100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Obama...‘Miranda Rights for Terrorists’... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Two wrongs don't make it a right!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
question....do POW have miranda rights and the same as an american in america does? sorry....still working on coffee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEALING WITH THE GUANTANAMO DETAINEES
During an address on natl security, Pres. obama defended his decision to close the detention center at Guantanamo, and outlined five categories to separate the 240 remaining detainees. 1 - US COURTS One group, which govt sources and defense attorneys estimate at seceral dozen detainees, would be brought to the US and tried for crimes in civilian courts. These cases would be limited to those prosecutrs believe they can win under criminal procedures and rules of evidence. 2 - MILITARY COMISSIONS Some detainees would face revamped military commissions for violations of the laws of war. The administration vows to give defendants greater legal protections than past commissions, but has not said where those trials would be conducted. It is not yet clear -- if these commissions were held at military bases on US soil -- whether any additional defendant rights would be attended. 3 - HELD WITHOUT CHARGE One category consists of those who coul be detained at length without charge because they cannot be tried even though they are believed to pose a serious threat o the US. This list particularly infuriates human rights and civil liberties groups. It is not known how many individuals are in this category. 4 - ORDERED RELEASED Twenty-one detainees have been ordered released by US courts, but no country will take them. Seventeen of them are Uighurs -- Chinese Muslim separatists - who say they would be executed if sent to China. They are apparently at the front of the line for release to any nation that will accept them. 5 - RESETTLE ABROAD There is a list -- which in recent weeks has grown from 30 to 50, of detainees who the govt wants to resettle abroad. The US has been engaged in diplomatic efforts to get other countries to accept them. The international community is waiting for the US to take the first batch, but political realities appear to make that nearly impossible. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/06/10/detainee.options.interactive/index.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you have the right to remain silent while you are being beaten. any thing you scream can and will be used against you you have the right to an attorney while you are being water boarded if you can not afford an attorney the worst one we can find will be provided for you. in ten or fifteen years LOL So what if we give then Miranda rights? It does sound a bit more human to me. And yes, we should be ttying these terror suspects and getting them procecuted as soon as possible. If they cannot be charged they ned to be released unless they are POW which is a different situation. it's hard for me to imagine...reading the rights to a guy...who just tried to kill me...someone who hates Americans...captured in the field of battle...I wonder if we should have read Nazi's...captured in battle...their Miranda rights...like I said before...I smell Amnesty International...and...the ACLU...psst !...( love the pic ! )...gulp !!...damn !! Imagine that - right now - anybody that tries to kill you would be read their rights. not on forgein soil...not fighting a war...you're asking a trained killer ( marine )...to tone it down...while some son of a *****...just tried to kill him... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Thu 06/11/09 08:57 AM
|
|
American Convicted felons lose their right to vote and to "carry". Yet, foreign terrorists get to be treated as Americans???? I guess that they lose their right to vote and "carry" too. lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
President Obama's naiveté is showing, once again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how are POWs treated different than a no errorist arrestee here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how are POWs treated different than a no errorist arrestee here? uhhhhh... whut? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how are POWs treated different than a no errorist arrestee here? uhhhhh... whut? lol sorry I'm on benedryl lol ok let's try this again what is the difference between a POW and someone arrested for a crime here?? i think I need to go back to bed lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
quiet_2008
on
Thu 06/11/09 09:20 AM
|
|
hee hee
just poking at you a criminal arrested here is protected under the Constitution, except for military arrestees. they are covered under the UCMJ which for instance has no provision against self incrimination or freedom from searches and seizures etc. military arrestees dont get a miranda warning because they dont have those rights POW's are covered under an international agreement that the US has signed called the Geneva Convention |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two wrongs don't make it a right! But three lefts make a right! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two wrongs don't make it a right! But three lefts make a right! but three lefts and a right make a TKO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hee hee just poking at you a criminal arrested here is protected under the Constitution, except for military arrestees. they are covered under the UCMJ which for instance has no provision against self incrimination or freedom from searches and seizures etc. military arrestees dont get a miranda warning because they dont have those rights POW's are covered under an international agreement that the US has signed called the Geneva Convention so shouldn't the detainees be under the Geneva Convention???? that's why I asked. I thought that was how it was supposed to work and stop teasing me lol...we are had thunderstorm since last night 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hee hee just poking at you a criminal arrested here is protected under the Constitution, except for military arrestees. they are covered under the UCMJ which for instance has no provision against self incrimination or freedom from searches and seizures etc. military arrestees dont get a miranda warning because they dont have those rights POW's are covered under an international agreement that the US has signed called the Geneva Convention so shouldn't the detainees be under the Geneva Convention???? that's why I asked. I thought that was how it was supposed to work and stop teasing me lol...we are had thunderstorm since last night
the interpretation of it is that the Geneva Convention only applies to the counties that signed the agreement. And these prisoners were fighting for Al Queda which is not an actual country. So they are called "enemy combatants" and aren't getting Geneva Convention standards. (that is the Bush administrations explanation of it) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so even though WE signed it...if another country didn't then it's fair game? I thought whoeveer signed it abides to it....I need more coffee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 What have they been convicted of?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What have they been convicted of?
Good point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What have they been convicted of?
hahaha nothing yet we'll get around to that after we finish water boarding them |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when someone commits a crime here (like DUI)...they aren't convicted yet either....just arrested until a trial
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what number of us were read are right befor death in 9/11 ?
|
|
|
|
|
