Terrorist's Miranda Warning as per SCOTUS

[Miggy]

We have to take the moral highground though. It doesn't matter what they violate, we have to do what's right. If we don't,we're not any better than they are.

I don't care if it's the most low-life children murdering rapist to ever exist in history. He would still deserve a fair trial before he's shot. If we start doing away with innocent before guilty, we're no better than any of the other tolitarian regimes we've opposed in the last 75 years. That doesn't mean that I support the 50 miles of loopholes and red tape in our legal system, that could be streamlined, but doing away with it in general is wrong.

First, let me point out to you, once more, that this is WARFARE, not law enforcement. In War, you do not go around trying to aprehend suspect, you kill the enemy and, if some might happen to live, you will question them to obtain information so we can kill more of them and WIN the war.

The idea of applying some stupid notion of rights to declared enemies of the USA was tried before during the last administration with Zacarias Moussaoui with the results shown below.



People who share your "moral highground" prevented the FBI to do a proper invesigation on the poor misguided soul and blocked warnings from other FBI agents regarding a group of people like Mr. Moussaoui.

And a question, if you do believe what you say, what are you doing in this forum? According to your principles, if we use violence against criminals that attack us "we're not any better than they are."

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[SammyIamToday]

Our soldiers aren't going to be treated well by ANY ENEMY, have you forgotten POWs from Vietnam, Korea, WW2? They were treated horribly. If we treated these guys like our soldiers have been/will be treated, they would be dead, de-capitated, burned, drug thru the streets, tortured (& I don't mean putting them in a pyramid pile naked)...etc...

I agree, but that still doesn't mean we should treat them badly. Whether or not they treat us like humans, we should treat them as such.

Do you think all the POWs we captured during any major war should all be tried in court? These POWs that are being held now should be dealt with one day, WHEN the war is over (I hope), not before then.

What's wrong with trying them now? Other war criminals have been tried in the past. There's no need to wait. Just a waste of money. This war is a far cry different from any other war we've fought, it might never end.

Most will agree, we should want to treat them fairly & expediously. However, this is not going to end tomorrow & WE DIDN'T START THIS! So I don't really care if it takes a while with these guys being locked up for the duration. I'll sleep better knowing they are behind bars, rather than trying to kill our soldiers (for me, immediate family members who are deployed in Iraq), or worse trying to sneak into the US & attacking innocents!

I'm not saying release these guys. I'm saying they deserve a trial. The idea that they get to sit in their little prisons, getting fed on my dollar all day, while nothing happens to them sits worse on my stomach than anything else.

[SammyIamToday]

First, let me point out to you, once more, that this is WARFARE, not law enforcement. In War, you do not go around trying to aprehend suspect, you kill the enemy and, if some might happen to live, you will question them to obtain information so we can kill more of them and WIN the war.

Last time I checked you get lots of classes in the military on how to properly treat POW's. So, unless we've left the Geneva Convention and the Hague Accord as signatories we should act as such. I don't care how distasteful the enemies are, they deserve what we have agreed that they deserve.

The idea of applying some stupid notion of rights to declared enemies of the USA was tried before during the last administration with Zacarias Moussaoui with the results shown below.

Once again, as a country we're a signatory on treaties that gives them rights. If you want to spit all over that feel free, but I'd rather we do what we say we're going to do.

People who share your "moral highground" prevented the FBI to do a proper invesigation on the poor misguided soul and blocked warnings from other FBI agents regarding a group of people like Mr. Moussaoui.

Please, read the 9/11 commission report. The FBI/CIA/NSA was caught with their pants around their ankles. Or at least find an argument instead of linking in pictures of 9/11. I know what happened.

And a question, if you do believe what you say, what are you doing in this forum? According to your principles, if we use violence against criminals that attack us "we're not any better than they are."

What the hell is wrong with you? Believing in innocent before guilty is a big part of America's consitution and beliefs in personal freedom. The same reason that police officers can't beat people that they arrest. Using my rights to defend myself by carrying around a firearm isn't even the same ballpark, game, or sport as this issue. Why don't you sort your thoughts out before getting all emotional because our country was attacked.

And since freaking when did I mention that we can't fight back or attack them? Stop putting words in my mouth. All I said is that if we capture these people they need to be tried and then punished (if guilty) not to hug them and turn the other cheek. Reading comprehension of my posts please.

[Miggy]

Last time I checked you get lots of classes in the military on how to properly treat POW's. So, unless we've left the Geneva Convention and the Hague Accord as signatories we should act as such. I don't care how distasteful the enemies are, they deserve what we have agreed that they deserve.

Please do cite chapter and verse in GC and Hague regarding giving POW's a trial and then be released before the hostilities are over.
I went over GC III & GC IV and could only find that they should be properly fed and care at the same level as our troops and that they should be released at the end of hostilities whenever the POW's meet the guidelines which, in case you haven't noticed, the inmates at Gitmo do not but still are being treated as POW's. So, if anything, the US is going ABOVE international treaties.

Once again, as a country we're a signatory on treaties that gives them rights. If you want to spit all over that feel free, but I'd rather we do what we say we're going to do.

And as I stated above, we are going above what it was signed in the treatment of illegal combatants.

Please, read the 9/11 commission report. The FBI/CIA/NSA was caught with their pants around their ankles. Or at least find an argument instead of linking in pictures of 9/11. I know what happened.

The following are parts of the transcript of the 9/11 hearings.

"I think that there was at the time a very strictly enforced wall in the Justice Department between law enforcement and intelligence and that repeatedly, there are many statements from presidents and attorneys general and so forth that say that the first priority is bring these people to justice, protect the evidence, seal the evidence and so forth."

"The second core challenge was a legal issue that became a management challenge as well. Certain provisions of federal law had been interpreted to limit communication between agents conducting intelligence investigations and the criminal prosecution units of the Department of Justice. This was done so that the broad powers for gathering intelligence would not be seized upon by prosecutors trying to make a criminal case. The separation of intelligence from criminal investigations became known as the wall."

"Over time, the wall requirement came to be interpreted by the Justice Department, and particularly the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as imposing an increasingly stringent barrier to communications between FBI intelligence agents and criminal prosecutors."

"The wall between criminal and intelligence investigation apparently caused agents to be less aggressive than they might otherwise have been in pursuing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, surveillance powers in counterterrorism investigations. Moreover, the FISA approval process involved multiple levels of review, which also discouraged agents from using such surveillance."

"Many agents also told us that the process for getting FISA packages approved was incredibly lengthy and inefficient. Several FBI agents added that, prior to 9/11, FISA-derived intelligence information was not fully exploited anyway but was collected primarily to justify continuing the surveillance."

"The FBI was hampered by an inability to develop an endgame. Its agents continued to gather intelligence with little hope that they would be able to make a criminal case or otherwise disrupt the operation. Agents were stymied by rules regarding the distinction between intelligence and criminal cases, in part due to the wall then in place between criminal and intelligence investigations, as described above."

"Throughout the 1990s, the FBI's counterterrorism efforts against international terrorist organizations included both intelligence and criminal investigations. The FBI's approach to investigations was case-specific, decentralized and geared toward prosecution."

What the hell is wrong with you? Believing in innocent before guilty is a big part of America's consitution and beliefs in personal freedom. The same reason that police officers can't beat people that they arrest. Using my rights to defend myself by carrying around a firearm isn't even the same ballpark, game, or sport as this issue. Why don't you sort your thoughts out before getting all emotional because our country was attacked.

Again, you seem to confuse Criminal matters with Warfare matters. If we are to follow what you believe, every American Soldier in the Iraqi and Afghani Theater of Operations should be brought inmediately home and prosecuted for murder since they did not attempted to arrest the poor terrorist or read them their Miranda Rights before taking those who surrendered or were too wounded to keep fighting. According to your misguided point of view, our Armed Forces as of now are Mass Murderers.

And since freaking when did I mention that we can't fight back or attack them? Stop putting words in my mouth. All I said is that if we capture these people they need to be tried and then punished (if guilty) not to hug them and turn the other cheek. Reading comprehension of my posts please.

Well Sir, let me ask you, since you are so intent on due process. Have warrants been issued for the arrest of the individual we are fighting? What are the charges? And since the Military is not LEO, why are they there? Why instead we are not sending the FBI to arrest them and bring them to trial?

Please stop confusing warfare with civilian criminal matters.

Or at least find an argument instead of linking in pictures of 9/11. I know what happened.

With all due respect, you seem to forget Sir.

[Scott]

Gentlemen, enhance your calm. (Sorry I've been wanting to use that since I heard it in Demolition Man)

Hyperbole and personal attacks don't work. Fallacious arguments definitely don't work.

Please stick to the facts and put forth your positions without the personal attacks and hyperbole.

We can argue until the end of time about the details of 9/11, the Miami shoot out, Ruby Ridge, Waco, the death penalty, religion, what caliber is best for personal protection and whether or not the 1911 is the best handgun in the world.

True believers on all sides of those arguments will argue and not change their mind. I understand and recognize that this is a topic that engenders strong feelings. But it is fast approaching the edge. Bring it back from the edge or agree to disagree.

[mark555]

Ok gentlemen, and ladies, For what it is worth and I imagine there are a few that might be reading this form that have had more personal experience with our “guests:” at Git Mo then I have.

Let me just say that in January of 2002 my unit got a call to send a squad to an undisclosed location for an undisclosed duration for an undisclosed mission and we were told to pack everything that had ever been issued to us. So we loaded our happy selves on to the airplane and left we had 18 hours to get where we were directed from the time we got the message.

Long story short we had the honor of providing part of the security detail for the transportation of the terrorists from Afghanistan to Cuba. Just incase anyone is real security conscious out there the only part of the mission that is classified is the number of guards to detainees and I am sure that has changed since I left the mission in late 2003.

Bottom line 80% - 90% of them were Bad Guys and about 50% of them were Real Bad Guys. About 10% -20% were just some shmuck that was in the wrong place that the wrong time or had pissed someone off and got turned in for a reward. Most of them had one wish and they were very vocal about it before getting on the transport and that was to kill an American, period that was what would make them happy campers.

When they got to Guantonimo (can’t spell) they treated better then their guards. In the early days they had better food and better quarters then the USMC guard detail and after the Army took over it was much the same.

These “people” have one wish in life and that is to destroy Americans, America and all that it stands for. I doubt that any of the ones I helped transport have any viable information. It has to be all or most of it time sensitive. But that leaves us with the question of what to do with a group of “people” that only wants to see you and all you love destroyed? I don’t think I am smart enough to answer that question.

[SammyIamToday]

Please do cite chapter and verse in GC and Hague regarding giving POW's a trial and then be released before the hostilities are over.
I went over GC III & GC IV and could only find that they should be properly fed and care at the same level as our troops and that they should be released at the end of hostilities whenever the POW's meet the guidelines which, in case you haven't noticed, the inmates at Gitmo do not but still are being treated as POW's. So, if anything, the US is going ABOVE international treaties.

Don't twist what I'm saying. You implied that it was okay to do whatever you want to them so that the war could be won. That's simply not the case. Besides, it's not like they get to be repatriated to their governments after the War on Terrorism is over because most of them don't belong to one. I.E. why they need a trial.

The following are parts of the transcript of the 9/11 hearings.

"I think that there was at the time a very strictly enforced wall in the Justice Department between law enforcement and intelligence and that repeatedly, there are many statements from presidents and attorneys general and so forth that say that the first priority is bring these people to justice, protect the evidence, seal the evidence and so forth."

"The second core challenge was a legal issue that became a management challenge as well. Certain provisions of federal law had been interpreted to limit communication between agents conducting intelligence investigations and the criminal prosecution units of the Department of Justice. This was done so that the broad powers for gathering intelligence would not be seized upon by prosecutors trying to make a criminal case. The separation of intelligence from criminal investigations became known as the wall."

"Over time, the wall requirement came to be interpreted by the Justice Department, and particularly the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as imposing an increasingly stringent barrier to communications between FBI intelligence agents and criminal prosecutors."

"The wall between criminal and intelligence investigation apparently caused agents to be less aggressive than they might otherwise have been in pursuing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, surveillance powers in counterterrorism investigations. Moreover, the FISA approval process involved multiple levels of review, which also discouraged agents from using such surveillance."

"Many agents also told us that the process for getting FISA packages approved was incredibly lengthy and inefficient. Several FBI agents added that, prior to 9/11, FISA-derived intelligence information was not fully exploited anyway but was collected primarily to justify continuing the surveillance."

"The FBI was hampered by an inability to develop an endgame. Its agents continued to gather intelligence with little hope that they would be able to make a criminal case or otherwise disrupt the operation. Agents were stymied by rules regarding the distinction between intelligence and criminal cases, in part due to the wall then in place between criminal and intelligence investigations, as described above."

"Throughout the 1990s, the FBI's counterterrorism efforts against international terrorist organizations included both intelligence and criminal investigations. The FBI's approach to investigations was case-specific, decentralized and geared toward prosecution."

Oh and the guy the FBI benched because he wouldn't stop chasing UBL. Or the other Intelligence analysts that were ignored. Either way, they were caught with their pants down. If they thought it was a significant enough of a threat they'd have done the extra nine yards of work to save several thousand American lives. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Again, you seem to confuse Criminal matters with Warfare matters. If we are to follow what you believe, every American Soldier in the Iraqi and Afghani Theater of Operations should be brought inmediately home and prosecuted for murder since they did not attempted to arrest the poor terrorist or read them their Miranda Rights before taking those who surrendered or were too wounded to keep fighting. According to your misguided point of view, our Armed Forces as of now are Mass Murderers.

If you can't not put words in my mouth, please just let me know so I can quit bothering replying to you. Never once have I said not to fight a war how it should be fought. What I did say is that people rotting in prison deserve a trial if they aren't going to be given the title of POW. Which might even be impossible to give them since we're not actually at war with a sovereign nation. Push them through the legal system and punish them accordingly, don't waste my tax dollars letting them rot in Cuba. Oh and btw, if I did share that point of view, I'd have been a mass murderer for the Armed Forces. Reading comprehension please.

Well Sir, let me ask you, since you are so intent on due process. Have warrants been issued for the arrest of the individual we are fighting? What are the charges? And since the Military is not LEO, why are they there? Why instead we are not sending the FBI to arrest them and bring them to trial?

Name a war in America's history that wasn't fought against a sovereign nation. There isn't one. You can't treat these people like a soldier in another army, in which case you need to try them for their crimes. As much as some Muslim countries might support them, they aren't sanctioned by any government. At least one that's still a government.

With all due respect, you seem to forget Sir.

No, I just don't try and use it to win arguments. That picture had nothing to do with anything that we discussed.

[Bud White]

No personal Attacks Last Warning

[P95Carry]

Post #20 - Scott's comments - please read again.

There is a perceived danger that temperatures are reaching somewhat high levels.

Any major disagreements - please discuss thru PM.

[mark555]

Actually a number of them were repatriated. At least 5 that I know of were returned to Afghanistan and 20-25 were returned to Saudi Arabia.

[SammyIamToday]

Actually a number of them were repatriated. At least 5 that I know of were returned to Afghanistan and 20-25 were returned to Saudi Arabia.

That's some good news at least. The rest of them deserve either a trial or POW status though.

[Miggy]

That's some good news at least. The rest of them deserve either a trial or POW status though.

1) They ARE being treated as POW's. Even if you choose to ignore the fact to buttress your side of the argument.
2) Your celebration of their return to Saudi and Afghanistan confirms you are not aware of what was going to happen to them in those countries. If they are still alive, they are wishing for Gitmo.

As I suspected all along, you are somewhat uniformed. As far as I am concerned, there is no reason to continue this thread.

[Team American]

Locking this one down...