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
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
AG Eric Holder evades questioning
17/03/2010 05:34:40 PM
- 663 Views
Why should he be read miranda rights?
17/03/2010 05:50:29 PM
- 446 Views
Why should location matter when dealing with a borderless threat like al-Qaeda? *NM*
17/03/2010 10:20:08 PM
- 174 Views
You'd rather he walk free on a technicality?
17/03/2010 11:28:30 PM
- 408 Views
Line 1
18/03/2010 07:14:56 AM
- 546 Views
Last I checked, al-Qaeda isn't a party to the Geneva Convention.
18/03/2010 09:16:15 AM
- 466 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
- 401 Views
Well, I guess it depends whether you want to try him, doesn't it?
19/03/2010 11:34:34 PM
- 382 Views
*shrugs*
17/03/2010 11:10:47 PM
- 406 Views
That doesn't seem very logical
18/03/2010 12:03:21 AM
- 493 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
- 458 Views
It is very possible
18/03/2010 02:12:21 AM
- 355 Views
Re: It is very possible
18/03/2010 02:31:59 AM
- 459 Views
You do remember "I do not recall" Gonzalez right? *NM*
18/03/2010 02:38:48 AM
- 167 Views
Actually not really, I was out of the country for almost his entire tenure
18/03/2010 02:41:13 AM
- 371 Views
Pretty much there was some political firings of Us Attorneys
18/03/2010 02:56:01 AM
- 408 Views
I remember a little of that
18/03/2010 03:16:27 AM
- 390 Views
Gonzales flat out lied to congress
18/03/2010 03:29:14 AM
- 378 Views
Seems he could answer the question without evasion or producing a soundbite
18/03/2010 04:12:04 AM
- 428 Views
I don't think I agree with that.
18/03/2010 02:04:48 PM
- 395 Views
Fair enough
18/03/2010 02:40:42 PM
- 390 Views
You guys are forgetting the intel aspect.
18/03/2010 09:40:53 PM
- 410 Views
do we know how much he actually knows?
18/03/2010 09:49:50 PM
- 385 Views
Kinda hard to find out if he knows anything if he's dead *NM*
18/03/2010 09:56:18 PM
- 178 Views
that was totally not my question
19/03/2010 12:10:06 AM
- 381 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
- 487 Views
I can understand why he'd want to evade answering.
18/03/2010 03:23:04 AM
- 455 Views
I can understand why statesman would want to avoid painting himself into a corner.
29/03/2010 02:26:34 PM
- 342 Views