture around them. Through their upbringing. When you are brought up being taught America is the Great Satan threatening the moral decency of the world with it's disgraceful practices such as giving rights to women.

Which ones?

I don't tend to keep a list of all the articles I have read, but I will try to find a few and let you know.

Just wanted to point out...weren't we reading miranda rights BEFORE Obama got into office? Before he won the election?

Not to terrorists taking outside American borders. No.

And yes. I think we should.

That doesn't surprise me.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Not in war.

Either we believe in our own justice, or we don't. Let's not just choose to do so at our own convience.

I mean, we might as well kill them on the spot...since they clearly are terrorists and we don't even need it to go to court. Jeez.

If you want to start giving terrorists trials, that's exactly whats going to happen. Our soldiers will start putting bullets in their heads over taking them in.

How do you know its just occasional? That's the problem. When asking "should terrorists be granted Miranda rights", how do you know everyone who is accused of being a terrorist, is a terrorist?

Because confusing a terrorist for an innocent guy isn't a common occurrence. It happens, but it doesn't happen often.

And how does locking up some impressed farmer make America safer?

Well if that farmer was fighting American soldiers, whether he was coerced or not, that alone would kinda make American soldiers safer. Thinking back to your hypothetical, that farmer has little leg to stand on. If a gang forces someone to murder a guy, that guy doesn't get off avoiding punishment simply because he was coerced.

Thats a pretty weak statement, considering you provided no evidence to back it up.

Well it was meant to be intentionally dismissive. The Geneva convention is out of date. Terrorism cannot be effectively fought using it, again - mainly due to the lack of uniform. It also becomes counter productive when the other side is aware of the rules you have made and attempts to use them AGAINST you.

Its seems contradictionary that you don't trust the government to build a high way, but this issue, they should get absolute faith and a complete blank check.

Who said anything about the lack of trust in a highway, I am all for Governments to build roads. I oppose government the do something private groups can do better. The day I don't trust the government to be the best protectors of our national defense, is the day I take arms against it. Since I actually have a great amount of belief in our electoral system and the structure of the government, that is a long, long way away.

I'm just applying the rules here, there are rules to warfare, as you know. The Geneva convention states, that you cannot just assume someone is an unlawful combatant, there has to be a process to determine if they are or not. So what is the process in Gitmo and else where?

Military tribunals.

Frankly there have already a few major violations of international laws at Gitmo. Omar Ahmed Khadr was 15 when fighting in Afghanistan and was dragged by his father there, making him a child solider. From waht I undersntand under international law, its illegal to charge a child solider with war crimes or imprison without trial. If they broken the rules in this regard, what other rules have they broken?

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defined a Child Soldier as one under the age of 15.

Permanent Military Tribunal at Metz and England both have experience prosecuting war criminals under the age of 18, older than 15.

Also if the US governemnt can declare anyone they want a terrorist, wouldn't other governments have the same right to do so? Under your logic, couldn't China arrest anyone in Tibet and assume they are terrorists?

No.

Are you saying they are POWs and should be treated as such then?

No, they are below POW level. I reject to the notion, however, that they deserve more legal protections than POWs.

I thought they weren't prisoners of war?

I thought that's why we could hold them in our version of the Phantom Zone known as Gitmo. And ya know...do **** to them there.

Anyone comparing Gitmo to the Phantom Zone doesn't know what they are talking about. Gitmo is all reputation, no reality.

 

[StorminNorman]

What about Afghan farmers forced to fight American troops because a Taliban press gang threatened to kill their family if they don't, what rights does that person get?

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?

 

[Paradyme]

So...they're 1/2 POW's?

No. You missed what I meant.

What about Afghan farmers forced to fight American troops because a Taliban press gang threatened to kill their family if they don't, what rights does that person get?

Norman answered exactly how I was going to.

If you are threatened with the notion that a group is going to kill your family if you don't assassinate the President, would you do it?

 

[Addendum]

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

Only after the trial, depending on the verdict.

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

Only after the trial, depending on the verdict

 

[StorminNorman]

Only after the trial, depending on the verdict.

Which is where warfare is different. In war, if you are seen shooting at our troops, you are guilty of being with the enemy. There is no middle ground.

I mean if a soldier had killed that same farmer, is that soldier guilty of killing an innocent man? Of course not.

 

[bullets]

this isn't a witch hunt . we are at war and these suspects need to be questioned immediately.

 

[The Overlord]

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?

Does that apply to a society with no almsot no functional state, filled with paramilitary groups? Last time I heard America was not like that, but Afghanstan was.

So what should farmer do, let the Taliban kill his family? Most legal systems take coresion into account when deciding a sentence.

Which is where warfare is different. In war, if you are seen shooting at our troops, you are guilty of being with the enemy. There is no middle ground.

I mean if a soldier had killed that same farmer, is that soldier guilty of killing an innocent man? Of course not.

Aren't there different rules between what you do on the field and what do with captured enemies?

 

[Superman]

No. You missed what I meant.

Then please tell us what you meant.

They are POW in a sense of the word but not by regular standards or law writ by the U.N....

You're either a POW or you're not. You can't be "A little bit POW". It doesn't work like that. That's like being "A little bit pregnant".

 

[StorminNorman]

Does that apply to a society with no almsot no functional state, filled with paramilitary groups? Last time I heard America was not like that, but Afghanstan was.

So what should farmer do, let the Taliban kill his family? Most legal systems take coresion into account when deciding a sentence.

Sometimes the world is cruel. Sometime there is no silver lining. But you can't let people go just because they claim they were coerced into shooting at American soldiers. That's foolishness.

Does it suck? Is it unfair? Does that mean that an innocent person is unjustly punished for being at the wrong place during the wrong point in history? Yes. But it's also necessary.

Aren't there different rules between what you do on the field and what do with captured enemies?

Yes, but you are acting as if the guy that took up arms against Americans is not guilty of anything. He is. He is of...well...taking up arms against Americans. Whether his intent was the destruction of our country or not is irrelevant - he was a participant, willing or not, in the war and should be treated as a prisoner of that war.

You're either a POW or you're not. You can't be "A little bit POW". It doesn't work like that. That's like being "A little bit pregnant".

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.

 

[bell110]

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?

Should our troops get any compassion if caught by the enemy?

 

[The Overlord]

Because confusing a terrorist for an innocent guy isn't a common occurrence. It happens, but it doesn't happen often. .

How do you know how often it happens or not.

Well if that farmer was fighting American soldiers, whether he was coerced or not, that alone would kinda make American soldiers safer. Thinking back to your hypothetical, that farmer has little leg to stand on. If a gang forces someone to murder a guy, that guy doesn't get off avoiding punishment simply because he was coerced. .

Most legal systems take coercision into account when deciding a punishment.

Well it was meant to be intentionally dismissive. The Geneva convention is out of date. Terrorism cannot be effectively fought using it, again - mainly due to the lack of uniform. It also becomes counter productive when the other side is aware of the rules you have made and attempts to use them AGAINST you. .

So should we throw the Geneva Convention out? Should anyone have to follow it?

Who said anything about the lack of trust in a highway, I am all for Governments to build roads. I oppose government the do something private groups can do better. The day I don't trust the government to be the best protectors of our national defense, is the day I take arms against it. Since I actually have a great amount of belief in our electoral system and the structure of the government, that is a long, long way away. .

Fine, what about an educational system, is the government the best option for that?

Military tribunals..

Why do we know, how fair or unfair that process is?

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defined a Child Soldier as one under the age of 15.

Permanent Military Tribunal at Metz and England both have experience prosecuting war criminals under the age of 18, older than 15..

Some lawyers disagree with the way Khadr is being treated: http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/569285

No.

Why?

Who gets to determine who is a terrorist and who isn't?

 

[The Overlord]

Sometimes the world is cruel. Sometime there is no silver lining. But you can't let people go just because they claim they were coerced into shooting at American soldiers. That's foolishness.

Does it suck? Is it unfair? Does that mean that an innocent person is unjustly punished for being at the wrong place during the wrong point in history? Yes. But it's also necessary.

Yes, but you are acting as if the guy that took up arms against Americans is not guilty of anything. He is. He is of...well...taking up arms against Americans. Whether his intent was the destruction of our country or not is irrelevant - he was a participant, willing or not, in the war and should be treated as a prisoner of that war.

I never said he wasn't guilty, what I'm saying if coercision takes place, it should be factored in, it is with most legal systems.

You just used the term POW, so if someone is coerced into attacking Coalition troops, wouldn't they be a POW and not a terrorist?

 

[StorminNorman]

Should our troops get any compassion if caught by the enemy?

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.

How do you know how often it happens or not.

Because it's not as easy as you make it out to be to be confused for a terrorist.

Most legal systems take coercision into account when deciding a punishment.

And I have no problem with taking coercision into account when dealing with the severity of punishment. Should there still be punishment though? Absolutely. Claiming "The Taliban made me do it" should not be a Get out of Gitmo Free pass.

So should we throw the Geneva Convention out? Should anyone have to follow it?

No, it should not be thrown out. When states go against states, uniformed soldiers against uniformed soldiers - it should still be used. The problem is that modern warfare has evolved passed state vs. state conflict. The world stage now more often than not involves states going against non-state actors, making the Geneva Conventions hard to use.

Any state that would honor the Geneva Convention is very rarely likely to engage a similarly moral state in war anymore. Times have changed.

Fine, what about an educational system, is the government the best option for that?

No. I think the education should provide the means for education (funding), but I think privatizing education would be a good thing. I fully support using vouchers to give parents the ability to choose which school their child goes to.

Why do we know, how fair or unfair that process is?

Because people are occasionally found innocent.

Some lawyers disagree with the way Khadr is being treated: http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/569285

And some lawyers agree with the way Khadr is treated. So?

Why?

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. How we treat Al Queda and the Taliban does not necessarily correlate with how other countries should treat other groups.

The real issue, however, is the fact that we couldn't stop China from doing that anyway. If China wanted to treat opposition the same way we treat terrorists, we would have no means to stop them.

Who gets to determine who is a terrorist and who isn't?

Typically the governments of the free world determine what groups are terrorists and what states support terror, etc. Now that mean that the entire globe honors those classifications, no?

 

[StorminNorman]

I never said he wasn't guilty, what I'm saying if coercision takes place, it should be factored in, it is with most legal systems.

You just used the term POW, so if someone is coerced into attacking Coalition troops, wouldn't they be a POW and not a terrorist?

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.

 

[sasquatchs]

The question of who is morally superior IS a black and white issue. No rational human being that takes a fair look at the issue can dispute that in the least.

I'm not talking about moral superiority, I'm talking about deeming people rational or irrational based on where their sympathies lie. It provides no insight whatsoever. Neither does arguing about moral superiority for that matter

Identify with what...radical Islam? The same way Christians are indoctrinated, or any other sort of religion really - through the culture around them. Through their upbringing. When you are brought up being taught America is the Great Satan threatening the moral decency of the world with it's disgraceful practices such as giving rights to women.

So in other words, "They hate us for our freedoms". What scholarship

 

[StorminNorman]

So in other words, "They hate us for our freedoms". What scholarship

No. They hate us because they are intolerant. They hate us because they believe their religious doctrine is correct and apart of that doctrine involves the removal of infidels.

Radical Islam is no more a friend of Moderate Islam than it is America or the West. America and the West are simply more insulting to their beliefs.

Now have these radical beliefs been influenced by how they have perceived America influence in the region? Certainly. It is the only fuel for the hatred? Not at all.

 

[Paradyme]

Then please tell us what you meant.



You're either a POW or you're not. You can't be "A little bit POW". It doesn't work like that. That's like being "A little bit pregnant".

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?

 

[Paradyme]

No. They hate us because they are intolerant. They hate us because they believe their religious doctrine is correct and apart of that doctrine involves the removal of infidels.

Radical Islam is no more a friend of Moderate Islam than it is America or the West. America and the West are simply more insulting to their beliefs.

Now have these radical beliefs been influenced by how they have perceived America influence in the region? Certainly. It is the only fuel for the hatred? Not at all.

I remember reading an article or seeing a news broadcast about Zawahiri (sp?) saying the Al Qaeda doesn't target innocent people.

Not sure if most understand that statement but the reason he said this is in his eyes he isn't lying. He sees no one that doesn't believe in what he believes as innocent.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Not to terrorists taking outside American borders. No.

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

That doesn't surprise me.

Touche.

Not in war.

That sounds badass.

But.

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

If you want to start giving terrorists trials, that's exactly whats going to happen. Our soldiers will start putting bullets in their heads over taking them in.

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??

Anyone comparing Gitmo to the Phantom Zone doesn't know what they are talking about. Gitmo is all reputation, no reality.

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.