Originally posted by Barts Yup, this is one of the most scary things about the war on Terror. Innocent until proven guilty, one of the cornerstones of any decent system of laws, is apparently unnecessary when we're talking about terrorism.
Some would consider you guilty until proven innocent for raising this concern.
Originally posted by Barts The question is, are conservatives worried about the rights of the accused ? Though this group overlaps with the criminals, they are very much different and should be treated differently. Apparently you don't have to think about the difference when you're accused of terrorism.
There seems to be a major misunderstanding of the purpose of Miranda Rights.
Things like Miranda deal with ensuring that police don't try to compel suspects to testify against themselves without first informing those suspects that they have no obligation to do so. Otherwise, such evidence is not admissible in a court of law.
But when the police are questioning a terror suspect (or anyone else involved who is thought to be part of a conspiracy), they're NOT trying to get evidence against that person - they're looking for information that will lead to additional arrests or to prevent future attacks. In such instances, there's probably already an airtight case against the initial suspect, so even if that person was to "testify against themselves", who cares? - they could throw all that evidence out and you can still get a conviction.
The constitution only protects you from being compelled to testify against YOURSELF - not from being compelled to testify against other people.
First they use the excuse that they're not citizens so don't deserve rights.
Now the presumption of innocence is thrown out the door for US citizens. All you need is to be accused and you're an "enemy combatant" and you no longer have any rights at all.
Apparently the constitution is only relevant when you feel like applying it.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn First they use the excuse that they're not citizens so don't deserve rights.
Now the presumption of innocence is thrown out the door for US citizens. All you need is to be accused and you're an "enemy combatant" and you no longer have any rights at all.
Apparently the constitution is only relevant when you feel like applying it.
I do find this idea of "throwing out a person's citizenship" if they've been merely ACCUSED of being an enemy combatant to be absolutely noxious and rather scary for every citizen of the US.
Any conservative that favors such a thing might want to consider the possibility that someone might at some point consider THEM to be an enemy combatant. Especially given the usual paranoia that conservatives express when it comes to government.
What if someone decided to arrest Glenn Beck and charge him with being an enemy combatant because one of his programs appeared to be advocating violent action against the government? Should that by itself allow the authorities to strip him of his citizenship and deport him to some wretched corner of the earth? What if the government started rounding up everyone else in the Tea Party movement and did the same thing?
Originally posted by Melanerpes I do find this idea of "throwing out a person's citizenship" if they've been merely ACCUSED of being an enemy combatant to be absolutely noxious and rather scary for every citizen of the US.
Any conservative that favors such a thing might want to consider the possibility that someone might at some point consider THEM to be an enemy combatant. Especiall ...[text shortened]... vernment started rounding up everyone else in the Tea Party movement and did the same thing?
Exactly.
I've heard some people start to expand the definition of terrorism to things like drug gangs etc... all they need is to call everything terrorism.
These same people who think that it's insane to give these rights to suspected terrorists also are against taking away the rights of the people on the terrorist watch list to buy guns.
So people like Lindsay Graham want to make sure suspected terrorists have 2nd amendment rights, but god forbid you give them the presumption of innocence.
Originally posted by pawnhandler Of course he should be Mirandized, as should anyone else arrested in the United States. Either we have a rule of law or we don't.
It's ironic that those who bleat loudest in favour of suspending the rule of law and rescinding suspects' citizenship etc., seem also to be the ones bleating about how terrorists must not be allowed to alter or threaten or undermine democracy and the established way of life.
What's the big deal? He was Mirandized like anybody arrested in the US is supposed to be and waived his rights and sang like a canary. This damages the case against him how exactly?
I've heard some people start to expand the definition of terrorism to things like drug gangs etc... all they need is to call everything terrorism.
These same people who think that it's insane to give these rights to suspected terrorists also are against taking away the rights of the people on the terrorist watch list to buy guns.
So peop ...[text shortened]... amendment rights, but god forbid you give them the presumption of innocence.
Bass Ackwards.
he's not accused of drug running, embezzlement, or jaywalking.
he's accused of military action while out of uniform.
it makes perfect sense to try him as an enemy combatant.
Originally posted by no1marauder What's the big deal? He was Mirandized like anybody arrested in the US is supposed to be and waived his rights and sang like a canary. This damages the case against him how exactly?
You don't understand.
We need to give the State as much power as possible to use against anyone who may even look like he might be a terrorist.
We must not listen to any of those soft liberal cowards who wish to weaken us. We need to trust that the State will always use this power competently and fairly. The brave patriots that run the State clearly know what is best. And besides - it's the only thing that can protect us from socialist takeover by the bureaucratic buffoons who run the...
wait a minute....%@#&%!!!....who mixed last month's talking points into this month's talking points??😠😠ðŸ˜
Originally posted by zeeblebot why do we need them?
why not get rid of them and shift responsibility and practices to military courts?
if a terrorist manages to get to the US and commit a military action, why give him a freebie? "touched home base, nyaa, nyaa, nyaa!!!"
suppose he was wearing a uniform. should he then be tried under martial law or civilian?
Why do we so many of us glibly assume that people who are arrested MUST be guilty?
The whole POINT of the court system is to determine whether or not a suspect committed the crime he's been accused of. So what happens if an act of terror occurs and they arrest the wrong guy?
Is it okay to take away that person's rights just because he was accused of a military act?
How would you feel is YOU were arrested on such a charge? Would you personally be willing to waive your rights and put your fate in the hands of Obama's military tribunal?
Originally posted by Melanerpes Why do we so many of us glibly assume that people who are arrested MUST be guilty?
The whole POINT of the court system is to determine whether or not a suspect committed the crime he's been accused of. So what happens if an act of terror occurs and they arrest the wrong guy?
Is it okay to take away that person's rights just because he was accused of ...[text shortened]... be willing to waive your rights and put your fate in the hands of Obama's military tribunal?
1) who are you talking about here? it's reasonable to assume that there is a high probability of guilt attached to an arrested person. isn't it the duty of the arresting officers and warrant-granters if necessary) to exercise reasonable care that innocent parties aren't arrested. after that, it is the duty of the investigators, prosecutors, judicial system, jury, and defense team to attempt to ensure that an innocent person isn't convicted and sentenced.
2) See 1.
3) It's ok to arrest and prosecute under military law a person accused of a military act, whether he managed to commit it on home base (U.S. soil) or not.
4) Whether I was innocent or not, why shouldn't I dispute the charge in any way I could, exhausting all options including attempting to change venue to civilian courts, just because I supported a policy of using military courts?
06 May '10 08:11
Faisal Shahzad: Civilian, or enemy combatant?
Back to Top