Posted on 06/17/2009 6:32:47 AM PDT by Sergeant Tim
McCain explicitly included the Fifth Amendment in his legislation because it addresses his target, coercive interrogation. As weve seen, in Dickerson, the Supreme Court held that Miranda was now considered part of the Fifth Amendments core. In the al-Owhali case, Judge Sand ruled that Miranda imposes daunting burdens on American agents overseas burdens far more challenging than the rote reading of an advice-of-rights card that typically happens in domestic policing. With the Supreme Court, beginning in 2004, imposing more and more criminal-justice procedure on the battlefield, the McCain Amendment would almost certainly be used by courts or a Democratic administration to impose Miranda protocols not just on FBI agents conducting criminal investigations (which is what its meant for) in foreign countries, but on U.S. military and intelligence agents conducting combat and covert operations. That would be the death knell not of the torture over which McCain obsessed but of any effective intelligence collection.
The McCain Amendment passed by a 909 margin in the Senate, with all but nine Republicans joining the unanimous Democrats. It became law incorporated in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 with the signature of President Bush.
This is the background against which we must consider Steve Hayess report that the Obama administration has orchestrated the worlds first Mirandized war. A war against a terror network that specializes in sneak mass-murder attacks, in which intelligence is at an unprecedented premium, is a strange setting for inaugurating a practice in which detainees are told they neednt speak to you and have a right to the assistance of an attorney underwritten by the American taxpayers theyve been trying to kill.
But expect President Obama to gaze at his teleprompter and assure you that he is not inaugurating that practice.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Ping!
PING!
But here, at last, is the point. The problem is not just that Obama wants to extend Miranda to nearly all captured terrorists. Thats just a symptom. The problem is that he wants to treat international terrorists as suspects in a law-enforcement matter rather than as wartime enemies.This article is long (3 web pages) but outstanding. Go read it.--snip--
Theres no point making this into a controversy about Miranda. After all, if we go the law-enforcement route, there is no question that Miranda applies. The issue is not Miranda, but whether we should view terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as mere criminals. If so, then obviously we must follow criminal protocols, and there is no question that Miranda applies. We must tell them they dont have to talk to us, and that we will get them a free lawyer who will promptly advise them to clam up. We must also accept that we will no longer get the timely intelligence that thwarts attacks. We must resign ourselves to more dead Americans.
With the Supreme Court, beginning in 2004, imposing more and more criminal-justice procedure on the battlefield, the McCain Amendment would almost certainly be used by courts or a Democratic administration to impose Miranda protocols not just on FBI agents conducting criminal investigations (which is what its meant for) in foreign countries, but on U.S. military and intelligence agents conducting combat and covert operations. That would be the death knell not of the torture over which McCain obsessed but of any effective intelligence collection. |
|
ping!
Ummm ... Excuse me ... MR. HITLER, you have the RIGHT to remain Silent etc etc
This looks just as STUPID Reading it as I felt Typing it.
Bring home the troops ... send out the NYPD!!
God Help us all!!
Next up: Video Cams on all military vehicles to record illegal atrocities by US military against terrorists (victims) who were not advised of their global legal rights under World Court mandates.
When he became president, Jimmy Carter fully supported and enforced the Church Amendment. The sorts of people who consort with -- and, more importantly, get cozy with -- the leaders of terrorist organizations are not normally choir boys. Church moved the legislature to PROHIBIT any US funds going to these potential informants. Since it can take upwards of 20 years for these guys to move close enough to the top to be seriously valuable, we had virtually NO humintel on bin Laden's plans for 9-11!
While there are still Church-like imbeciles (Reid, Pelosi, et come to mind) at the levers of power here, I THINK the law has been changed.
While the NSA wiretaps and eavesdrops on US citizens HERE, isn't it comforting to know that in just 15 or 20 years we may be able to thwart a plan hatched THERE for some future 9-11 with information gathered THERE.
Now our guys are required to MERANDIZE enemy combatants NOT wearing uniforms and displaying NO recognizable military patches, etc., etc., all of which, de facto, removes them from the protections afforded under the Geneva Convention. In past conflicts, the Geneva Convention permits the capturing forces to shoot these guys on the spot. Of course, any trooper caught doing that would be up on charges in the morning.
Anybody else see a pattern here?
Whom God would destroy, He first makes mad.
The NRO articles claim that the amendment does so, but they do fail to tell how and why. They do go into the background and details of how Miranda warnings were applied in the case of the 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kenya.
Searching the 2005 amendment links at the U.S. Senate web pages proved unfruitful. Where in this lengthy amendment is the language that would lead us to think Obama could point at McCain, rather than simply to the earlier, Kenya bombing, field interrogatory practice? Otherwise, there was a recent WSJ piece;How to Handle the Guantanamo Detainees , authored by McCain and Lindsey Graham in which they pointed out that combatants should be tried under the rules of war, not U.S. civil code.
FROM THE WSJ article, referenced & linked, above;
Here is the text of Senate Amendment 1977 to H.R. 2863
SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. (a) In General.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the [Page: S10909] United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. (b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section. (c) Limitation on Supersedure.--The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section. (d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.--In this section, the term ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.
And here is the Public Law:
Public Law 109-148 109th Congress SEC. 1003. <> PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. (a) In General.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. (b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section. (c) Limitation on Supersedure.--The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section. [[Page 119 STAT. 2740]] (d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.-- In this section, the term ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.
BTW, Wiki is a lousy source for Congressional Records. Try Thomas (Library of Congress) http://thomas.loc.gov/ in the future. If you click on the link I ADDED into McCarthy’s article ‘McCain Amendment’ you’ll see the vote.
I should add, don’t listen to what people say (McCain and Graham in the WSJ), watch what they do.
That being said, I don't have a whole lot of disagreement with the amendment. So shoot me-- wait --- that would contravene the law -- so sue me, if you wish. It might be hard to serve process on me, though. Good luck!
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.