DescentBB

Terrorist will now have Miranda Rights the Terrorist has the right to remain silent, and that anything the Terrorist says (may and will be misconstrued and used against that Terrorist)may be used against that Terrorist in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him or her.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06112009/ne ... 173670.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06 ... detainees/

How soon will terrorism just be a civil matter taken up by the small claims courts.

It's the US government babying people again, even enemies to the state/traitors/terrorists.

The right to remain silent makes sense; the person can choose not to blab anything. But civil or criminal court? Give me a freakin' BREAK! It should be military court-martial or tribunal! As for the lawyer part, I have no comment off the top of my head.

\"What do you say about a country that goes out of its way to protect people who try to destroy it?\"

I dont have any problem with \"terrorists\" who are American Citizens given rights, they deserve it. But guys we pull off the ground overseas or non-citizens don't deserve protection under our constitution.

Welcome to pre 9/11 \"terrorism is a criminal matter\" mindset. Just look where that got us.

Has anyone read books on life in prison? What about books on the life of prisoners that didn't commit a crime? Why would you want that to happen to any one? (not rhetorical)

My biggest concern with our government is that we become a China, Cuba, or another country that plays it safe, when it comes to criminals, by arresting as many people as possible.

So Octopus, what you are saying is if our troops are captured by the enemy, then they should be treated as criminals whereby they can be tried, convicted and sentenced to death.

Absolutly. You should be able to prove why you put someone in jail... If you can't then you did it for no reason. Fishy conversations shouldn't lead to an arrest and detention. They need to lead to more investigating. If death or life in prison is what they need, then at least give them a trial. There are 21 year olds out there doing these arrests. I don't think the \"detectives\" arresting potential terrorists are the smartest people in the world. Commons scene isn't so common. At least try to prove we got the right guy.

edit:
But don't get me wrong. I do understand the \"kill and detain\" just to be safe, mentality. People are terrified of these people. You don't have to be that afraid of them. It's far more likely you'll die of a car crash.

The 21 year olds on a battle field are not arresting anyone...they are capturing them. War has totally different parameters in dealing with a enemy than what civilian police agency do. I suggest you learn these differences. POW's can be held until the war is over but under no circumstances are they to be held for public trials.

Ok I'll admit I used the word arrest when I should have written capture.
Anyway, I'm sticking to my guns on this subject.

All the more reason for the “enemy” to become legitimate, we treat our POW’s pretty good. (it’s not like a prison for criminals)

Not withstanding the torture fiasco.

The Taliban or AQ would be legitimate if they wore a uniform and signed the Geneva Convention.

Someone operating on half a clue wrote:But don't get me wrong. I do understand the "kill and detain" just to be safe, mentality. People are terrified of these people. You don't have to be that afraid of them. It's far more likely you'll die of a car crash.

Two things. First, I doubt irrational, cowardly fear is as prevalent as some people like to say it is, and I resent it being acknowledged as the norm in an effort to concede something to the offensive side of the argument. I'd rather be in on a terrorist situation than not, and given half a chance I'll show any bastard with a mind to destroy the lives of innocent people for some political or religious cause what people like me are made of. I know several people that are not cowering, hoping a terrorist doesn't happen to them (and their side-arm). Secondly, I don't like to hear statistics that minimize terrorist violence. It's idiotic to suggest that we should be less concerned with terrorism than car crashes, because there's an obvious difference, and for the people who have been affected the results have been much more devastating.

Just back up and use some common sense.

I also suspect that '"kill and detain" just to be safe' is a gross misrepresentation of what's going on. I don't know that, but I don't think you actually know what you're talking about.

When terrorists bomb my house, I'll change my mind.

Applying statistics to terrorism is just about as pathetic as it gets.

I’m not afraid of dying of terrorism per se, but I will also take steps to prevent dying from all sorts of things.

Oh and pus, don’t bother to fix that foundation, you are more likely to die in a car crash.

Octopus wrote:...
But don't get me wrong. I do understand the "kill and detain" just to be safe, mentality. People are terrified of these people. You don't have to be that afraid of them. It's far more likely you'll die of a car crash.

And it is inevitable that our laws will have to change to adopt their laws if we don't treat them as enemies and instead try to appease them by validating their jihad by giving them equal rights whenever we come in contact with them!
Pretty soon in muslim concentrated areas like Michigan you could have islamic courts set up to deal with muslim men who kill their daughters for showing too much western sexuality in public! Think I'm exaggerating? See the U.K. and how it is happening right now to them!!

Spidey wrote:Oh and pus, don’t bother to fix that foundation, you are more likely to die in a car crash.

I also don't brush my teeth.

Octopus wrote:When terrorists bomb my house, I'll change my mind.

A terrorist isn't any more of a threat to your "house" than an armed bank robber.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Octopus wrote:When terrorists bomb my house, I'll change my mind.

A terrorist isn't any more of a threat to your "house" than an armed bank robber.

A bank robber that robs houses? Sweet!

No, and that was my point.

Octopus wrote:"kill and detain"

Ah, how does that work?

First you kill them and then detain them in a six foot deep hole. So much more humane then doing it in reverse order.

ccb056 wrote:I dont have any problem with "terrorists" who are American Citizens given rights, they deserve it. But guys we pull off the ground overseas or non-citizens don't deserve protection under our constitution.

I agree here. Mass murderers get fair trials too if they're Americans.