- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Soldiers ordered to 'Mirandize' enemy combatants? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 12 2009, 11:19 AM (614 Views) | |
| Jet Moses | Jun 12 2009, 11:19 AM Post #1 |
|
SHITSPRAYER
|
I don't get this... Does our Constitution protect non-citizens/enemy combatants? Does our Constitution apply to non-citizens in other countries? This is crazy, who ordered this? Congressman: Soldiers 'Mirandizing' Enemy Combatants Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:34 PM By: Dave Eberhart Article Font Size U.S. Rep. Mike Rodgers, R-Mich., who is just back from Afghanistan, says that captured foreign fighters in that war-torn country are now getting “Miranda” warnings after capture and prior to questioning. In a Fox News account, reproduced on the lawmaker’s Web site, Rogers says, “I witnessed it myself, talked to the people on the ground. What you have is two very separate missions colliding in the field in a combat zone. Again, anytime you offer confusion in that environment that’s already chaotic and confusing enough, you jeopardize a soldier’s life.” What’s more, Rogers says that the new warnings advisement policy is news to the U.S. Congress, which he notes has not to his knowledge been briefed on the new procedures. The Miranda warning is straightforward: “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 speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.” What’s most troubling to Rogers and others is that first part about remaining silent – it severs at the get-go the route to what can be the best intelligence on the enemy’s plans to kill Americans. “I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn’t been briefed on it, I didn’t know about it. We’re still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative,” Rogers said, according to a report in the Weekly Standard. Rogers added: “The problem is you take that guy at three in the morning off of a compound right outside of Kabul where he’s building bomb materials to kill U.S. soldiers, and read him his rights by four, and the Red Cross is saying take the lawyer -- you have now created quite a confusion amongst the FBI, the CIA and the United States military. And confusion is the last thing you want in a combat zone.” According to the Fox News report, confusion may just be the order of the day. U.S. commanders on the ground reportedly told Fox News that soldiers are not reading Miranda rights to detainees. However, these commanders could not address whether the FBI was doing so. What’s more, according to Fox News, the new routine of Miranda warnings has apparently not been put in place at detention facilities in Iraq or at Guantanamo Bay, according to U.S. military officials. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs offered, “I have no reason to disbelieve a member of Congress. But I don’t know any of the circumstances that are involved around it.” Gibbs did concede that the development would not surprise him. The Justice Department was more straightforward. According to Fox News, Justice spokesman Dean Boyd denied any fundamental change in policy. “There has been no policy change nor blanket instruction for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas,” Boyd said. “While there have been specific cases in which FBI agents have Mirandized suspects overseas, at both Bagram and in other situations, in order to preserve the quality of evidence obtained, there has been no overall policy change with respect to detainees.” When Rogers said that in his opinion the use of the Miranda warnings in Afghanistan were in his opinion clearly part of President Barack Obama’s global justice initiative, he was referring to a program which has not been held as close to the chest by the administration as the apparent new Miranda warnings policy. The Los Angeles Times recently reported that the FBI and Justice Department plan to significantly expand their role in global counter-terrorism operations -- part of a U.S. policy shift that will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations with one built around more routine open investigations and prosecutions. Under the “global justice” initiative, which the Times reported has been up-and-running for several months, FBI agents will assume a major role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will design and execute, for example, their questioning of suspects to try to ensure that standard federal criminal prosecutions are an option. Bottom line: the “global justice” initiative and presumes most accused terrorists have the right to contest the charges against them in a “legitimate” setting. And “legitimate” currently includes Miranda warnings for suspects. “When they ‘Mirandize’ a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the ‘right to remain silent,’” said Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaida terrorist to remain silent. “Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation,” Hoekstra added, according to the Weekly Standard. Rogers commented that the writing is already on the wall: “The International Red Cross, when they go into these detention facilities, has now started telling people – ‘Take the option. You want a lawyer.’” © 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved. http://www.newsmax.com |
![]() |
|
| cr726 | Jun 12 2009, 11:25 AM Post #2 |
![]()
|
Very interesting article and will be waiting for follow-up articles if true or not. |
![]() |
|
| Dean | Jun 12 2009, 11:26 AM Post #3 |
|
This idiot is one and done. One Big Ass Mistake America Edited by Dean, Jun 12 2009, 11:27 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| cr726 | Jun 12 2009, 11:30 AM Post #4 |
![]()
|
He was never getting elected either, right?
|
![]() |
|
| piney | Jun 12 2009, 11:49 AM Post #5 |
![]()
|
This article is so poorly written to call it journalism is a laugher. The author basically ignores the statements from the army and the FBI and instead relys heavily on the words of a congressman with a political agenda. There is nothing new from FBI agents arresting suspects overseas reading Mirandas. Soldiers are not doing that. |
![]() |
|
| Dean | Jun 12 2009, 11:55 AM Post #6 |
|
Judging from the criminal liberal media love fest, I think it was pretty much a foregone conclusion. Now the people know what a huge mistake it was. Palin 2012. Edited by Dean, Jun 12 2009, 11:55 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| piney | Jun 12 2009, 11:57 AM Post #7 |
![]()
|
Palin 2012?? I think I just threw up in my mouth. Please tell me there is someone better than Annie and her gun to emerge from the mess that the Republican party is. |
![]() |
|
| Dean | Jun 12 2009, 12:06 PM Post #8 |
|
Scared huh?
|
![]() |
|
| BergenJet | Jun 12 2009, 09:49 PM Post #9 |
|
Aren't these the same type of comments made about Obama and the Democrats prior to him beating Hillary? Didn't Obama not stand a chance post Dem nomination against a Republican war hero? Plenty could happen in the next 2 years and Palin may very well be a legitimate candidate by then. Palin-Jindal fighting for the republican nod is very much a possibility and the fact that Obama was able to win gives either one of them a chance... |
![]() |
|
| piney | Jun 12 2009, 09:54 PM Post #10 |
![]()
|
I think that was the Republican party line..everything I heard about Obama was that his speech at the 2004 DNC was his coming out party and he was the future of the Dem party and the next Dem Pres. I read article in Newsweek about this guy before he ran. Also, I threw up in my mouth because I can't stand Palin... I voted for Obama, and it was the first time I ever voted Dem for Pres. in my life.... I want to Republicans to nominate someone I can get behind...Palin is not it. |
![]() |
|
| Ernie | Jun 14 2009, 05:37 PM Post #11 |
|
Terrorists are enemy combatants, and not protected by the Geneva Convention. You can pray for them and their souls, but they are not guaranteed the rights of POW's. |
![]() |
|
| piney | Jun 14 2009, 10:44 PM Post #12 |
![]()
|
that is irrelevant. We have a lot of people being held, some of them are from the battlefield. What is so scary about trying and judging these people? When the FBI perform investigations overseas and arrest suspects they give miranda rights, because these people are going to be extradited to the US for trial. Terrorist are not enemy combatant all the time, no matter how much you or I would like them to be. Sometimes they are guys we arrest in other countries due to excellent investigative work. Fighting terrorism isn't black and white, there isn't only one way we fight them or one place we take them into custody. We have to use every weapon in our arsenal. |
![]() |
|
| Ernie | Jun 14 2009, 11:10 PM Post #13 |
|
There are things called Military Tribunals. |
![]() |
|
| piney | Jun 14 2009, 11:13 PM Post #14 |
![]()
|
they don't have any relevance in suspects detained by the FBI. |
![]() |
|
| Klecko73isGod | Jun 14 2009, 11:13 PM Post #15 |
|
Prior to 9/11/2001 the federal government had a 100% conviction rate in terrorism cases and not one of those convicts has come remotely close to escaping a federal supermax prison as no one ever has. I really don't see how a makeshift prison in a corner of Cuba makes us safe. These scare tactics as an excuse to keep Gitmo open are ridiculous. These people do not have superpowers. They are not Magneto. We house people who are much more dangerous to the average American than these schmucks. |
![]() |
|
| flushingjet | Jun 15 2009, 11:59 AM Post #16 |
|
Someone didn't see the news that a Democrat led Senate voted 90-6 against B. Hussein to keep his Islamic brethren in Gitmo. Democratic Sen. Feinstein doesnt want them at Alcatraz, an isolated prison like Gitmo because it is important to her state as a landmark, or Michael Bennett Democrat Sen doesnt want them in CO where the most state of the art Supermax prison is either. Jim Webb, Democrat from VA, said Gitmo is A-OK cause we already spent millions making it so. there's plenty o' good reasons to keep them where they are - here's just a few far, far away from America unless they borrow a '57 chevy and some inner tubes from Fidel and Raul - 90+ miles away at sea isnt safe? *chuckle* they cant radicalize other inmates in US prisons we cant trust nations like Yemen to keep their crazies off the battlefield-1 in 7 have returned to jihad according to a NYT (leak) Europe doesnt want their Islamokooks back - you know how important Europes opinion is to libs cant convict under civilian law due to classified info or evidentiary reasons wont have radical anti-American lawyers passing along communiques to their terror mates like lynne stewart wont have incidents where these psychos maim prison guards (i. e. Louis Pepe shanked in the eye) and many more this begs the question why do some of us go to such great lengths to stick up for terrorists. Edited by flushingjet, Jun 15 2009, 12:02 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| piney | Jun 15 2009, 12:12 PM Post #17 |
![]()
|
quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read...wanting to convict and fry these guys is akin to sticking up for terrorist...crazy xenophobia is no longer in style, we shouldn't be afraid of these people, we should hunt them down and kill them. People have to stop thinking there is no precedent for trying and convicting Terrorist suspects....as if somehow, now, they have the upper hand.. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/23/al_qaeda/index.html
it can be done...and where are the lists of people who have been radicalized by these inmates...I mean, we must have hundreds of home grown reverse Stockholm terrorists all over the country |
![]() |
|
| Klecko73isGod | Jun 15 2009, 12:50 PM Post #18 |
|
Wow, just wow. A little bit of education would take you a long way my friend. You are either woefully ignorant or just a lunatic asshole. These people don't have magical powers. The Democrats are doing what they always do, allowing the neo-con (short for neo-conservative you dipshit) Republicans to scare people into thinking the Dems are soft on terror. The Dems need to grow a pair and call out the Republicans for the tremendous pussies they are on this issue. |
![]() |
|
| Ernie | Jun 15 2009, 12:57 PM Post #19 |
|
You have a way with words that would make Walt Whitman proud. |
![]() |
|
| Klecko73isGod | Jun 15 2009, 01:04 PM Post #20 |
|
Read FJ's posts. I am responding in kind to a foul mouthed bigot. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · State · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2









8:20 PM Jul 10