Reading Osama Bin Laden Miranda Rights

[PJABBER]

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: "If you're gonna prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs, the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent. The big problem I have is you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we have mixed theories and couldn't turn him over to the CIA, the FBI, military intelligence for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now you're saying he's subject to criminal court in the United States and you're confusing the people fighting this war."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...n_reading_osama_bin_laden_miranda_rights.html

**********************

One place you do not want confused and muddled directives is on the battlefield. When you are facing an enemy that has sworn to kill you and your comrades, when that enemy has demonstrated an ongoing threat to your cities and your people, when it is likely that enemy has contemporary plans to carry out mass destruction, you do not need the interjection of a politicized "right to silence" to be the first thing communicated upon capture.

Yet that is exactly what Mirandizing, reading "rights" to an enemy combatant upon capture, counseling them to not engage in communication of any sort without an attorney present does.

Imagine this. You are an infantry platoon leader with the 10th Mountain Division clearing a Afghan village on the border of Pakistan. Your scouts report a massing of what looks like enemy on the next ridgeline. You have just captured two heavily armed men.

Do you now:

1. Pull out your Miranda rights card and read to them in English that they have the right to remain silent and the right to the counsel of an attorney, while your translator is hopping from one foot to the other and continuously glancing at the likely counter attack forming up.

2. Start politely interrogating them about what is on the other side of the ridge while per SOP your top sergeant is taking notes as to the time, the place and the circumstances of the questioning on a pre-approved form in triplicate instead of checking the emplacement of the crew served weapons and the depth of the hasty fighting positions.

3. Make sure the detainees have been completely disarmed, put your issue 9mm Beretta M9 under the first one's chin and ask him politely to tell you how many of their buddies are over on that there ridgeline and what he thinks they are about to do.

Now, imagine one of those guys is really tall and Holey Moley! he looks just like OBL! Your translator is waving some documents around that he just found while babbling about the nuclear blast radius mapping with an execution time/date of right about now. And Mr. OBL starts laughing in your face cause he knows that you can't do squat without taking a one way trip to Ft. Leavenworth...

BTW, there is an FBI guy attached to your platoon that has been stumbling along like a cow with a bell on for the past three days as a field ops observer and he is now pulling out his own personal double laminated Miranda card.

Time's up! The first mortar rounds are starting to bracket your position and you are SOL, as are the unfortunate residents of, let's say San Francisco and Washington, DC this time...

 

[JSt0rm]

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: "If you're gonna prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs, the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent. The big problem I have is you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we have mixed theories and couldn't turn him over to the CIA, the FBI, military intelligence for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now you're saying he's subject to criminal court in the United States and you're confusing the people fighting this war."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...n_reading_osama_bin_laden_miranda_rights.html

**********************

One place you do not want confused and muddled directives is on the battlefield. When you are facing an enemy that has sworn to kill you and your comrades, when that enemy has demonstrated an ongoing threat to your cities and your people, when it is likely that enemy has contemporary plans to carry out mass destruction, you do not need the interjection of a politicized "right to silence" to be the first thing communicated upon capture.

Yet that is exactly what Mirandizing, reading "rights" to an enemy combatant upon capture, counseling them to not engage in communication of any sort without an attorney present does.

Imagine this. You are an infantry platoon leader with the 10th Mountain Division clearing a Afghan village on the border of Pakistan. Your scouts report a massing of what looks like enemy on the next ridgeline. You have just captured two heavily armed men.

Do you now:

1. Pull out your Miranda rights card and read to them in English that they have the right to remain silent and the right to the counsel of an attorney, while your translator is hopping from one foot to the other and continuously glancing at the likely counter attack forming up.

2. Start politely interrogating them about what is on the other side of the ridge while per SOP your top sergeant is taking notes as to the time, the place and the circumstances of the questioning on a pre-approved form in triplicate instead of checking the emplacement of the crew served weapons and the depth of the hasty fighting positions.

3. Make sure the detainees have been completely disarmed, put your issue 9mm Beretta M9 under the first one's chin and ask him politely to tell you how many of their buddies are over on that there ridgeline and what he thinks they are about to do.

Now, imagine one of those guys is really tall and Holey Moley! he looks just like OBL! Your translator is waving some documents around that he just found while babbling about the nuclear blast radius mapping with an execution time/date of right about now. And Mr. OBL starts laughing in your face cause he knows that you can't do squat without taking a one way trip to Ft. Leavenworth...

BTW, there is an FBI guy attached to your platoon that has been stumbling along like a cow with a bell on for the past three days as a field ops observer and he is now pulling out his own personal double laminated Miranda card.

Time's up! The first mortar rounds are starting to bracket your position and you are SOL, as are the unfortunate residents of, let's say San Francisco and Washington, DC this time...

I think what you have there is a script for the next call of duty video game.

 

[JKing106]

Why are you posting a wall of text by Lindsey Graham. He's gay, the complete antithesis of your ideology. Have something you want to share with the rest of us?

 

[PJABBER]

Eric Holder's Grave Mistake
By Michael Gerson
November 18, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Eric Holder -- distinguished prosecutor, judge, foe of public corruption, basketball enthusiast, mentor to disadvantaged youth -- seemed a reassuring choice for attorney general. When Holder affirmed during his confirmation hearing that America remains at war with terrorists, Sen. Lindsey Graham enthused, "I'm almost ready to vote for you right now."

So how did Holder become the most destructive member of Barack Obama's Cabinet?

Holder launched his tenure by showing disdain for the work of career federal prosecutors when it fit his ideological predispositions. In 2004, a task force from the Eastern District of Virginia investigated allegations of misconduct against the CIA and found insufficient evidence of criminal conduct or intent. Holder ignored the views of these respected prosecutors and appointed his own special prosecutor, appeasing a political constituency that wanted the CIA to be hounded and punished. As a result, morale at a front-line agency in the war on terror has plunged. What possible reason could a bright, ambitious intelligence professional have to pursue a career in counterterrorism when the attorney general of the United States is stubbornly intent on exposing and undermining his colleagues?

Now Holder is displaying an exaggerated respect for the work of career federal prosecutors in New York, also when it fits his ideological predispositions. He is asking them to make the case against five 9/11 conspirators, in a circus atmosphere, with an uncertain chain of evidence (gathered on a battlefield), under a cloud of torture allegations that Holder himself has encouraged.

There is one serious argument for this course: that a civilian court will provide greater legitimacy for the imposition of the death penalty than a military tribunal. But the guilt of these terrorists is not in question. And it is difficult to imagine that those repulsed or impressed by Khalid Sheik Mohammed's confessed crimes will care much about the procedures surrounding his sentencing.

In exchange for a marginal public relations advantage, America will be subjected to the airing of intelligence sources and methods, to the posturing of mass murderers fully aware of their terrorist star power, to the possibility of mistrial and procedural acquittal, and to an increased threat of revenge attacks against New York City. Holder seemed to concede this last complication by asserting that New York is "hardened" against possible terrorism. If I were a New Yorker, that would fall into the category of chilly comfort.

In the end, Holder made a decision memorable for its incoherence. He declared American military tribunals constitutional and appropriate for some terrorists -- then awarded 9/11 mastermind Mohammed a presumption of innocence and the full O.J. Simpson treatment.

In the original plan for the terrorist attacks, according to the report of the 9/11 Commission, Mohammed was supposed to be on the only hijacked plane that landed. He would kill all the males aboard, then make a dramatic speech to the world. At his trial, he will now get his wish.

Holder's choices do not reflect the normal policy shifts between administrations. It is not typical that seven former directors of the CIA have publicly denounced Holder's assault on the institution they served. It is not typical that Holder's immediate predecessor, Michael Mukasey, has called the plan for trials in Manhattan a risky "social experiment" that will raise the risk of attack "very high." Something unique and frightening is taking place: The ACLU is effectively being put in charge of the war on terror.

Holder contends that if people will "in a neutral and detached way, look at the decision ... and try to do something rare in Washington -- leave the politics out of it and focus on what's in the best interest of this country -- I think the criticism will be relatively muted." Holder clearly views himself as Atticus Finch, dispassionately defending the rule of law against the howling mob. In fact, Holder is taking the legal path blazed by former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who defined legal objectivity as indifference to the soiled interests of his country. Holder's liberal principles have become "detached" from the real-world struggle against terrorism: Let justice be done, though the heavens, and buildings, fall.

Wartime American presidents such as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt have understood that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. So enemy combatants consistently have been judged by a different and harsher legal standard than American citizens. Whatever his initial assurances, Holder does not believe America is at war with terrorists. Even worse, he seems determined to undermine those who do.
______________________

Michael Gerson is senior research fellow at the Institute for Global Engagement's Center on Faith & International Affairs. He served as a policy adviser and chief speechwriter to President George W. Bush from 2000 to 2006. Before that, he was a senior editor covering politics at U.S. News & World Report. His book "Heroic Conservatism" was published by HarperOne in 2007.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Please troll less.

 

[boomerang]

Why are you posting a wall of text by Lindsey Graham. He's gay, the complete antithesis of your ideology. Have something you want to share with the rest of us?

Spoken with all the conviction a twelve year old mentality can muster. Pathetic.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Quit feeding the trolls. If all of PJABBER's wall of text posts fall to the 2nd or 3rd page in a day, he should get the message. Simple as that.

Don't dignify him with a response.

 

[PJABBER]

Why are you posting a wall of text by Lindsey Graham. He's gay, the complete antithesis of your ideology. Have something you want to share with the rest of us?

Why are you so hung up on whether he is gay, straight, black, Asian, Mormon, Buddhist, or whatever?? I get it! You are a welfare liberal! And all of those biases DEFINE you!

As a classical liberal I could give two hoots about any of that as I am completely focused on the substance of what he is saying. You should be paying attention as well. Maybe put some dark sunglasses on, if it helps you to be color blind.

I posted a very small portion of Sen. Graham's questioning of AG Holder today. You can catch the whole discourse on C-SPAN or you can watch just about six and a half minutes of it at the linked video. I guess it depends on your level of real interest and the priority on time you might have.

 

[JKing106]

Spoken with all the conviction a twelve year old mentality can muster. Pathetic.

As if your opinion means anything to anyone.

 

[werepossum]

I doubt seriously that Holder is doing anything other than as Obama has directed. I too fear this will end badly, but I don't think it's Holder especially.

I think Obama et al feel that pre-Obama America was an evil, greedy, racist country with few or no redeeming qualities. Against that backdrop, whatever intelligence damage may be done only makes us a less evil country, just as extending American rights to terrorists makes us a less evil country. Therefore the terrorists will hate us less. It's done, so we'll see how that works for us. Besides, the CIA is under assault, so it's not like we're going to be using them constructively anyway.

 

[JKing106]

Why are you so hung up on whether he is gay, straight, black, Asian, Mormon, Buddhist, or whatever?? I get it! You are a welfare liberal! And all of those biases DEFINE you!

As a classical liberal I could give two hoots about any of that as I am completely focused on the substance of what he is saying. You should be paying attention as well. Maybe put some dark sunglasses on, if it helps you to be color blind.

I posted a very small portion of Sen. Graham's questioning of AG Holder today. You can catch the whole discourse on C-SPAN or you can watch just about six and a half minutes of it at the linked video. I guess it depends on your level of real interest and the priority on time you might have.

You, a liberal?! I don't have any problem with him being gay. Obviously, his constituency would have a huge problem with it, hence his being in the closet. The way you're always cheerleading for the Neocons, I suspect you'd have a problem with it also. Don't be a hypocrite.

 

[PJABBER]

I think what you have there is a script for the next call of duty video game.

Now THAT would be a REALISTIC game!

I have it from a good source that a patch incorporating Miranda rights reading is in the works for COD3 -

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ultra_realistic_modern_warfare

 

[PJABBER]

You, a liberal?! I don't have any problem with him being gay. Obviously, his constituency would have a huge problem with it, hence his being in the closet. The way you're always cheerleading for the Neocons, I suspect you'd have a problem with it also. Don't be a hypocrite.

Does your mom know when you came out of the closet?

 

[nobodyknows]

You didn't get the memo? GWB declared that Osama wasn't a concern anymore and that he could care less where he was.

 

[JKing106]

Does your mom know when you came out of the closet?

Never had to, I was never in it, being hetero. But if I was gay, I sure as shit wouldn't be too chickenshit to say so. What's your excuse?

 

[boomerang]

So far we've got an attack on the poster. A statement in regards to the sexual orientation of a Senator, yet another declaration that the average attention span here is all of about 8 seconds and that's pretty much it.

Speaking for myself, I fully understand the absurdity of the decisions recently revealed by the children running our government regarding KSM and how we're to function on the battlefield. So I have no arguments with the post or anything to add.

There seems to be no discension so it's agreed that these policies are dangerous and absurd. Wow, it's nice to see that we can all agree sometimes. The question now is, how can we work together to show the administration that we don't agree with these recently revealed decisions?

Anyone?

 

[Ozoned]

You wouldn't read him his rights anyway. Bin laden has not be indicted for anything connected to 9/11, due to lack of evidence??? . What he has been indicted for would warrant a military trial by the AG rules.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15892

 

[PJABBER]

So far we've got an attack on the poster. A statement in regards to the sexual orientation of a Senator, yet another declaration that the average attention span here is all of about 8 seconds and that's pretty much it.

Speaking for myself, I fully understand the absurdity of the decisions recently revealed by the children running our government regarding KSM and how we're to function on the battlefield. So I have no arguments with the post or anything to add.

There seems to be no discension so it's agreed that these policies are dangerous and absurd. Wow, it's nice to see that we can all agree sometimes. The question now is, how can we work together to show the administration that we don't agree with these recently revealed decisions?

Anyone?

There is a wide spread criticism of these decisions in all of the press and through the outcry of both professionals and ordinary citizens. It is unlikely to do more than entrench the decisions as the government actors withdraw more and more into the protective and defensive cocoon which characterizes the Presidency as the term progresses.

The real question is can anything influence ideologues at this level of power to change the direction they have taken their entire lives?

The strategic decisions being taken, of which this is only one, are based on a flawed ideology. How do you convince someone like Obama and his pals that the things they have been taught their entire lives don't make any sense in the real world?

They would first have to accept that the traditions and the values that America has are worth having. They would have to reject the counsel they have relied on their entire lives. They would be punished by those that empowered them.

Enlightenment is very hard, you almost have to go through hell to achieve it. I don't believe you will see such a change, so now it is up to the checks and balances of our THREE branch governmental system to do the job they were designed to do as we cross our fingers and hope for the best until the next election.

 

[alchemize]

Never had to, I was never in it, being hetero. But if I was gay, I sure as shit wouldn't be too chickenshit to say so. What's your excuse?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

 

[PJABBER]

You wouldn't read him his rights anyway. Bin laden has not be indicted for anything connected to 9/11, due to lack of evidence??? . What he has been indicted for would warrant a military trial by the AG rules.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15892

That is a wacky site, OBL has plenty of warrants out -

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/binladen/usbinladen-1a.pdf

The FBI maintains a list of "Most Wanted Terrorists". This list is accompanied by a note:

The alleged terrorists on this list have been indicted by sitting Federal Grand Juries in various jurisdictions in the United States for the crimes reflected on their wanted posters. Evidence was gathered and presented to the Grand Juries, which led to their being charged. The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice. Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

Other countries also have warrants out for OBL.

In 2003, Investigative Magistrate Baltasar Garzon of Spain issued an indictment against Osama bin Laden for his involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Along with bin Laden, Ramzi Binalshibh and others affiliated with Al Qaeda were also indicted. The indictment included evidence that Spain was used as a staging ground for the attacks. Spain does not allow trials for suspects in absentia.

 

[Moonbeam]

Only a great people with a great judicial system would ever require ones rights read on capture. If I were a member of the party of death bent on the destruction of America I would want such rights withheld.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

You wouldn't read him his rights anyway. Bin laden has not be indicted for anything connected to 9/11, due to lack of evidence??? . What he has been indicted for would warrant a military trial by the AG rules.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15892

Bin Laden has already been indicted by US Federal Court for the attack on the Cole. We also have direct evidence from OBL's associates in Al Qaeda that they were behind 9/11. So unless people want to claim that his lieutenants somehow kept Bin Laden in the dark about 9/11, it's a very weak case to claim that OBL was not involved in 9/11.

Ray Griffin? C'mon. Asking him for an unbiased opinion about the events of 9/11 is like asking a PETA member to give their opinion of Steak Fest 2009.

 

[PJABBER]

Never had to, I was never in it, being hetero. But if I was gay, I sure as shit wouldn't be too chickenshit to say so.

Are you sure? I mean, really, really sure? No straying thought or light touch of an inappropriate place?

You sure seem hung up about it.

Oh well, I am sure your mom loves you just the way that you are.

But, how about your dad? Is he understanding , too?

 

[Ozoned]

Bin Laden has already been indicted by US Federal Court for the attack on the Cole. We also have direct evidence from OBL's associates in Al Qaeda that they were behind 9/11. So unless people want to claim that his lieutenants somehow kept Bin Laden in the dark about 9/11, it's a very weak case to claim that OBL was not involved in 9/11.

Ray Griffin? C'mon. Asking him for an unbiased opinion about the events of 9/11 is like asking a PETA member to give their opinion of Steak Fest 2009.

In 2006, Rex Tomb, then the FBI's chief of investigative publicity, was asked why not. He replied: "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11

Any evidence gained from KSM or his associates implicating Bin Laden would not be admissable in our criminal court system.


Holder opened this can of worms, not me. Under his "Rules", Usame could not be tried in our courts.

 

[Ozoned]

That is a wacky site, OBL has plenty of warrants out -

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/binladen/usbinladen-1a.pdf

The FBI maintains a list of "Most Wanted Terrorists". This list is accompanied by a note:

The alleged terrorists on this list have been indicted by sitting Federal Grand Juries in various jurisdictions in the United States for the crimes reflected on their wanted posters. Evidence was gathered and presented to the Grand Juries, which led to their being charged. The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice. Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

Other countries also have warrants out for OBL.

In 2003, Investigative Magistrate Baltasar Garzon of Spain issued an indictment against Osama bin Laden for his involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Along with bin Laden, Ramzi Binalshibh and others affiliated with Al Qaeda were also indicted. The indictment included evidence that Spain was used as a staging ground for the attacks. Spain does not allow trials for suspects in absentia.

There is not an indictment in the USA for Usame for anything connected to 9/11. That is all I said.