|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 13, 2009 12:42:01 GMT -5
This is sickening. He's continuing making the US more vulnerable. He'd rather give terrorists rights they dont even legally deserve at the expense of keeping Americans safe. and these rights only increase the likelihood of an attack. When thousands of Americans die in the next 4 years because of Obama, I don't want to see him apologizing to our enemies anymore, but rather condemn them and actually apologize to the US citizens for the consequences of his failed policies. At least Bush did something when we were attacked and under threat, what the fuck is Obama playing at? "Yeah, let's make it easier for them to attack us." Obama is too worried about being popular globally to do something that would counter his likability, even if that action would benefit America. Pathetic. ------------ ------------ Obama gives terrorists 'right to remain silent' FBI ordered to read Miranda warning to U.S. enemiesPosted: June 10, 2009 www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100731The Obama Administration has ordered the FBI and CIA to inform terrorists overseas that they "have the right to remain silent" before probing them for information to save American lives. According to Weekly Standard report by Stephen F. Hayes, a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee has revealed that "the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan." The Miranda warning, named after the 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda vs. Arizona, is a statement read by law enforcement officials to inform suspects of their rights. It states: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense. Hayes noted that former CIA Director George Tenet said Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad refused to cooperate with officials when he was captured March 1, 2003. "I'll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer," Mohammad demanded. Mohammad did not enlist the services of a lawyer until months after his capture and interrogation. But, according to the report, Tenet wrote in his memoirs that intelligence extracted from the terrorist saved countless American lives. "I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal – read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up," Tenet wrote. Hayes said, "If Tenet is right, it's a good thing (Mohammad) was captured before Barack Obama became president." Rep. Mike Rogers, former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement during his fact-finding trip to Afghanistan. "The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement," Rogers told the Weekly Standard. "Here's the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them … and they're reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters." Rogers told Hayes the Obama administration has never informed Congress of the Miranda policy. "I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn't been briefed on it, I didn't know about it," he said. "We're still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative." The policy is part of a larger plan to replace the CIA-dominated method of covert arrest and interrogation with a significantly expanded role for the FBI and Justice Department in counter-terrorism operations. According to a Los Angeles Times report, agents will collect evidence to criminally prosecute all suspected terrorists. In previous years, the Bush administration considered counter-terrorism operations an intelligence or military issue, not a law enforcement one, the Times states. But, under Obama's new "global justice" plan, the goal is to ensure that all suspected terrorists can be tried in a U.S. or foreign court of law. "With many thousands of lives potentially in the balance, we did not think it made good sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time," former Vice President Dick Cheney said in a May speech. Many Republican lawmakers agree with Cheney. "When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the 'right to remain silent,'" Rep. Pete Hoekstra, ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, told the Weekly Standard. "It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation – lawyering up." Rogers said even the International Red Cross has begun advising terrorist suspects to remain silent until they have representation. "The International Red Cross, when they go into these detention facilities, has now started telling people – 'Take the option. You want a lawyer,'" he said. Rogers told Hayes that the predicament may become confusing in a combat scenario: The problem is you take that guy at three in the morning off of a compound right outside of Kabul where he's building bomb materials to kill US soldiers, and read him his rights by four, and the Red Cross is saying take the lawyer – you have now created quite a confusion amongst the FBI, the CIA and the United States military. And confusion is the last thing you want in a combat zone. However, Richard Clarke, senior counter-terrorism official in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, told the Los Angeles Times the changes are long overdue. "We have to return to the practice that we had before of arresting terrorists and putting them on trial," he said, claiming U.S. ability to do so "has atrophied." But Hayes notes that a suspected terrorist who remains silent will not provide the U.S. with vital information about impending attacks. In his memoirs, Tenet wrote, "I am confident that we would have obtained none of the information he had in his head about imminent threats against the American people."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2009 13:05:50 GMT -5
if your not gogin to use torture than of course there is going to be the right to remain silent, pretty fucking obvious.
you didn't even vote so you should shut the fuck up
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 13, 2009 13:11:31 GMT -5
It really is a shame that these liberal nutjobs have gone back to the dangerous pre-9/11 mentality. It's also a shame that it will take another devastating attack on the US where thousands die for these same liberals to wake up.
|
|
|
Post by TheEXPERIENCE on Jun 13, 2009 13:32:38 GMT -5
if your not gogin to use torture than of course there is going to be the right to remain silent, pretty fucking obvious. you didn't even vote so you should shut the fuck up well i did vote and i think this is fucking ridiculous. he is opting to potentially risk American lives in order to be politically correct. Bush may have been a moron but atleast his first priority was our safety
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2009 13:41:27 GMT -5
if your not gogin to use torture than of course there is going to be the right to remain silent, pretty fucking obvious. you didn't even vote so you should shut the fuck up well i did vote and i think this is fucking ridiculous. he is opting to potentially risk American lives in order to be politically correct. Bush may have been a moron but atleast his first priority was our safety fair enough if thats how you see it, but my point remains if you are not going to use torture then they can stay silent. and lets face it pakistan is the big problem not silence and the US loves to fund the home of terrorism.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 13, 2009 13:56:37 GMT -5
well i did vote and i think this is fucking ridiculous. he is opting to potentially risk American lives in order to be politically correct. Bush may have been a moron but atleast his first priority was our safety fair enough if thats how you see it, but my point remains if you are not going to use torture then they can stay silent. If Bush used that policy in the 7.5 years following 9/11, do you know how many more thousands would have died in terrorist attacks inside of the US? Interrogation is absolutely essential to preventing these attacks, and for these terrorists now to be able to remain silent and with hold any useful information so they can see more innocent "infidels" dead is enraging, and flat out just wrong, stupid, and foolish. Furthermore, terrorists will be more likely to attack us now, not less. Obama's logic is flawed - they don't hate us simply because we "tortured" (hence the inverted quotation marks), or because we hold them in Gitmo, they hate us for ideological reasons. If they throw all their weapons into the sea, the violence would stop. If we do the same along with pulling out of every country, we would still be attacked. By relaxing our methods with dealing with them and giving them actual substantiated rights they don't even deserve will only encourage them to attack us - they see us as soft and thus vulnerable, and since there aren't extreme consequences any more, they won't see getting caught as such a great risk. Appeasement doesn't work, it just makes us naivee and more vulnerable. It wasn't through a lack of trying for why we weren't attacked since 9/11 but because of Bush's policies - the same successful policies that Obama is now reversing. Seriously, what is he playing at?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2009 15:58:48 GMT -5
fair enough if thats how you see it, but my point remains if you are not going to use torture then they can stay silent. If Bush used that policy in the 7.5 years following 9/11, do you know how many more thousands would have died in terrorist attacks inside of the US? yes i do, thanks for asking.
|
|
|
Post by Jazzvi on Jun 13, 2009 16:46:53 GMT -5
Don't worry Ross, even those who barely reply share the same vision as you. I'm not going to say that I like or dislike Obama, but if you're not using torture then of course you have the right to remain silent. Otherwise it will inevitably lead to torture again.
|
|
|
Post by puretone on Jun 13, 2009 17:05:13 GMT -5
fair enough if thats how you see it, but my point remains if you are not going to use torture then they can stay silent. If Bush used that policy in the 7.5 years following 9/11, do you know how many more thousands would have died in terrorist attacks inside of the US? Interrogation is absolutely essential to preventing these attacks, and for these terrorists now to be able to remain silent and with hold any useful information so they can see more innocent "infidels" dead is enraging, and flat out just wrong, stupid, and foolish. Furthermore, terrorists will be more likely to attack us now, not less. Obama's logic is flawed - they don't hate us simply because we "tortured" (hence the inverted quotation marks), or because we hold them in Gitmo, they hate us for ideological reasons. If they throw all their weapons into the sea, the violence would stop. If we do the same along with pulling out of every country, we would still be attacked. By relaxing our methods with dealing with them and giving them actual substantiated rights they don't even deserve will only encourage them to attack us - they see us as soft and thus vulnerable, and since there aren't extreme consequences any more, they won't see getting caught as such a great risk. Appeasement doesn't work, it just makes us naivee and more vulnerable. It wasn't through a lack of trying for why we weren't attacked since 9/11 but because of Bush's policies - the same successful policies that Obama is now reversing. Seriously, what is he playing at? I thought you were English?
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jun 13, 2009 21:22:19 GMT -5
depends on his mood. it's like madonna.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 14, 2009 1:35:46 GMT -5
Don't worry Ross, even those who barely reply share the same vision as you. I'm not going to say that I like or dislike Obama, but if you're not using torture then of course you have the right to remain silent. Otherwise it will inevitably lead to torture again. Of course the two views are somewhat consistent, that's not the point of this post. The point is the unbelievable nature that he's making us more at risk and vulnerable. The only person to address this is The Experience..... I'd rather keep my hundreds of millions of citizens safe than worry about giving my enemies rights they don't deserve which would hinder the safety of the nation
|
|
|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Jun 14, 2009 3:56:21 GMT -5
I for one do have a hard time understanding how the Miranda warning applies to foreign fighters attacking our soldiers and captured on foreign soil. The Miranda warning is designed to inform those arrested of their constitutional rights. How does some asshole Al-Qaida terrorist from Afghanistan who has never even stepped foot into the USA deserve the same constitutional rights as a US citizen?
Geneva convention rights you could argue for pretty easily, but Miranda? Sounds like bullshit to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2009 4:04:29 GMT -5
How does some asshole Al-Qaida terrorist from Afghanistan who has never even stepped foot into the USA deserve the same constitutional rights as a US citizen? at the same time you can question the right of america to take people from countries outside america.
|
|
|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Jun 14, 2009 4:26:16 GMT -5
How does some asshole Al-Qaida terrorist from Afghanistan who has never even stepped foot into the USA deserve the same constitutional rights as a US citizen? at the same time you can question the right of america to take people from countries outside america. UH-OH! Ross just dropped the deflection card on me!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2009 4:34:28 GMT -5
nice way of covering the inconsistencies in your argument. You also seem to ignore the fact that a many people arrested are actually innocent.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 14, 2009 4:54:08 GMT -5
How does some asshole Al-Qaida terrorist from Afghanistan who has never even stepped foot into the USA deserve the same constitutional rights as a US citizen? at the same time you can question the right of america to take people from countries outside america. They're planning attacks on our/western citizens - we have an obligation to stop them before they are able to carry them out. To suggest otherwise is obviously dangerous and thus stupid....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2009 5:07:34 GMT -5
at the same time you can question the right of america to take people from countries outside america. They're planning attacks on our/western citizens - we have an obligation to stop them before they are able to carry them out. To suggest otherwise is obviously dangerous and thus stupid.... i wasn't saying that, i was just suggesting that you can't hold the fact that someone has not stepped foot in america against them if it is you who has taken them to america in the first place. again i will point out that many are innocent
|
|
|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Jun 14, 2009 5:40:55 GMT -5
nice way of covering the inconsistencies in your argument. You also seem to ignore the fact that a many people arrested are actually innocent. lol what inconsistencies? Maybe you don't fully understand that the Miranda warning is there to inform people in the USA of their constitutional rights. If someone is not a US citizen and is arrested in Afghanistan and held in Afghanistan, how does the US constitution apply to them? And guilty or innocent has no bearing at the time of arrest of a suspect. When the cops get a warrant to arrest someone, they don't ask is he guilty or innocent first. If they are a suspect then they are arrested, guilt or innocence is to be sorted out later. Good example is right here in the movies -
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2009 6:10:37 GMT -5
nice way of covering the inconsistencies in your argument. You also seem to ignore the fact that a many people arrested are actually innocent. lol what inconsistencies? Maybe you don't fully understand that the Miranda warning is there to inform people in the USA of their constitutional rights. If someone is not a US citizen and is arrested in Afghanistan and held in Afghanistan, how does the US constitution apply to them? maybe cos in the culture wars where the US is spreading democracy to the world this is another step in that direction. maybe its becasue its all surface and under it all the same shit is going on maybe its to try and win some much lost support throughout the world maybe its because you can maybe its to piss live4evr off maybe its because obama its attempting the change that he was elected on maybe its because you can gain good solid evidence within the US constitution maybe its because the US is proud of its constitution maybe its cos the news networks needed somthing to talk about maybe its because the world is going to end in 2012 so whatever you do makes little difference maybe its because its a good idea maybe
|
|
|
Post by puretone on Jun 14, 2009 7:25:18 GMT -5
Yanks think there the world police and can do as they please. Facts are if you pick up a suspected terrorist you cant beat the shit of him or deny him him his rights like remaining silent. Way the world works.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 14, 2009 7:35:43 GMT -5
Yanks think there the world police and can do as they please. Facts are if you pick up a suspected terrorist you cant beat the shit of him or deny him him his rights like remaining silent. Way the world works. They do not legally have these rights! What the fuck is wrong with you liberals? Let's give terrorists rights they shouldn't have at the expense of American lives? I was skeptical in 2004 when the GOP said that the Democrats were weak on foreign policy and homeland security, beliving that that would be just as concerned about keeping America safe. But clearly, that's just not the case. If your family member or friend dies in the next terrorist attack and it's a result of Obama's reversal of Bush's successful policies, I don't think you'd be holding this same view. Wisen up and realize we're talking about people who want to kill you, your friends, and your family members in an attempt to bring down Western civilization. Stop being sympathetic to their cause and realize the danger they actually pose. The President's number 1 goal is to keep his citizens safe by doing all he possibly can. Obama's not doing that, and is thus failing his US citizens and the Western world in general. -------- -------- If Rogers is right, forget waterboarding. A Mirandized terrorism detainee cannot even be interrogated. A hostile combatant who might have information that can save lives on a foreign battlefield or in an American city has the option, one he is sure to take, to just remain silent — that is, until he begins to taunt his interrogators while his lawyer is present. What if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had been Mirandized rather than waterboarded? He reportedly told his captors that "I'll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer." But instead of huddling with an attorney, he rode the waterboard and gave up information that saved American lives. www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=329698406202099
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 14, 2009 7:41:52 GMT -5
Yanks think there the world police and can do as they please. Facts are if you pick up a suspected terrorist you cant beat the shit of him or deny him him his rights like remaining silent. Way the world works. One last point - you liberals ask how 9/11 was able to happen? Just re-read some of the view points in this thread in conjunction with looking what Obama is doing. No one wants "torture" or harsh interrogation methods, but no one wants 3,000 innocent citizens dead again, either. There's no in between, you can't prevent terrorist attacks without meaningful interrogation. If I'd had to pick one, I'd pick harsh interrogations of a few terrorists who are intent on mass murder than having thousands of people die for no reason. Get your priorities straight. Stop making it easier for terrorists to accomplish their goals. All I know is that Obama is on the right track in his first year so far on ensuring he won't get re-elected. Hopefully that won't come at the expense of lost American lives, though.
|
|
|
Post by Jazzvi on Jun 14, 2009 8:45:03 GMT -5
L4E I don't really understand how can someone be so narrow-minded. Looks like you're just hoping for some disaster to happen so you can blame on Obama. But my friend, that's not going to happen and I feel sorry for you. Don't you see that the terrorists want you to think like that? They want you to believe that we are in a war against them, but that's not the case. That's also what Bush made you believe all the years he was at the front of the US and the saddest thing is that he actually succeeded in doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 14, 2009 9:23:55 GMT -5
L4E I don't really understand how can someone be so narrow-minded. Looks like you're just hoping for some disaster to happen so you can blame on Obama. But my friend, that's not going to happen and I feel sorry for you. Don't you see that the terrorists want you to think like that? They want you to believe that we are in a war against them, but that's not the case. That's also what Bush made you believe all the years he was at the front of the US and the saddest thing is that he actually succeeded in doing so. The hell are you on about? I'm hoping for a disaster where thousands of innocent people die? We're not in a war against them? What drugs are you on, and in what world? (FYI: Bin Laden DECLARED war on the US in 1998, and his actions ever since, and even before that, mind, supports such a claim....) Next you'll be telling me Bin Laden never even existed, that Bush was the man behind 9/11, and that Santa Claus is real. The complete absurdity of everything you wrote there leads me to spend no more time in addressing it. Drugs are bad, mmmmkay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2009 12:25:15 GMT -5
obama is all surface don't worry your still gonna beat the shit out of people its the american way
|
|