PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Miranda rights with KSM and his butt buddies


Chief Henry
11-18-2009, 04:50 PM
Since KSM and his butt buddies were NOT given the miranda rights and the right to remain silent, could they be set free ?

Is this a ticking time bomb for our country ?

If they are set free, what are the consequences ?

Reaper16
11-18-2009, 04:51 PM
Since KSM and his butt buddies were NOT given the miranda rights and the right to remain silent, could they be set free ?

Is this a ticking time bomb for our country ?

If they are set free, what are the consequences ?
If KSM gets acquitted then New Yorkers will beat him to death in the street.

Donger
11-18-2009, 04:53 PM
If KSM gets acquitted then New Yorkers will beat him to death in the street.

When he is acquitted, chances are he won't just be released.

Brock
11-18-2009, 04:56 PM
The military doesn't have to mirandize anybody. Jesus.:rolleyes:

Reaper16
11-18-2009, 04:57 PM
When he is acquitted, chances are he won't just be released.
Damn. I wanted to see him beaten to death in the street.

Donger
11-18-2009, 05:03 PM
Damn. I wanted to see him beaten to death in the street.

Well, Obama and others who support this move seem to view the application of our laws as of paramount importance. Therefore, it would be contradictory to throw him to the wolves, tacitly approving his murder at the hands of American citizens.

Chief Henry
11-18-2009, 05:06 PM
The military doesn't have to mirandize anybody. Jesus.:rolleyes:

Is it a military court ?

Donger
11-18-2009, 05:07 PM
I would imagine that he will be read his rights when taken into custody in Manhattan.

Chief Henry
11-18-2009, 05:13 PM
I heard today that Senator Grahm of South Carolina had a very interesting Q-A with
Attorney General Eric Holder today.

Donger
11-18-2009, 05:16 PM
I heard today that Senator Grahm of South Carolina had a very interesting Q-A with
Attorney General Eric Holder today.

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --

GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.

HOLDER: Well, I think --

GRAHAM: The Ghailani case -- he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn't object to it going into federal court. But I'm telling you right now. We're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why.

Now, the real focus of this NPR piece was Graham's subsequent question concerning whether or not U.S. officials would have to Mirandize Osama bin Laden if he was captured:

GRAHAM: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?

HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.

GRAHAM: Where would you try him?

HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol. And we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried. [...]

GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?

HOLDER: Again I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we --

GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.

The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war.

Saul Good
11-18-2009, 05:38 PM
Graham brings up a pretty good argument. Obama's judgment is looking more and more suspect.

petegz28
11-18-2009, 05:47 PM
If they try KSM in a civilian court and of the law is followed then the judge has to dismiss the case because I will guarantee his "Rights" were violated at the time of arrest. Plus, aren't you only allowed to be held withouth charges being brought for only so long? And where is the Right to a "speedy trial" or whatever it is?

WilliamTheIrish
11-18-2009, 05:48 PM
How is this a "ticking time bomb" for the country? He's not going free. He's going to (back) to jail.

petegz28
11-18-2009, 05:53 PM
How is this a "ticking time bomb" for the country? He's not going free. He's going to (back) to jail.

Not really....once you enter civilian court you enter the realm of the Constitution...

In addition to guaranteeing the right to an attorney, the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant a speedy trial by an "impartial jury." This means that a criminal defendant must be brought to trial for his or her alleged crimes within a reasonably short time after arrest, and that before being convicted of most crimes, the defendant has a constitutional right to be tried by a jury, which must find the defendant guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."


Case dismissed.....

Donger
11-18-2009, 05:54 PM
How is this a "ticking time bomb" for the country? He's not going free. He's going to (back) to jail.

You mean if he is acquitted? If so, on what charge would he be held?

mlyonsd
11-18-2009, 05:55 PM
Holder makes Alberto Gonzales look like John Marshall.

petegz28
11-18-2009, 05:56 PM
1. He wasn't read his Rights at the time of arrest=case dismissed
2. He wasn't given a speedy trial=case dismissed
3. He cannot be tried by an "impartial jury"=case dismissed


This is what happens when you try to to fight a war like a cop instead of a soldier

Donger
11-18-2009, 05:57 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sG7lm8Sfbo4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sG7lm8Sfbo4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

banyon
11-18-2009, 06:02 PM
1. He wasn't read his Rights at the time of arrest=case dismissed
2. He wasn't given a speedy trial=case dismissed
3. He cannot be tried by an "impartial jury"=case dismissed


This is what happens when you try to to fight a war like a cop instead of a soldier

1. No, this is not the way it works, nor has it ever in any court period. The exclusionary rule prevents the presentation of evidence gained from it, it does not require dismissal.

2. Speedy trial won't apply until he is in federal custody, which will only have been recently.

3. They will have to be thorough in jury selection and perhaps change venue, but no, there can't be a presumption that you can't get a jury.

mlyonsd
11-18-2009, 06:09 PM
<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/sG7lm8Sfbo4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1 width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowScriptAccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>

Fricking brutal. Another deer in headlights.

T-post Tom
11-18-2009, 06:10 PM
IF he was accused of the same charges by a Middle Eastern government, he would not be alive right now.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/2008/02/14/saudi_law.jpg

petegz28
11-18-2009, 06:15 PM
1. No, this is not the way it works, nor has it ever in any court period. The exclusionary rule prevents the presentation of evidence gained from it, it does not require dismissal.

2. Speedy trial won't apply until he is in federal custody, which will only have been recently.

3. They will have to be thorough in jury selection and perhaps change venue, but no, there can't be a presumption that you can't get a jury.

I call BS on 2 and 3. He has been in custody. He as been interogated. And you cannot sell me a bill of goods saying a jury is going to be impartial to the guy who plannned 9/11.

This is a bad, bad move and done for no other reason than political theater to slam the Bush Admin.

Instead of sending soldiers overseas we should start sending lawyers and police officers.

banyon
11-18-2009, 06:24 PM
I call BS on 2 and 3. He has been in custody. He as been interogated. And you cannot sell me a bill of goods saying a jury is going to be impartial to the guy who plannned 9/11.

This is a bad, bad move and done for no other reason than political theater to slam the Bush Admin.

Instead of sending soldiers overseas we should start sending lawyers and police officers.

Ok, petey. You want to put your money where your mouth is? Because I know this stuff and it ain't gonna happen.

petegz28
11-18-2009, 06:27 PM
Ok, petey. You want to put your money where your mouth is? Because I know this stuff and it ain't gonna happen.


We shall see. KSM will be the victim by the end of the trial. We have no business trying this guy in civilian court. For one, he isn't a citizen. Secondly, we have NEVER done this before and it sets bad precedent in my opinion.

Like I said, why don't we just send you lawyers overseas to fight the wars instead of our soldiers?

banyon
11-18-2009, 06:31 PM
We shall see. KSM will be the victim by the end of the trial. We have no business trying this guy in civilian court. For one, he isn't a citizen. Secondly, we have NEVER done this before and it sets bad precedent in my opinion.

Like I said, why don't we just send you lawyers overseas to fight the wars instead of our soldiers?

I don't think I care for the precedent either, but your hand-wringing is unwarranted. It's not surprising you don't want to make it interesting.

I would imagine the reason we send soldiers and not lawyers to war is becasue the soldiers are actually trained for combat. Do you call an electrician to come and look at your plumbing?

petegz28
11-18-2009, 06:35 PM
I don't think I care for the precedent either, but your hand-wringing is unwarranted. It's not surprising you don't want to make it interesting.

I would imagine the reason we send soldiers and not lawyers to war is becasue the soldiers are actually trained for combat. Do you call an electrician to come and look at your plumbing?

If we are going to start sending enemy combatants into civilian court then we need lawyers and police officers, not soldiers.

banyon
11-18-2009, 06:37 PM
If we are going to start sending enemy combatants into civilian court then we need lawyers and police officers, not soldiers.

Did you not know that we are trying KSM here in the United States?

petegz28
11-18-2009, 06:41 PM
Did you not know that we are trying KSM here in the United States?

He should be tried in a military tribunal. Your question is irrelevant. He has no business, nor does any other enemy combatant, being tried in an civilian court.

Donger
11-18-2009, 06:42 PM
Did you not know that we are trying KSM here in the United States?

What do you think that his chances of acquittal are? What fun do you think his defense attorneys are going to have?

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 06:42 PM
Since KSM and his butt buddies were NOT given the miranda rights and the right to remain silent, could they be set free ?

Is this a ticking time bomb for our country ?

If they are set free, what are the consequences ?
He got his Miranda Rights by the judge when he was taken to Cuba.
3:36 on the video

Judge Napolitano has it right. This whole controversy by the right has the wrong focus since there's been no official Declaration of War where he would, and should be imo, kept as a POW.

Obey the Constitution.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5eBrfql3pnU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5eBrfql3pnU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

petegz28
11-18-2009, 06:44 PM
He got his Miranda Rights by the judge when he was taken to Cuba.
3:36 on the video

Judge Napolitano has it right. This whole controversy by the right has the wrong focus since there's been no official Declaration of War where he would, and should be imo, kept as a POW.

Obey the Constitution.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5eBrfql3pnU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5eBrfql3pnU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Fair enough. He got his Rights read. Where is the Right to a speedy trial? etc., etc.

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 06:44 PM
1. He wasn't read his Rights at the time of arrest=case dismissed


Yes he was. He was read them when he arrived in Cuba where the military judge gave them to him. The admissions he made are evidence against him after he was Mirandized. These falsehoods are coming from the NC press as usual they rarely report the whole truth. Beware!

BucEyedPea
11-18-2009, 06:45 PM
Right to a speedy trial? etc., etc.

Does anybody get that in America?

petegz28
11-18-2009, 06:47 PM
Does anybody get that in America?

Yea

petegz28
11-18-2009, 06:48 PM
All I will say is this is the same Admin who tried to tell everyone that if you got a raise your job was "saved" if your company got fed $'s. They haven't been honest and\or accurate about anything yet so WTF think they are on the right path with this shit?

WilliamTheIrish
11-18-2009, 06:52 PM
And Sen Grahandstand is worried that if we catch OBL he might get a civil trial?

Should we decide to attempt to make OBL a priority, hell yes put him in civil court. On TV. Let all the world see him be found guilty and sentenced to a long life in prison.

Then kill him.

Donger
11-18-2009, 06:55 PM
And Sen Grahandstand is worried that if we catch OBL he might get a civil trial?

Should we decide to attempt to make OBL a priority, hell yes put him in civil court. On TV. Let all the world see him be found guilty and sentenced to a long life in prison.

Then kill him.

Well, if he (or KSM) is found guilty, then he'll have the same right of appeal as any other person tried in our courts. So, I don't think the "then kill him" is going to happen. If convicted, he'll be around for a long time.

WilliamTheIrish
11-18-2009, 07:12 PM
Well, if he (or KSM) is found guilty, then he'll have the same right of appeal as any other person tried in our courts. So, I don't think the "then kill him" is going to happen. If convicted, he'll be around for a long time.

Yea, I know.

But either we are nation of laws or we are not a nation of laws. If KSM is found not guilty, he walks.

Now, you and Henry and Pete can kegel away until the trial starts.

Donger
11-18-2009, 07:15 PM
Well, if he (or KSM) is found guilty, then he'll have the same right of appeal as any other person tried in our courts. So, I don't think the "then kill him" is going to happen. If convicted, he'll be around for a long time.

Yea, I know.

But either we are nation of laws or we are not a nation of laws. If KSM is found not guilty, he walks.

Now, you and Henry and Pete can kegel away until the trial starts.

Military law is different than civilian law, as I understand it. Obama has decided that this man deserves to be tried under civilian law. So be it.

I don't agree with the decision, but if you do, you can't condone his murder by thugs.