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
842 Views
Why should he be read miranda rights?
- 17/03/2010 05:50:29 PM
616 Views
Why should location matter when dealing with a borderless threat like al-Qaeda? *NM*
- 17/03/2010 10:20:08 PM
235 Views
You'd rather he walk free on a technicality?
- 17/03/2010 11:28:30 PM
569 Views
Line 1
- 18/03/2010 07:14:56 AM
751 Views
Last I checked, al-Qaeda isn't a party to the Geneva Convention.
- 18/03/2010 09:16:15 AM
637 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
561 Views
Well, I guess it depends whether you want to try him, doesn't it?
- 19/03/2010 11:34:34 PM
536 Views
*shrugs*
- 17/03/2010 11:10:47 PM
570 Views
That doesn't seem very logical
- 18/03/2010 12:03:21 AM
659 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
617 Views
It is very possible
- 18/03/2010 02:12:21 AM
527 Views
Re: It is very possible
- 18/03/2010 02:31:59 AM
626 Views
You do remember "I do not recall" Gonzalez right? *NM*
- 18/03/2010 02:38:48 AM
253 Views
Actually not really, I was out of the country for almost his entire tenure
- 18/03/2010 02:41:13 AM
562 Views
Pretty much there was some political firings of Us Attorneys
- 18/03/2010 02:56:01 AM
565 Views
I remember a little of that
- 18/03/2010 03:16:27 AM
548 Views
Gonzales flat out lied to congress
- 18/03/2010 03:29:14 AM
544 Views
Seems he could answer the question without evasion or producing a soundbite
- 18/03/2010 04:12:04 AM
614 Views
I don't think I agree with that.
- 18/03/2010 02:04:48 PM
548 Views
Fair enough
- 18/03/2010 02:40:42 PM
546 Views
You guys are forgetting the intel aspect.
- 18/03/2010 09:40:53 PM
572 Views
do we know how much he actually knows?
- 18/03/2010 09:49:50 PM
548 Views
Kinda hard to find out if he knows anything if he's dead *NM*
- 18/03/2010 09:56:18 PM
237 Views
that was totally not my question
- 19/03/2010 12:10:06 AM
556 Views
- 19/03/2010 12:10:06 AM
556 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
628 Views
I can understand why he'd want to evade answering.
- 18/03/2010 03:23:04 AM
618 Views
I can understand why statesman would want to avoid painting himself into a corner.
- 29/03/2010 02:26:34 PM
511 Views
