Miranda Rights for Terrorists?

[StorminNorman]

The morals of America and the morals of Bush are not the same thing. Fool.

That's why I listed them separately. Though for 8 years the morals of Bush were the morals of America.

Fool.

The world is bigger than your backyard. We're trying to win the hearts and minds of billions in the Muslim world. That's the smart way to fight terrorism. Not turn the United States into something uglier in the name of fighting the Taliban.

Your right, the smart way to fight evil is to make sure we do so by not pissing people off. That doesn't work. You don't fight a war with two arms tied behind your back.

but you can keep name calling as if it gives your argument more credibility rather than make you look immature and childish.

The irony is delicious.

 

[The Overlord]

Within reason.

We killed a bunch of innocent people in World War II, the war was the right thing to do.

Yes but no one says imprisoning all those Japanese people in the US was a good idea.

In war there will always be some innocent deaths, but did the Allies assume all the Germans they captured were Nazi war criminals and not POWs? There are rules to treating POWs and if some of the accused are not really not really terrorists, then are they POWs? Rules on the field and rules with captured enemies are different.

The Geneva convention states that if you suspect someone is an unlawful combatant, you have to have process to determine whether said individual actually is a unlawful combatant or not. You may say that the Geneva convention doesn't apply terrorist, but if some of these accused are not terrorists, shouldn't the Geneva convention apply to people who aren't terrorists?

That doesn't sound like demanding perfection, it sounds like applying the rules.

 

[StorminNorman]

Yes but no one says imprisoning all those Japanese people in the US was a good idea.

You can't compare internment camps to Gitmo.

In war there will always be some innocent deaths, but did the Allies assume all the Germans they captured were Nazi war criminals and not POWs? There are rules to treating POWs and if some of the accused are not really not really terrorists, then are they POWs? Rules on the field and rules with captured enemies are different.

You can't treat terrorists purely like POW's. Nazi soldiers were in uniform. The terrorist looks like his rational neighbor.

The Geneva convention states that if you suspect someone is an unlawful combatant, you have to have process to determine whether said individual actually is a unlawful combatant or not. You may say that the Geneva convention doesn't apply terrorist, but if some of these accused are not terrorists, shouldn't the Geneva convention apply to people who aren't terrorists?

That process isn't American court rooms - it is Military Tribunals.

That doesn't sound like demanding perfection, it sounds like applying the rules.

I love how people act like just because someone in convicted of a crime, they ARE guilty without question. If people are so outraged that innocent people are imprisoned unjustly, why don't they take a look at our own court system. Does anyone think everyone convicted of a crime is guilty of that crime?

 

[Addendum]

They're guilty based on the case presented by the prosecution, unless new evidence comes in after the trial that shows another person did it

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

No, what terrorists want is to win. They don't want moral victory, they want true victory. They want their terrorists to be allowed to use American courts as weapons against us, they TRAIN their members to do so.

The terrorist win by changing what America is. To dull our shining beacon to the world. A moral victory is the only way the terrosit can win. Do you really believe they can overthrow the United States and our allies???

Getting to the idea that Gitmo and Torture are recruitment tools for terrorist, it's complete ********. No rational person gets so morally offended by Gitmo or torturing Al Queda leaders that they join an organization that TORTURES, BEHEADS and KILLS INNOCENT PEOPLE. That doesn't happen. The people that join Al Queda, that join the Taliban are not rational people, they are extremists, that hate the west because they no know other way.

The idea that those sort of people would be willing to give America a chance if we didn't do these things is laughable, naive and foolish.

You can't say how many Taliban recruits joined because they discovered America imprisons innocent Muslims without trail and even stoops to torturing. Convincing the Muslim world that America has concrete moral authority over the Taliban is essential to our wars in the mid-east.

 

[The Overlord]

You can't compare internment camps to Gitmo.



You can't treat terrorists purely like POW's. Nazi soldiers were in uniform. The terrorist looks like his rational neighbor.

Some farmer who was forced to fight by Taliban press gang doesn't have a choice as whether they can wear a uniform or not, do they?

That process isn't American court rooms - it is Military Tribunals.

But that doesn't answer my question, what is the process, how fair is it, how successful is it, how much does it comply to the Geneva convention rules on determining whether one is non lawful combatant or not, etc, etc.

I love how people act like just because someone in convicted of a crime, they ARE guilty without question. If people are so outraged that innocent people are imprisoned unjustly, why don't they take a look at our own court system. Does anyone think everyone convicted of a crime is guilty of that crime?

Of course not, but that process is far more open then a military tribunal system, thus its easier to determine the process is fair or not.

Its really hard to answer this question, if I don't how someone is determined to be a terrorist or not.

 

[Addendum]

They're a terrorist because the government says they are, I say with nothing but sarcasm and cynicism

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I love how people act like just because someone in convicted of a crime, they ARE guilty without question. If people are so outraged that innocent people are imprisoned unjustly, why don't they take a look at our own court system. Does anyone think everyone convicted of a crime is guilty of that crime?

The point is a person has a fighting chance to prove their innocence rather than just throwing every suspect in jail. In such a case 100% of innocent suspects get thrown in jail rather than the current increment.

There's a world's difference between presuming innocence and presuming guilt. Getting a trail means you at least have a chance to prove your innocence. How can that be something anyone takes lightly?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

The poll should say "Do you believe alledged terrorists should be afforded Miranda Rights?".

 

[Nivek]

If I say No, can it cover possible "domestic terrorists" like anti-Government Militias, Abortion clinic shooters/ bombers, and militant right wing anti-President types? If it can, I'll sign up for it. Screw Terrorists, foreign and Domestic! America, ***k yeah!!!!

 

[Wiseman]

The poll should say "Do you believe alledged terrorists should be afforded Miranda Rights?".

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Ok so they're a terrorist based on what?

If it's so obvious why not prove it in court???

 

[The Overlord]

The question itself is kinda flawed, how can one answer this question, if we don't know the process used to determine if one is a terrorist or not? Could a farmer who is a victim of Taliban press gang and forced to fight American troops or Taliban will kill his family, be a terrorist?

Obviously there are clear cases of people who are terrorist, I doubt that is every case. Some people in Gitmo are terrorists, others are not, it would be foolish to assume everyone is guilty or innocent there.

So the question would seem too broad and almost be something you would apply on case by case matter, rather then using a broad stroke approach. Perhaps American laws should not be applied, but perhaps some international laws should, depending on the individual case.

 

[Nivek]

I'm sure there is an Oil rig that can be used to house them, if it's not being done already.

 

[StorminNorman]

The terrorist win by changing what America is. To dull our shining beacon to the world. A moral victory is the only way the terrosit can win. Do you really believe they can overthrow the United States and our allies???

They don't want to overthrow, they want to destroy. They want to place a nuclear bomb right in our asses and blow it up. They don't want a moral victory, they want the destruction of anybody that doesn't agree with their perverse view of Islam.

And nothing that America has done to combat terrorism has "changed us". Again, American history if filled with questionably moral acts in the name of protecting life, liberty and the American way.

You can't say how many Taliban recruits joined because they discovered America imprisons innocent Muslims without trail and even stoops to torturing. Convincing the Muslim world that America has concrete moral authority over the Taliban is essential to our wars in the mid-east.

And neither can you. The point is that people that join the Taliban are already predisposed to Islamic Extremism. If America didn't torture, they would join because of bombings. If America didn't have Gitmo, they would join because of Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Paris Hilton or Spongebob.

Or the Taliban would make **** up. Or Al Queda would make **** up.

You don't fight a war with the intent of looking good on Arab TV.

Also, Gitmo is the most overblown issue of them all. The Gitmo Prison is a spa compared to many Middle Eastern prisons. While you cannot justify American institutions based on Middle Eastern ones, the idea that rational Muslims would be offended by a prison more humane than their own is, again, absurd.

Some farmer who was forced to fight by Taliban press gang doesn't have a choice as whether they can wear a uniform or not, do they?

I care less about that Arab farmer than I do the Iowan farmer the Taliban wants to kill.

But that doesn't answer my question, what is the process, how fair is it, how successful is it, how much does it comply to the Geneva convention rules on determining whether one is non lawful combatant or not, etc, etc.

It's cool.

Of course not, but that process is far more open then a military tribunal system, thus its easier to determine the process is fair or not.

But the burden shouldn't be "what is fair", it should be "what is safer" or "what is more intelligent". Charging terrorists in American courts and having them go through domestic courts is pure stupidity. It would lead to soldiers having to collect evidence on the battlefield, soldiers having to testify in court and, as a result, soldiers deciding to leave bodies, not prisoners.

You want to increase the number of deaths on the battlefield? Start treating terrorists like domestic criminals.

The point is a person has a fighting chance to prove their innocence rather than just throwing every suspect in jail. In such a case 100% of innocent suspects get thrown in jail rather than the current increment.

Except everyone we bring in doesn't sit in prison for ever. Again, there is a system in place - the military tribunal.

There's a world's difference between presuming innocence and presuming guilt. Getting a trail means you at least have a chance to prove your innocence. How can that be something anyone takes lightly?

Because this is a war, not an issue of domestic violence.

 

[StorminNorman]

The question itself is kinda flawed, how can one answer this question, if we don't know the process used to determine if one is a terrorist or not? Could a farmer who is a victim of Taliban press gang and forced to fight American troops or Taliban will kill his family, be a terrorist?

Obviously there are clear cases of people who are terrorist, I doubt that is every case. Some people in Gitmo are terrorists, others are not, it would be foolish to assume everyone is guilty or innocent there.

So the question would seem too broad and almost be something you would apply on case by case matter, rather then using a broad stroke approach. Perhaps American laws should not be applied, but perhaps some international laws should, depending on the individual case.

Terrorist suspects are given Miranda Rights before a trial. So if you are assuming everyone is innocent, not guilty, than you would be affording terrorists the same miranda rights as the occasional, rare innocent Middle Eastern man.

 

[Venom'sDad]

Miranda Rights for Terrorists

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/miranda_rights_for_terrorists.asp

Barack Obama on 60 Minutes in March:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/obama-fires-back-cheney-60-minutes

Yeah.... this guy is even more slicker than Slick Willy. He has no integrity.

 

[sasquatchs]

Getting to the idea that Gitmo and Torture are recruitment tools for terrorist, it's complete ********. No rational person gets so morally offended by Gitmo or torturing Al Queda leaders that they join an organization that TORTURES, BEHEADS and KILLS INNOCENT PEOPLE. That doesn't happen. The people that join Al Queda, that join the Taliban are not rational people, they are extremists, that hate the west because they no know other way.

The idea that those sort of people would be willing to give America a chance if we didn't do these things is laughable, naive and foolish.

Creating a black and white division between people you deem rational and irrational is what's idiotically simplistic, and so's your belief that US policies have no effect on a population's terrorist sympathies. These groups don't exist in a vacuum, they require support from a much larger network. Your concept of terrorism is no more sophisticated than some cosmic battle between good and evil

Go read this paper on the correlation between torture and terrorism

http://www.politicalscience.uncc.edu/jwalsh/cps3.pdf

 

[StorminNorman]

Creating a black and white division between people you deem rational and irrational is what's idiotically simplistic, and so's your belief that US policies have no effect on a population's terrorist sympathies.

I assure you I am anything but idiotically simplistic.

When did I say that US policies have no effect on a populations sympathies? I have no doubt that when America messes up, it aids the terrorist effort. I have no doubt that some rational Middle Eastern people don't particularly like Gitmo and what not. I just don't think that being looked at unfavorably by a rational muslim isn't all that important. If they are truly rational they are not going to take up arms against America, they aren't going to join Al Queda.

My stance is simple - I think the risk of treating terrorists like domestic criminals and giving them Miranda rights does exponentially more damage to national security than any gain that would come from it.

I believe we have achieved valuable information from KSM using waterbording, so I support that as well. I can be convinced that waterbording is not acceptable IF it can be proven it doesn't work. I am doing more personal research about that.

Etc.

These groups don't exist in a vacuum, they require support from a much larger network. Your concept of terrorism is no more sophisticated than some cosmic battle between good and evil

LOL, don't try talking down to me. I understand perfectly well that these groups don't exist in a vacuum - but I also understand that what breeds terrorists has more to do with culture and less to do with American actions. Islamic Extremists don't hate America simply because we have fancy cars and diamond rings, but because they believe they have a religious obligation to rid the world of infidels.

Now much of their support comes from leaders who care less about the religious aspect and more about the effectiveness.

Go read this paper on the correlation between torture and terrorism

http://www.politicalscience.uncc.edu/jwalsh/cps3.pdf

I will read it, but I am not going to place a higher value on that paper than the other multiple academic papers, books and testimony I have read on the subject.

 

[sasquatchs]

When did I say that US policies have no effect on a populations sympathies? I have no doubt that when America messes up, it aids the terrorist effort. I have no doubt that some rational Middle Eastern people don't particularly like Gitmo and what not. I just don't think that being looked at unfavorably by a rational muslim isn't all that important.

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

If they are truly rational they are not going to take up arms against America, they aren't going to join Al Queda.

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.

My stance is simple - I think the risk of treating terrorists like domestic criminals and giving them Miranda rights does exponentially more damage to national security than any gain that would come from it.

I believe we have achieved valuable information from KSM using waterbording, so I support that as well. I can be convinced that waterbording is not acceptable IF it can be proven it doesn't work. I am doing more personal research about that.

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

LOL, don't try talking down to me.

You just employed the same tactic with MessiahDecoy

I understand perfectly well that these groups don't exist in a vacuum - but I also understand that what breeds terrorists has more to do with culture and less to do with American actions. Islamic Extremists don't hate America simply because we have fancy cars and diamond rings, but because they believe they have a religious obligation to rid the world of infidels.

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

I will read it, but I am not going to place a higher value on that paper than the other multiple academic papers, books and testimony I have read on the subject.

Which ones?

 

[Marx]

Let's keep this civil and respectful.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

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.

 

[The Overlord]

Terrorist suspects are given Miranda Rights before a trial. So if you are assuming everyone is innocent, not guilty, than you would be affording terrorists the same miranda rights as the occasional, rare innocent Middle Eastern man.

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?

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

We don't know.

 

[The Overlord]

I care less about that Arab farmer than I do the Iowan farmer the Taliban wants to kill..

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

It's cool.

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

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.

But the burden shouldn't be "what is fair", it should be "what is safer" or "what is more intelligent". Charging terrorists in American courts and having them go through domestic courts is pure stupidity. It would lead to soldiers having to collect evidence on the battlefield, soldiers having to testify in court and, as a result, soldiers deciding to leave bodies, not prisoners.

You want to increase the number of deaths on the battlefield? Start treating terrorists like domestic criminals.

I never said American laws should be applied, I said international laws should be applied on a case by case basis.

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?

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?

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?