The Deadly Consequences of MIRANDIZING TERRORISTS OVERSEAS

[Chuck B.]

This is incredible:

http://www.americasright.com/2009/06/overseas-contingency-operation-law.html


OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATION: LAW ENFORCEMENT MEASURE, OR SUICIDE PACT?

Obama Justice Department decision to Mirandize high-value detainees will certainly have adverse and deadly consequences.

QUOTE:

In Miranda v. Arizona, the seminal Fifth Amendment case from which the Miranda rights draw their name, "custodial interrogation" was defined as any questioning brought on by law enforcement officers after an individual has either been taken into actual custody, or deprived of his freedom in any significant way. Since Miranda in 1966, however, the scope of Fifth Amendment protection for individuals has expanded -- the the protection against self-incrimination could extend even before an individual has been taken into custody, and even the Miranda warnings themselves could be perceived as relatively ceremonial.

[...]Court decisions proving that last statement[...]

Now, there are other decisions from other circuits which lean in the opposite direction, but the serious potential for problems is certainly there. Regardless, it shows that, once again, this administration has made a major national security decision without weighing any of the possible downhill consequences. If this truly is to be treated as a law enforcement operation, if these high-value detainees are going to be brought to American soil to stand trial, the government will be absolutely, positively handcuffed with regard to what they're able to do to bring a conviction, and the terrorists, the ones actively working to snuff out American lives, will be given yet another advantage.

Under Miranda, the terrorist who refuses to answer questions while being interrogated and after being apprised of his rights is fully within his right to do so. Under Savory, the terrorist need not be in custody, as his right to remain silent could extend even to the battlefield. Under Whitehead, the terrorist need not even be apprised of his--I can't believe I'm even writing this--constitutional rights in order to enjoy them. Essentially, the terrorist who stands silent in the face of any sort of questioning, in any sort of situation, must be treated as if he has asserted his right, under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, to remain silent.

[spinach]

the only option is to shoot to kill, take no prisoners.

that's the only option left to prevent americans from being killed.

[Justus]

the only option is to shoot to kill, take no prisoners.

that's the only option left to prevent americans from being killed.

But do you think the media would actually allow our military to do that. :doh:

Let's face it, the days of doing everything at all costs to save AMERICANS is over. If anything happens those slime ball lawyers are all over putting the troops in prisons, while the media paints them (those fighting) as evil terrorists. In the long run, unless there's some sudden "world peace" I can see us being defeated because we were weakened from the inside. I'm not much of a conspirator or anything like that, but just for the sake of making sure nothing happens, we must stop this ridiculous "social" takeover of the military.

[animalnut]

They are shifting power from the CIA to the FBI in our "overseas contingency plan" to deal with our "neighbors with a beef." They care more about the rights of people that want to behead us, and the "rights" of illegal aliens, who should have no rights here since they came illegally, than they do the rights of average American citizens.

[noko]

I say in short, Obama needs to be impeached for his utter incompetence as being Commander In Chief. This is the most ridiculas thing I ever heard about dealing with war. Yes lets break out the yellow tape, gather evidence, get witness statements and have our solders go to court and get drilled by the terriorist lawyers. Good grief this is so stupid the Senate should be starting impeachment hearings, ahmm right now!

[fava]

The only thing worse than Mirandizing the enemy in battle is the fact that everyone in the Administration lied about it.

[Whastryk]

As a retired service member and an ex-SEAL, I think that Obama is really tying our hands. SEALs don't take prisoners for two reasons:
1) Taking them alive means putting your team in danger.
2) The mission "never happened" and "we don't exist".

[muhadeeb99]

As a retired service member and an ex-SEAL, I think that Obama is really tying our hands. SEALs don't take prisoners for two reasons:
1) Taking them alive means putting your team in danger.
2) The mission "never happened" and "we don't exist".
I personally applaud your service to America. I'm glad you are posting on Hannity's Forum. You are most welcome here.:clap:

[muhadeeb99]

Terrorists or alleged terrorists don't need to be mirandized because they are not American citizens. If they are to be citated there should be a universal rights to be read to them. I doubt very seriously if the UN will come up with such a document and be signed by all countries. And I mean by ALL countries

[avergbear]

the only option is to shoot to kill, take no prisoners.

that's the only option left to prevent americans from being killed.

I believe our troops will quickly come to this conclusion.

As always, Liberal policies will product the exact opposite result of the original intent.



***WOW ----45,000 Posts! Congratulations!

[SFC(R)L]

"Taking no prisoners" is illegal.

So is reading terrorists their "rights".

[johnjay1788]

I wish he'd make up his mind...

Flashback: Obama Says Detainees Don't "Deserve" Miranda Rights

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/06/10/flashback_obama_says_detainees_dont_deserve_mirand a_rights.html

But of course...

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

Miranda Rights for Terrorists

"When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. “I’ll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer,” he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet.

Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. “I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal – read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up,” Tenet wrote in his memoirs.

If Tenet is right, it’s a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan."

[JudasGoat]

ah screw it man. Why don't we just ask them if there's any way we can be of assistance to them?
the stupidity of the bleeding hearts in this country really gets me angry.

[Save the Party]

the only option is to shoot to kill, take no prisoners.

that's the only option left to prevent americans from being killed.


I fully expect our soldiers will find that is the only option. This president does not respect our troops and he will not support them. The only option in battle that is left is to eliminate the threat then ask questions.

[Liability]

American CIA Operative on location: Ve half vays ov making you talk! But first, "You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to counsel present during questioning. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a Court of law."

Captured Islamopig****er terrorist: Wait. What's a "court of law," infidel?

American CIA Operative on location: Well, it's a place we take suspects in criminal cases to let them have us prove that they are guilty of whatever crimes they might be charged with committing and where a neutral jury decides if we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt!

Captured Islamopig****er terrorist: I see. So you think that you are engaged in a law enforcement operation against -- uhm -- mere criminals?

American CIA Operative on location: No. But evidently our commander in chief does, so listen up. "If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to you without cost." Do you understand these rights as I've explained them to you?

Captured Islamopig****er terrorist: I think so.

American CIA Operative on location: And now that you have been read your rights, would you be willing to speak to me now?

Captured Islamopig****er terrorist: Uhm, let me think about that a second, infidel. Ahhhhhhh, no. I think I'd like one of those appointed lawyer fellows to be here prior to any non-extreme questioning.

Oh, and I'd like to have my right to make one phone call -- in private -- now, too.

American CIA Operative on location: I don't know that President Obama included the right to make one phone call in the TOP SECRET BOOK OF RULES FOR INTEROGATING CAPTURED UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS, TERRORISTS AND OTHER MERE CRIMINAL SUSPECTS ABROAD. But to be on the safe side, sure; Use my cell phone. One call only, Achmed. The roaming fees in this country are ridiculous.

Captured Islamopig****er terrorist: Tell me about it, infidel. Now give me my Constitutional right to privacy, infidel.

[dials number for al qaeda -- waits --] Hello? This is Achmed. Put me through to Mohammed. Hello? Mohammed? Achmed here. Me? I'm fine. Thanks for asking. No. I was captured by the Americans. Huh? No no. No torture. But they gave me my rights. Yes. No Mohammed, I **** you not. They seem to think I committed a bank heist. These Americans are beyond stupid it seems, Allah be praised. So, anyway, I was calling because I was wondering, would it be alright if you sent in some guys to liberate me? Hold on a second.

Hey Infidel! My lawyer wants you to hold off on the interrogation until he can be here. What's the address here?

[badkarma]

If they are getting the right to remain silent, does that not indicate that they should also be given all the other rights, services and privileges a U.S. citizen gets?

[curtis123]

...and then we tazer great-grandmothers at a traffic stop.

[Liability]

If they are getting the right to remain silent, does that not indicate that they should also be given all the other rights, services and privileges a U.S. citizen gets?

The right to remain silent (as set forth in the Miranda warnings) tells the "suspect" that he has the right to assistance of counsel and that if he cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for him.

So, it now looks to be the case that captured illegal enemy combatants get not only Geneva Convention rights to which they are not ratioanally entitled by the terms of the Geneva Accords, but also OUR Constitutional rights.

Further, if a "suspect" is questioned in violation of his Miranda rights, the standard remedy for the violation by law enforcement of those rights is that anything SAID by the "suspect" gets suppressed and cannot be used against the "suspect" as evidence at trial. It's tainted evidence.

This is psychotically stupid of us. For although it might be "tainted" as evidence for use at trial to convict the "suspect" of his "crime," it was also a secret in the first place and the whole objective and purpose of the questioning was to extract that secret information in a timely manner to save the lives of our troops and possibly our citizens. So if we do violate a terrorists "rights" now, we cannot "try" him for his conspiracy to commit a "crime," so what are we left with? Must we extract the information and then "let him go free?"

We USED to understand that it is insane to permit a captured enemy combatant to simply go free to return to the field of battle.

This suicidally stupid (and formerly secret) policy of the new President is so incredibly ill-considered and dangerous, it would be a proper basis for opening an impeachment hearing in a sane nation. Unfortunately, the liberoidal Democratics are now in charge, so we are not a sane nation anymore.

[penner01]

"Taking no prisoners" is illegal.

So is reading terrorists their "rights".
Puts our military in a pretty tough situation doesn't it. They can't win. Capturing fighters on the battle field will mean nothing more than providing room and board for however long and leaning toward killing them will border on criminal. Sure, let's just categorize them as security guards.

[87rch]

If the war on terrorism has become a full fledged law enforcement issue then I want to know how the trials in public courts will be handled. If you arrest terrorists and then take them to trial will everyone in the court room including the jurors have top secret clearance to ensure that the prosecution can use all available evidence? I would hate to think that we take these guys to trial but can’t convict because some of the evidence is deemed classified.

[Trinka]

My question is Why? Why do this? What's the point? What will be accomplished with this? Just Who are we protecting Now?

[SFC(R)L]

Puts our military in a pretty tough situation doesn't it. They can't win. Capturing fighters on the battle field will mean nothing more than providing room and board for however long and leaning toward killing them will border on criminal. Sure, let's just categorize them as security guards.

We seem to be doing OK so far.

Summary execution is not authorized. Neither is affording them "rights".

[Wakeupcall]

Welcome to Obama land of freedom for all and security for none.

er, um, unless you are a member of the opposing political party, then you have no right to freedom or security, just elimination.

It's on the way, people.

As was written this past week in a Chinese news article of change, I quote;

"You can have no change without movement. No movement without STATE ENFORCED HARMONY".

Here comes state enforced HARMONY.

[Gray]

I think the threshold is nearly been reached.

[tmarkham]

Isn't it ironic that this Constitutional Rights debacle is coming from a ConLaw professor "expert"?

[tmarkham]

American CIA Operative on location: Ve half vays ov making you talk! But first, "You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to counsel present during questioning. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a Court of law."

Captured Islamopig****er terrorist: Wait. What's a "court of law," infidel?

...

[dials number for al qaeda -- waits --] Hello? This is Achmed. Put me through to Mohammed. Hello? Mohammed? Achmed here. Me? I'm fine. Thanks for asking. No. I was captured by the Americans. Huh? No no. No torture. But they gave me my rights. Yes. No Mohammed, I **** you not. They seem to think I committed a bank heist. These Americans are beyond stupid it seems, Allah be praised. So, anyway, I was calling because I was wondering, would it be alright if you sent in some guys to liberate me? Hold on a second.

Hey Infidel! My lawyer wants you to hold off on the interrogation until he can be here. What's the address here?

:)) THIS is hysterical. I'm passing it on to my friends!!!

[Maelstrom]

As a retired service member and an ex-SEAL, I think that Obama is really tying our hands. SEALs don't ...

Please edit or delete your post.

You *still* do not exist and may be compromising yourself unnecessarily with respect to State Secrets.

[johnjay1788]

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, the ACLU or the Obama Administration will appoint one for you. Do you understand these rights? If not, we will provide an Arabic translator.

[zantax]

I'm so surprised.

[griffcj]

It's only the FBI that is mirandizing, according to Petraeus.

Oh yeah, and it's been ongoing since before Obama came into office.

[Liability]

It's only the FBI that is mirandizing, according to Petraeus.

Oh yeah, and it's been ongoing since before Obama came into office.

According to the Congressman who spoke yesterday as a guest of Mark Levin, a former FBI agent, at that, a person who was there, the claim that it is just the FBI agents who are giving the Miranda warnings to the captured unlawful combatants is untrue.

And it raises a big and important question.

If the sanction for FAILING to give a valid set of Miranda warnings to a detainee is "suppression of evidence," then:

isn't it crystal clear that this government is even now considering the battle against these vermin to be nothing more than a mere law enforcement issue?
Isn't that exactly the kind of thinking that enabled the terrorists of 9/11/2001 to succeed against us in that atrocity?
What trials are we considering going forward on?
What "charges"?
Which jurisdiction? Over there or back here?
Which Courts?


Isn't there ANYBODY in the Obama Administration willing to stand up and be heard to suggest that this is insanity?

[tmarkham]

If the sanction for FAILING to give a valid set of Miranda warnings to a detainee is "suppression of evidence," then:


isn't it crystal clear that this government is even now considering the battle against these vermin to be nothing more than a mere law enforcement issue?
Isn't that exactly the kind of thinking that enabled the terrorists of 9/11/2001 to succeed against us in that atrocity?
What trials are we considering going forward on?
What "charges"?
Which jurisdiction? Over there or back here?
Which Courts?

Isn't there ANYBODY in the Obama Administration willing to stand up and be heard to suggest that this is insanity?

Agreed. And,
Isn't there ANYBODY IN CONGRESS willing to stand up and be heard to suggest that this is insantiy?

[Gray]

According to the Congressman who spoke yesterday as a guest of Mark Levin, a former FBI agent, at that, a person who was there, the claim that it is just the FBI agents who are giving the Miranda warnings to the captured unlawful combatants is untrue.

And it raises a big and important question.

If the sanction for FAILING to give a valid set of Miranda warnings to a detainee is "suppression of evidence," then:

isn't it crystal clear that this government is even now considering the battle against these vermin to be nothing more than a mere law enforcement issue?
Isn't that exactly the kind of thinking that enabled the terrorists of 9/11/2001 to succeed against us in that atrocity?
What trials are we considering going forward on?
What "charges"?
Which jurisdiction? Over there or back here?
Which Courts?


Isn't there ANYBODY in the Obama Administration willing to stand up and be heard to suggest that this is insanity?


Now that the terrorists have rights they can bring Charges against Obama.

This could get interesting.

[Liability]

Now that the terrorists have rights they can bring Charges against Obama.

This could get interesting.

Next up, the debate on whether it is an outrage that we don't give them (and every other person on the face of planet Earth for that matter) the right to vote in our elections.

Messy indeed. First they'll sue President Obama for the fact that they were falsely imprisoned (it won't matter that there's nothing "false" about it). THEN, of course, they'll vote for the guy.