That only means they are not entitled to its protections - in other words, they are fair game.
Cannoli Send a noteboard - 19/03/2010 10:25:50 PM
We can kill them on sight. We can torture them, starve them, deny them medical care, all the rest of that stuff. The only things that have any bearing on the treatment of bin Laden, if caught, or any of his ilk, are the rules and regulations of the US Military. If he is caught on US soil, by US law enforcement officers, sure, he would be required to be read his rights or whatever the statutory requirements are for criminal arrests, but military personnel are NOT law enforcement officers (a distinction made legal by posse commitatus, and prisoners they take are presumed to be enemy combatants. Now it may be that the administration or Congress, exercising their Constitutional rights and obligations to command and make rules for the military, respectively, may impose such requirements on the military for their own reasons or based on their judgment, but there is no Constitutional requirement that anything of that sort is required.
Cannoli
"Sometimes unhinged, sometimes unfair, always entertaining"
- The Crownless
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Deus Vult!
"Sometimes unhinged, sometimes unfair, always entertaining"
- The Crownless
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Deus Vult!
AG Eric Holder evades questioning
- 17/03/2010 05:34:40 PM
886 Views
Why should he be read miranda rights?
- 17/03/2010 05:50:29 PM
667 Views
Why should location matter when dealing with a borderless threat like al-Qaeda? *NM*
- 17/03/2010 10:20:08 PM
251 Views
You'd rather he walk free on a technicality?
- 17/03/2010 11:28:30 PM
610 Views
Line 1
- 18/03/2010 07:14:56 AM
804 Views
Last I checked, al-Qaeda isn't a party to the Geneva Convention.
- 18/03/2010 09:16:15 AM
681 Views
That only means they are not entitled to its protections - in other words, they are fair game.
- 19/03/2010 10:25:50 PM
609 Views
Well, I guess it depends whether you want to try him, doesn't it?
- 19/03/2010 11:34:34 PM
585 Views
*shrugs*
- 17/03/2010 11:10:47 PM
621 Views
That doesn't seem very logical
- 18/03/2010 12:03:21 AM
707 Views
That is honest and it wouldn't be "dumb" (I assume you actually mean stupid, rather than mute)
- 18/03/2010 12:19:58 AM
659 Views
It is very possible
- 18/03/2010 02:12:21 AM
567 Views
Re: It is very possible
- 18/03/2010 02:31:59 AM
675 Views
You do remember "I do not recall" Gonzalez right? *NM*
- 18/03/2010 02:38:48 AM
274 Views
Actually not really, I was out of the country for almost his entire tenure
- 18/03/2010 02:41:13 AM
613 Views
Pretty much there was some political firings of Us Attorneys
- 18/03/2010 02:56:01 AM
608 Views
I remember a little of that
- 18/03/2010 03:16:27 AM
593 Views
Gonzales flat out lied to congress
- 18/03/2010 03:29:14 AM
582 Views
Seems he could answer the question without evasion or producing a soundbite
- 18/03/2010 04:12:04 AM
658 Views
I don't think I agree with that.
- 18/03/2010 02:04:48 PM
588 Views
Fair enough
- 18/03/2010 02:40:42 PM
593 Views
You guys are forgetting the intel aspect.
- 18/03/2010 09:40:53 PM
619 Views
do we know how much he actually knows?
- 18/03/2010 09:49:50 PM
597 Views
Kinda hard to find out if he knows anything if he's dead *NM*
- 18/03/2010 09:56:18 PM
254 Views
that was totally not my question
- 19/03/2010 12:10:06 AM
601 Views
- 19/03/2010 12:10:06 AM
601 Views
Most people include congressmen/women don't understand Miranda rights,most people don't know the Law
- 18/03/2010 02:08:10 AM
676 Views
I can understand why he'd want to evade answering.
- 18/03/2010 03:23:04 AM
659 Views
I can understand why statesman would want to avoid painting himself into a corner.
- 29/03/2010 02:26:34 PM
561 Views
