Hugh_Hoy Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 NG...actually I made the statement in question form. The links I gave are merely to show the mindset of Obama/Holder/current administration. The DoD has had instructions to give Miranda even on the battle field; this is because the idiot-in-chief would like to put terrorists on trial in U.S. civil courts instead of military tribunals. Interestingly, only today, the administration has bent to the outcry against such a policy. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 I have nothing against Obama as a person and think he is rather likeable, but it is increasingly aware that he simply doesn't know WTF he is doing. My biggest fear when he was elected was that he would be another Jimmy Carter. My fears seem to be justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous God Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 <> Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 Take your pick: [color:red]Miranda Rights For Detainees Started Under Bush Administration[/color] << This "scandalous" policy actually began during the Bush administration. One of the worst mistakes the Bush administration made was paying absolutely no attention in the early days to building cases against the people it detained. Evidence was improperly collected or not collected at all. Statements were elicited through torture and other coercive means. So when the Bush administration later decided that it wanted to try its high-value detainees, it had virtually no evidence to work with. So to build cases for trial, the Bush administration sent in FBI "clean teams" to re-interrogate suspects without reference to prior statements. >> Link [color:red]U.S. Lawmaker Says Obama Administration Ordered FBI to Read Rights to Detainees[/color] << U.S. commanders told FOX News soldiers are not reading Miranda rights to detainees, but those commanders could not speak to whether the FBI was doing so. The practice has not been instituted at detention facilities in Iraq or at Guantanamo Bay, according to U.S. senior military officials. Asked if the Obama administration had ordered that Miranda rights be read to certain detainees, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, "I have no reason to disbelieve a member of Congress. But I don't know any of the circumstances that are involved around it." But Gibbs acknowledged that it wouldn't be a surprise to find out that it was happening. >> Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCorinthian Posted March 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 FYI: I have had no instruction to give Miranda rights to anyone we captured on the battle field or in a war zone. Nor have I ever heard of it being done by someone who did it. That does not mean it does not happen or that there are special units that do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous God Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 OK - not that I believe, FBI of course being a local body I guess has to do the Miranda thing, soldiers I would never believe have too. Thanks! By the way Australia doesn't miranda people as far as I know, any other countries do it other than USA? Is it for ALL states? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobbledonk Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 'You are not obliged to say or do anything yada yada' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Australia Police have repeatedly 'verballed' suspects here in Oz, and I'm sure it happens all over the world. The warning only means something if you know your rights - otherwise its just a formality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCorinthian Posted March 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 The warning only means something if you know your rights - otherwise its just a formality. In the US, your Lawyer will even if you dont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous God Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 Gobble given each state is so different in Aus I;m surprised we have this. FARK\\ You are not obliged to say or do anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say or do may be used in evidence. Do you understand? †Where a defendant refuses to speak to the police, but then speaks to an undercover member of the police, that evidence is likely to be excluded so as to ensure that the police do not avoid their limitations. However, if a defendant speaks to a person who is not a member of the police and who is fitted with a listening device, that evidence would be admitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.