Miranda Rights for High-Level "Combatants"

[Pressing-On]

A Soldier's Perspective

Miranda Rights for Terrorists?

Would this have any affect on the loss of life?
Casualties for both American and Iraqi forces, as well as Iraqi civilians, would soar since we would effectively lose any early warning of terrorist plans. A good number of threats have been neutralized before they materialized because of good intelligence from captured terrorists.

Could this cost us the war?

That is the toughest question. I honestly think that it could cost us the war not only in Iraq, but the Global War on Terror. This war is one that will not be won if terrorists are granted rights like those outlined in the Fifth Amendment and in Miranda. The enemy we face does not act like a traditional armed force, nor do they use tactics like a traditional armed force.

http://www.soldiersperspective.us/20...or-terrorists/

[Pressing-On]

I had forgotten about this from 2006. It seems that the issue started spiraling down then to where it is today. From a few articles, it appears the blame is falling at the feet of John McCain in 2006.

September 20, 2006
Applying the Geneva Convention Will Destroy It
Recently, the United States Supreme Court bestowed upon al Qaeda terrorists (Hardly an organized or accountable military entity) the 'rights' of prisoners under the Geneva Convention. In doing so, the Court committed an act of blatant and unconstitutional activism that makes a mockery of the Convention, and in a former era would have resulted in their impeachment and removal from the bench.

To justify this outrage, the court invoked a phony premise that it was somehow ensuring that Americans, captured by al Qaeda members or their allies, would receive reciprocal consideration. Yet it is beyond absurd to expect that people who clearly intend to wage and win their wars through wanton brutality and cruelty would ever defer to such behavior.

With every effort to restrict and undermine that ability, the American left (A cabal that now undeniably includes the likes of Arizona Senator John McCain) increases the likelihood that America's enemies will abuse and kill captured American servicemen and women with impunity.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/...onvention.html

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

That would be 4 of the 9... and the dissenters were in the minority so it is the law of the land.

And... no... they shouldn't inform you of your right to vote... your right to bear arms... your right a homestead exemption... or any other right not related to the current arrest that is being undertaken at that moment.

At the moment of arrest the relevant rights are that you do not have to say anything that might incriminate yourself and you have a right to legal counsel. Those are the pertinent rights at that moment in time.

Yes, 4 of 9 I must have been thinking of the dentists who recommend Trident. My point in noting the 4 dissenters is that its not so clear cut and it certainly has gone beyond just informing them of their rights. What that means is the minute a terrorist asks for an attorney, interrogation over. Period. That is not what should be happening on the battlefield. Where else in life are you told of your "pertinent rights"? When you slip and fall at the grocery store should they be required to tell you what legal options you have? When someone breaches a contract do they send you a list of legal options to remedy it?

This was bad law over 40 years ago and it is even worse when applied to war situations. Do you seriously think no one had 5th Amendment rights prior to Miranda?

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

How could it if they have to have their rights read to them first? They have no rights as terrorists.

Finally someone with a brain.

Now if only we could find a leader with one.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Will these Miranda rights cards be written in foriegn languages,how will solidiers be able to communicate to people who speak a langauge other that English ?

[Scott Hutchinson]

http://www.mirandawarning.org/histor...dawarning.html

[Scott Hutchinson]

http://www.redcross.lv/en/conventions.htm

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

It sounds like this would actually be a wise move... especially with high level combatants.

We are America... and we do have a judicial system that has rules to abide by.

If the soldiers read them their miranda rights then we have now ensured that the technicality of ensuring they were properly mirandized has been taken care of. People have been released because they were not properly mirandized.

Does it not seem prudent to ensure that this is made a firm part of policy so that there is one less technicality that a true high level combatant might get released on?

Those rules are for Americans though. The Miranda is for Americans.

[Praxeas]

Al Queda are not signatories to the Geneva Convention

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Do you seriously think no one had 5th Amendment rights prior to Miranda?
[/FONT]

No... not in the least.

But I do think that many people were unaware of those rights.