Will Osama Bin laden be Read his Miranda Rights

T

TuTu Monroe

A Realist
This administration has gone mad. Wake up people, before it's too late.

realclearpolitics.com

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: "If you're gonna prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs, the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent. The big problem I have is you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we have mixed theories and couldn't turn him over to the CIA, the FBI, military intelligence for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now you're saying he's subject to criminal court in the United States and you're confusing the people fighting this war."
 
Last edited:
You guys aren't looking at all the precedents this sets. If we are denying these terrorists their rights we reserve for ourselves during a trial, then it opens the possibility to do the same in all sorts of other situations.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
You guys aren't looking at all the precedents this sets. If we are denying these terrorists their rights we reserve for ourselves during a trial, then it opens the possibility to do the same in all sorts of other situations.
Click to expand...

I'm far from an expert on this subject but what precedent are we setting? We dealt with terrorists and wars in this country's past. This is not the first time.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
You guys aren't looking at all the precedents this sets. If we are denying these terrorists their rights we reserve for ourselves during a trial, then it opens the possibility to do the same in all sorts of other situations.
Click to expand...
Particularly when the tables are turned on our men and women in uniform.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
this should be all the reason anyone needs to never take prisoners on the battlefield. Dead people don't need trials.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I have a friend (recently deceased) who part of the Normandy landing and fought the Germans until the end of the war. He said initially on landing on Normandy that the official policy was "Take no prisoners" as the advance would be to rapid. That back fired on them as when the Germans figured that out they fought that much harder and to the death, rather than surrender as they figured they would be shot if they surrendered (and many were).
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Interesting. I have a friend (recently deceased) who part of the Normandy landing and fought the Germans until the end of the war. He said initially on landing on Normandy that the official policy was "Take no prisoners" as the advance would be to rapid. That back fired on them as when the Germans figured that out they fought that much harder and to the death, rather than surrender as they figured they would be shot if they surrendered (and many were).
Click to expand...

war is hell, but I can agree somewhat on the different policies. Each one has it's own place but if we're not going to acknowledge that terrorists are actually combatants not affiliated with a nation state and treat them accordingly, and instead treat them like criminals afforded all the rights of citizens, then it's much better to safeguard our constitutional policies instead of stretching them all out of proportion to the point of meaninglessness.
 
the dems once again coming to the defense for their messiah....

in 06' obama said they would get military trials....not civilian trials....if you don't understand why enemy combatants (which the scotus has declared them) should get military trials versus civilian trials, you really have no business defending your messiah

further, obama and holder have already declared they will be found guilty and sentenced to death....this is a fucking circus and you obama lemmings are paying for front row seats....they deserve a military tribunal, not a civil criminal court....

how much do you want to be that some civil criminal rules will be excluded for this trial? they would have to, else it is highly possible that not all his civil rights have been seen to, such as the miranda, access to a lawyer etc....and this would mean he walks free....

come out of your trance for once and accept this is a bad decision by obama
 
TuTu Monroe said:
This administration has gone mad. Wake up people, before it's too late.

realclearpolitics.com

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: "If you're gonna prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs, the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent. The big problem I have is you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we have mixed theories and couldn't turn him over to the CIA, the FBI, military intelligence for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now you're saying he's subject to criminal court in the United States and you're confusing the people fighting this war."
Click to expand...


Lindsay Graham is being a jackass here. First of all, Osama would be immediately turned over to military intelligence and/or the CIA. And he would not have to be Mirandized for intelligence gathering purposes as the purpose of interrogating him would presumably not be about whether Osama committed any terrorist acts against the United States or its people.

I think it is safe to assume that we've got enough evidence against him as it is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Osama bin Laden is guilty of committing terrorist acts against the U.S. and its people such that we do not need the fruits of an interrogation to try him in court.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Lindsay Graham is being a jackass here. First of all, Osama would be immediately turned over to military intelligence and/or the CIA. And he would not have to be Mirandized for intelligence gathering purposes as the purpose of interrogating him would presumably not be about whether Osama committed any terrorist acts against the United States or its people.

I think it is safe to assume that we've got enough evidence against him as it is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Osama bin Laden is guilty of committing terrorist acts against the U.S. and its people such that we do not need the fruits of an interrogation to try him in court.
Click to expand...

not true....if you are going to give civil criminal courts jurisdiction over them, you would not be able to interrogate him without miranda rights and if he requests a lawyer all interrogation ceases immediately...

your point is exactly what i was talking about in my post above....it is a mockery to give civilian criminal courts jurisdiciton, but then not allow all the protections granted by such jurisdiction....it is nothing more than a circus and you obama lemmings are gobbling it up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top