Obama Administration Orders FBI to read Miranda Rights to Terrorists

[Bangkoktraveler]

HH and YF, the current budget the Federal government is running under is GWB's budget, correct?

[Old Hippie]

First part, I believe we inprisioned people many times with either no charges or false charges...Amnesty international does have a list...also, go back to when our country was first founded, all was not exactly rosy...look, we are working on it, and as much as some of us bitch, we do have it good here, the idea is to make it better.

 

Second part, Obama inherited the Bush mess...I do think/believe he modified the budget here and there a bit, not 100% sure though...

[Bangkoktraveler]

First part, I believe we inprisioned people many times with either no charges or false charges...Amnesty international does have a list...also, go back to when our country was first founded, all was not exactly rosy...look, we are working on it, and as much as some of us bitch, we do have it good here, the idea is to make it better.

 

Second part, Obama inherited the Bush mess...I do think/believe he modified the budget here and there a bit, not 100% sure though...

 

 

Deep sixing somebody goes back to at least the Clinton administration. Citizens were sweeped off the street and disappeared inside the walls of Federal prisons. ACLU tried getting answers but there is a pervasive atmosphere in the USA that such KGB tactics are acceptable if our government does it to our own citizens. Figure it out, I can't.

 

[Bangkoktraveler]

Currently the USA is trying to build prisons on Indian land. Why? The Indians, in many cases, do not have to honor our civil rights. Figure that one out.

[Hugh_Hoy]

Look dude, this is tit for tat...or something here...Look at what we are doing here...arguing about what? who sucks more and worse? Look at the way the government is infighting and finger pointing instead of doing their job.

 

The original topic here was reading suspected terrorists their Miranda rights, which you and YF shat on. I have since pointed out, that GWB was in fact the one who originally insisted on it, and rightfully so. He should be commended for it. It was Obama who originally tried to take the get tough stance and say "we won't do that" then flip flopped on it, and said we would, and you guys all dumped on him. Now, as it was GWB who originally proposed it, has your opinion changed? It is the right/American thing to do, no matter which idiot president is in office.

 

The problem as I see it is, to some, it is more important to disrupt any and all improvements any way they can just because their guy lost...just how patriotic is that? The majority of Americans want this guy (Obama) and his policies, you need to accept that. I am not 100% on board but hey, we got what we got, and all the bitching and whining is not going to help that.

 

Oh and to answer your question, no, liberals (or are they all socialists now?) do not have the monopoly on bitching, but when ever they did, they were, as Damen pointed out, labeled as anti American, unpatriotic etc...so is it ok for the right to be unpatriotic and un American? And don't give me any of that it is patriotic to desent crap, it didn't work when the left tried it, so you can't use it now.

 

Other than that, how was the game the other night?

 

Yep...the original topic WAS, indeed, reading Miranda to suspected terrorists...IN AFGHANISTAN. Highly unlikely those suspects would be tried in a court in the U.S....and very debatable as to whether or not Miranda is extra-territorial.

 

(BTW, "Miranda" is what is called a "prophylactic" ruling by the U.S. Supreme Ct. Miranda is NOT a Constitutional guarantee and it is not provided for by the Bill of Rights...Got it, SD?)

 

OK, OH: yep, tit for tat here. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" and all that stuff. Doesn't make it right, but I have fun from time to time. :content:

 

Good game tonight. Under 3 hours, no errors, some good pitching aided by some shitty hitting.

 

HH

 

 

[..]

(BTW, "Miranda" is what is called a "prophylactic" ruling by the U.S. Supreme Ct. Miranda is NOT a Constitutional guarantee and it is not provided for by the Bill of Rights...Got it, SD?)

Errr, you can sound impressive with the big words there HH, but the crux of Miranda was that the SCOTUS overturned Mirandaâ??s conviction because the police had not informed him of his rights as guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendment: the right not to incriminate himself, as well as the right to have legal counsel assist him. Therefore, it is guaranteed by the BoR.

 

You may side with Justice Harlan, who wrote the Courtâ??s dissenting opinion in the case, i.e., "The social costs of crime are too great to call the new rules anything but a hazardous experimentation. [...] One is entitled to feel astonished that the Constitution can be read to produce this result" -- but the ruling is what it is and indeed affirms the role of the Constitution in this matter.

 

Cheers,

SD -- legal tigger

[Faustian]

Look dude, this is tit for tat...or something here...Look at what we are doing here...arguing about what? who sucks more and worse? Look at the way the government is infighting and finger pointing instead of doing their job.

 

The original topic here was reading suspected terrorists their Miranda rights, which you and YF shat on. I have since pointed out, that GWB was in fact the one who originally insisted on it, and rightfully so. He should be commended for it. It was Obama who originally tried to take the get tough stance and say "we won't do that" then flip flopped on it, and said we would, and you guys all dumped on him. Now, as it was GWB who originally proposed it, has your opinion changed? It is the right/American thing to do, no matter which idiot president is in office.

 

The problem as I see it is, to some, it is more important to disrupt any and all improvements any way they can just because their guy lost...just how patriotic is that? The majority of Americans want this guy (Obama) and his policies, you need to accept that. I am not 100% on board but hey, we got what we got, and all the bitching and whining is not going to help that.

 

Oh and to answer your question, no, liberals (or are they all socialists now?) do not have the monopoly on bitching, but when ever they did, they were, as Damen pointed out, labeled as anti American, unpatriotic etc...so is it ok for the right to be unpatriotic and un American? And don't give me any of that it is patriotic to desent crap, it didn't work when the left tried it, so you can't use it now.

 

Other than that, how was the game the other night?

 

Nice post

 

[Flashermac]

Cheers,

SD -- legal tigger

 

 

 

[Bangkoktraveler]

(BTW' date=' "Miranda" is what is called a "prophylactic" ruling by the U.S. Supreme Ct. Miranda is NOT a Constitutional guarantee and it is not provided for by the Bill of Rights...Got it, SD?)[/quote']

Errr, you can sound impressive with the big words there HH, but the crux of Miranda was that the SCOTUS overturned Mirandaâ??s conviction because the police had not informed him of his rights as guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendment: the right not to incriminate himself, as well as the right to have legal counsel assist him. Therefore, it is guaranteed by the BoR.

 

You may side with Justice Harlan, who wrote the Courtâ??s dissenting opinion in the case, i.e., "The social costs of crime are too great to call the new rules anything but a hazardous experimentation. [...] One is entitled to feel astonished that the Constitution can be read to produce this result" -- but the ruling is what it is and indeed affirms the role of the Constitution in this matter.

 

Cheers,

SD -- legal tigger

 

 

There are some people in the USA who would love to see 'miranda rights' done away with.

[Flashermac]

Chiquita Banana?

 

 

 

 

2