Wednesday, June 10, 2009
I respectfully suggest that if during the campaign conservatives had accused Barack Obama of wanting to extend Miranda warnings to jihadis, the chattering classes would have gone bananas and accused the right of wingnutty demagoguery. Oh well. [UPDATE: The wisdom of Sarah Palin! But it begs the question, what is the meaning of "take him out!"?]
I must say, I wonder why we would give the warnings to jihadis. What is the consequence of not giving them? If an American operative forgets or the jihadi does not understand, do we have to exclude a custodial confession from subsequent legal proceedings? What about other evidence gathered from the defective confession -- is that "fruits of the poisonous tree?" And does the jihadi have a cause of action in U.S. courts? If any of these is true, does the Obama administration understand how silly -- no, crazy -- it looks to the rest of the world? If neither is true, then what is the farookin' point of giving the warning?
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
You beat me to the post, TigerHawk.
More here and, with respect to the "global justice initiative" referenced in the Weekly Standard piece, here.
Congressman Rogers (R-MI) has some credibility on this subject, being both ex-Army and ex-FBI. I am guessing he will be making the rounds of various talk shows soon.
There clearly is a new policy in place, regardless of what the White House or Justice Department is saying. We can only hope that this is not as bad as it sounds, because it sounds really, really bad.
From these various articles, I infer that not everybody is being Mirandized, which might create an equal protection nightmare. You can hear the lawyers for the non-Mirandized detainees now: "Judge, why wasn't my client read his rights? The guy in the cell next to him was read his, didn't say anything, and was released."
How does this policy make us safer?
The Miranda case didn't create new rights, but rather held that people under arrest must be reminded of rights they already enjoyed under the Constitution.
Is the administration saying that enemy combatants have all the Fifth and Sixth Amendments rights that are encompassed in the Miranda warning? I don't believe the Supreme Court has gone that far.
What are these people thinking about?
Obama should have spent more time in Kenya.
AFP, via IOL in South Africa today:
"A police officer in Kenya faced attempted murder charges on Wednesday for allegedly severing the penis of a suspected fertilizer thief.
"The officer was off duty when he was interrogating the suspect ..."
Now that's "harsh interrogation."
One wonders how long our military personnel will put up with this horsesh*t before they throw up their hands and walk out the door? One also wonders if lawyers will be embedded with the troops to force compliance? Finally one wonders if embedded lawyers will evolve into commissars, spying on and keeping tabs on the military for the Administration?
Is there some sort of case law decision on this? I am at a loss to understand how any court could equate the capturing of an enemy combatant with a custodial arrest (Miranda is only required for custodial interrogations). Do these captives have Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches? Do they have recourse under 42USC1983 to sue in federal court for civil rights violations? This seems like the ultimate perversion of the criminal justice system. Is there no common sense left in Washington, D.C.?
Excellent update, TigerHawk. That YouTube video imbedded in the Weekly Standard flashback will be making the rounds.
I think Senator Obama must have meant "take him out...to the ballgame, take him out to the crowd." He couldn't possibly have meant shoot first, ask questions later. The reality is that it is now don't shoot, don't ask questions.
Either the man is a raving, slack-jawed, drooling incompetent...or his is simply arrogant...or both...
Isn't it time that the citizens of this country get over the platitudes ("I wish him well", "I hope he succeeds", "He's historic"), realize that the majority of us have made a profound error and begin working within what's left of our political process to get this group of miscreants OUT OF POWER???
Obama is a Muslim. Why do you think he's installed that policy?
Obama IS his buddy. He wants America to be attacked. So too, do most of Obama's backers, and voters. They long for a massive attack that will allow Obama to surrender, to create Vichy America.
This has been Obama's dream, and that of the left, and that of his electoral alliance, for decades. Why do you think Ayers and Wright are his lifelong pals and mentors? Why do you think he's always touting his Muslim heritage (to Muslims, here and abroad)? Why do you think Obama wants Miranda Rights for terrorists?
BECAUSE HE'S ON THE SAME SIDE.
Simple as that.
I'm sure we will get hit, hard and devastating. Obama's Media worshippers who think he's a God, his coalition of Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, and Women will all want a Vichy America (so they can get on with their real business of excluding and punishing White Men) but Obama's pals in AQ are unlikely to cooperate. They will hit again, and again, and again, so it's a question of survival. And people will DO ANYTHING to survive.
It's like a slow-motion trainwreck. SWPL Yuppies, Media worshippers, Gays, Hispanics, Blacks, and Women all HATE HATE HATE White Men, latched onto Obama who shares and personifies their hate, and nobody figured out that nukes are the great equalizer.
Will this make it harder and more dangerous for our soldiers to fight and win?? Of course it will.
Does this mean that Obama wants us to lose this overseas contingency operation (formerly known as the war on terror)? This is ultra liberalism at it's most juvenile.
This is beyond stupid and takes us back to the mindless liberal nonsense, the Gurlick wall and the turning a blind eye to gathering terrorists that set us up for 9/11.