Miranda rights… NO … wait YES

[Dave007inVegas]

Weekly Standard

Then…..

In September 2008, when McCain-Palin pulled ahead of Obama-Biden, Candidate Obama publicly mocked Sarah Palin's suggestion that Obama favored giving captured terrorists Miranda warnings. It happened in Farmington Hills, Michigan.

He brings up a GOP Convention line about Miranda warnings ... but simply responds with a theatrical smirk.

From there, he proceeds to mock the federal government for failing to catch Bin Laden (not that that's on Obama's front burner anymore), and then discusses the need for terrorist detainees to be allowed to file habeas petitions in federal courts. The Miranda issue, however, is simply laughed aside, as if it was preposterous to even raise the subject.

And two months after his Inauguration, President Obama reiterated, "Now, do these folks deserve miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not."

Now…..

When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. “I’ll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer,” he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet.

Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. “I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal – read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up,” Tenet wrote in his memoirs.

If Tenet is right, it’s a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.

“The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.

The ACLU must be proud k:

:cripwalk:

 

[barman]

I for one am proud to be an American when our President can admit being in error and revise his stance to respect constitutional law.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

I for one am proud to be an American when our President can admit being in error and revise his stance to respect constitutional law.

I stand corrected. I thought U.S. constitutional law was reserved for American citizens not terrorists. My bad, enemy combatants. Oh I’m sorry, what I meant to say was those unfortunate souls that made a mistake and killed citizens of the USA.

Let me also say that I am sure the presidents speech in Cairo will undoubtedly cause Al Qaeda and the Taliban to see their error and reverse their stance of beheading US and allied troops when captured. :grandmais

 

[Tater Tots]

Obama is a clown, his heart bleed for the terrorists.... screw the 9-11 victims

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Obama is a clown, his heart bleed for the terrorists.... screw the 9-11 victims

Can you blame him, he does have Muslim roots.

 

[barman]

Many Americans would like to deny constitutional rights to those imprisoned by America - of that there is little doubt.

Glad to see that President Obama is not one of them.

 

[barman]

I'm unaware of any American troops having been beheaded (via a blade), though I am aware of many Iraqi civilians whose heads were blown off their bodies by US military bombings during Shock & Awe.

And certainly plenty of US troops sent into Iraq to "protect America" (??) have had their own heads blown off by various people from those regions who took objection to the US military invasion.

Kind of hard to keep track of the atrocities when they're coming from so many directions.

 

[mplastered]

Many Americans would like to deny constitutional rights to those imprisoned by America - of that there is little doubt.

Glad to see that President Obama is not one of them.

You are one strange dude! Sometimes I think you are actually punter. You two never post in the same thread at the same time.

 

[Willie99]

Lets go to trial

Witness: that's the man I saw firing rockets into a childrens' hospital and when I tried to stop him, he tried to kill me

ACLU Attorney: are you sure? it was dark at night with a lot of confusion and you yourself admit you were scared he was trying to kill you. Our professional expert has already said how people get confused and can't remember facts under stress. OBL was merely there watching the events.

defendant: death to America, death to the infidels

OJ Jury: not guilty

fucking brilliance at work

for those lost in left field, that guilty beyond a reasonable doubt thing doesn't work so well during a fucking war

<><>

 

[barman]

You are forgiven for perhaps not realizing that federal prosecutors win convictions in over 97% of cases that go to trial.

The bevy of federal charges that can be brought - notably conspiracy (a charge that is virtually absent from any other level of jurispudence) - makes beating a federal criminal case almost impossible.

The notion that a wave of Gitmo-qualified arrestees will be indicted federally and then skate away from the system folllowing a NotGuilty jury verdict is absolutely fantastic and contradictory to the reality of federal prosecution over the past 25+ years.

 

[barman]

To elaborate on conspiracy charges, here is how most of them work - in a nutshell - using drug laws as my example.

Federal prosecutors bring evidence that JoeBlow answered the telephone at the home of DrugDealerDon, on who they have strong mountains of evidence that DDD transported in 100 lbs of illicit drugs and sold them to a federal agent.

Moreoever, DDD testifies that JB was a facilitator for the sale.

JoeBlow is immediately guilty by law of conspiring to bring in those 100 lbs of illicit drugs and is subject to the same criminal penalties as is DDD (20-30 years or more).

But how do we know his phone calls discussed the illegal buy?

We don't need to know that. It doesn't need to be proven.

All that's needed is for DDD to testify that JB answered the phones at his house and that at least one of the calls discussed the illegal buy.

Using conspiracy laws at the federal level allows federal prosecutors to cut some slack to a single individual (in the case of terrorism, cutting back a life sentence or death penalty case to say, 20-25 years) and then slam literally dozens of others with much longer sentences that literally cannot be beaten in a jury trial because the standard for proof is not "reasonable doubt". The standard is simply having DDD testify that each of the people charged were involved.

One nut cracks and dozens go down for long, long sentences.

And that one nut need not even testify if sufficient evidence of his own charges is brought.

I for one believe that federal prosecutors have very excessive and unwarranted power when it comes to processing people on drug charges.

But for anyone who for a moment thinks that Gitmo-qualified enemy combatants will just cruise home in a few months, you can take much solace in knowing just how powerful federal prosecutors are in the US criminal justice system.

 

[barman]

To use WILLIE99's well-intended imaginary example:

There is no witness needed as to who fired the rocket into the building.

All that's needed is one other member facing a life sentence or death to testify that "Achmed Mohab was the one who fired the rocket"

And then Achmed Mohab testifies, "Mujan Mojan drove the vehicle".

and so forth

Every single one of them is, under federal criminal law, guilty of conspiring to kill everyone in the building at which the rocket was fired.


Don't want to testify? It's all good. We have one other guy who will testify against YOU. And now you're facing life sentence in a SuperMax or death penalty.

 

[barman]

Finally, for anyone reading this who is into the notion of Eye for an Eye Revenge etc, there is no more satisfying sentence than life (or even just 40+ years) in a 23/1 Supermax lockdown.

 

[Willie99]

er, you do know it's about evidence, eh? evidence beyond a reasonable doubt might be just a tad harder to come by on a battlefield in the Middle East.

you see, that's one of the reasons they're treated differently, throughout our wartime history that is.

that 97% conviction rate is somewhat less than useless when the whole game is actually played differently.

 

[barman]

At the federal level all they need is evidence that the accused had ties to anyone - (just one) - who they can make a case against.

And that former evidence can be sufficient with just a video image or a single testimony that they were in same place at same time.

This is not "Law & Order" where a quick witted defense attorney can make a prosecution witness look clumsy on the stand and suddenly the jury just rolls over.

The "game" at the federal level is like nothing you (or I) have ever seen in a state or local criminal court.

Your references to previous war criminals are acknowledged, but the federal criminal laws to which I refer have all been passed within the past 25 years and would not have been available to prosecutors in previous US military-related trials.

The US Justice Dept put their best and brightest minds on the job in the late 1970s and forward and they have constructed a maze of laws - most of which require a very low standard of evidence (testimony of an associate is usually sufficient) - that help assure they just don't fucking lose.

And in the meantime, they have also constructed a variety of ancilliary laws that allow them to almost perpetually detain anyone who they consider a material witness to other proceedings.

Were I personally to ever face criminal charges (drug laws for example), I'd feel pretty confident in most state and local courtrooms. But I would never, ever try and beat a federal indictment.

The only way people "beat" a federal indictment and avoid long punitive sentencing is when they have lots and lots and lots of financial means to essentially buy their way into some kind of reduced sentencing.

The accused of which we talk here do not have such backing.

President Obama's foreign policy decisions both now and in the future likely will merit a wide range of discussion and even valid criticism.

But worrying that these combatants are going to skate is honestly the lowest concern any of us should have in the months and years ahead.

 

[Willie99]

so barman, you're saying that they're not really getting constitutional rights, the game has been rigged :think2:

ok, I can dig that

 

[TomGshotput]

Why should anyone care? Arrest them, charge them, convict them. If we let them know that a few basic rights still apply to terrorist suspects how does that really change anything?

 

[BetIt]

Apparently some shitty reporting by the weekly Standard and an Ill-informed Congressman. It's now being reported that this was a policy under Bush too in specific instances and no change in policy has occured.

From NBC's Pete Williams


The Justice Department says there has been no change in policy on giving Miranda warnings to detainees picked up in Afghanistan.

An article in the Weekly Standard says the Obama administration has ordered a change in policy, requiring agents to give Miranda warnings to all detainees. In fact, agents have from time to time given Miranda warnings to some detainees who, it's thought, might end up being prosecuted in U.S. courts. This began in the last administration.

A DOJ spokesman says there's been no new policy directive.

"There has been no policy change and no blanket instruction issued for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas," spokesman Matt Miller said. "While there have been specific cases in which FBI agents have Mirandized suspects overseas, at both Bagram and in other situations, in order to preserve the quality of evidence obtained, there has been no overall policy change with respect to detainees."

 

[Willie99]

so now it appears we just have more of the same

can't keep up with all these non-changes y'know, my head is spinning

so much for lefties being happy and righties being concerned, nothing changed


:grandmais

 

[Dave007inVegas]

NBC's Pete Williams reports that the Justice Department headed by Eric Holder, the same Eric Holder who call Americans cowards, was involved with the last-minute pardon of fugitive and Democratic contributor Marc Rich and laughed off the voter intimidation by Black Panthers in last years election, has a spokesman say there's been no new policy directive and automatically the Weekly Standard does shitty reporting.

So we have Representative Mike Rogers and the Weekly Standard vs. NBC's Pete Williams and a DOJ spokesman. Considering NBC’s bias, I’ll believe the former rather than latter any day of the week.