Posted on 06/10/2009 8:22:06 PM PDT by BigKahuna
A June 10th posting by Stephen F. Hayes in the Weekly Standard brought to light a very interesting happenstance, which seems to be going on with increasing regularity among FBI agents working alongside CIA officers and American troops in Afghanistan. Hayes highlights remarks made by Mike Rogers, the senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, about his recent visit to the troops working in and around the region of Bagram Air Base, in Afghanistan.
Rogers’ remarks seem to indicate that a change in FBI and Justice Department policies as they relate to the interrogation of people suspected of being terrorists — who were captured by any one of several U.S. government entities (Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency) in the field — is in the works. What seems to be going on, in fact, is that these suspected terrorists and people who have otherwise taken up arms against U. S. forces within the country, are being read Miranda rights as if they were actual citizens of the United States, within the United States.
We cannot conceptualize the depth and breadth of legal thinking that must have gone into this decision, which seems extremely silly on its face, and possibly even dangerous to not only U.S. troops but also to the average American citizen, were one of these people that had been captured the be subsequently released to go about his or her dirty work, all on the premise that evidence gained from an interrogation hadn’t been gained “properly.”
(Excerpt) Read more at entitlementsyndrome.com ...
If you are an American soldier in the field of combat and you know that if the enemy is captured they must be read the Miranda Rights, (which basically entitles the enemy to the same rights as an American citizen) would you (soldier) be more inclined to just shoot to kill rather than leaving your fate in the hands of the Obama administration?
The only “right” a terrorist should be given, IMHO, is the right to remain dead.
You have the right to 5.56 in the forehead, you have the right to American steel in your gut. You have the right to meet your maker and make your case for your sins and it is our duty to expedite that matter. That’s all, carry on.
Soldier don’t capture suspected criminals of any kind. They capture the enemy. That is enemy combatants.
Such people are held to the end of hostilities. They are not tried. They did not commit a crime necessarily. They often only did what they or their society perceived as their duty.
Hence at the end of hostilities they are released. Unless the committed a special act that is a war crime, they are released as soon as possible with no punishment.
Notice being a POW is not punishment. And really it isn’t, you are kept off the battlefield so it might in fact save your life.
The judiciary has taken over all branches of government. To infer “rights” to an enemy who operate without remorse, regard, respect (or give “rights” to their enemy...us)...is a perversion of law.
You have a right to be executed now or in 5 minutes, take your pick!
I’m a retired servicemember. We were always taught to “shoot ‘em ‘til they’re down, and then shoot ‘em some more.” I guess there’s some sort of intel benefit to be had from taking some of these guys alive, after a firefight, but that’s not the way I and my men operated in the field.
When will they get legal counsel? Is the ACLU going to set up shop in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is there now a FBI type on each patrol? This is trying to win wars with both arms tied behind your back. I am not Ivy League educated, like most of the administration power elite class, since I went to a state college in the midwest and did spend a year in Baghdad, so it is beyond my meager mind to see the value in doing this. I am deeply concerned for our future. I fear for my children.
Yeah clearly this crowd wants to handle terriorism as a criminal matter. That is fine, but the military is not about criminal matters, they are about wars. So as you indicate, we can either fight this as a war or consider it a criminal matter.
My view is that you attack the US military, ie the Pentagon, you have committed an act of war. So I see it as a war.
I’m with you - shoot to kill, period. If any enemies happen to survive the engagement fine, they’re POWs held without trial until the end of hostilities. Since there currently is no end in sight for the war on terror, I’d call it a life sentence for them.
So, does it now become part of boot camp to learn to say “you have the right to remain silent” in Arabic?
Works for me.
Anyone attacking the US is a war criminal and does not have the rights awarded to US citizens.
They should not be given a lawyer at taxpayer expense and everything they say should be used against them in a military court.
This is the biggest load of cr@p I have ever heard.
Just when you think you’ve heard it all from obama, .......
I always scratch my head when I hear of ideas like reading non-U.S. citizens their “rights,” when they’re being held in a foreign country, were captured as a result of their actions taken against the U.S., and were not wearing the uniform of another nation’s armed forces. By rights, these folks aren’t even entitled to Geneva Conventions protections, let alone a Miranda warning.
But I forget...Eric Holder is the same DOJ official in the Clinton administration who pushed for the Puerto Rican FALN terrorists to be granted clemency and released from prison, even though none of them requested clemency or would agree to accept it, at first.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.