vincentML
Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML A mind boggling contradiction. He is an American citizen and so due his Miranda but it's okay to classify him as an enemy combatant and torture him. Going over the edge there, Rich Welcome to the wonderful world of the gray area, Vince, where values come into conflict, and everything gets blurry. Enemy combatent is far from a perfect solution, but shit needs to get done, at least in the short term. I think it is better to remove him from the realm of civilian law, than to reinforce the idea that you don't have your rights, until the police decide to give them to you. Got a better idea, that still gets us what we need? I'd love to hear it if you do. Removing someone from the civilian law does in fact glaringly reinforce the idea that he has no rights as it completely abrogates the Constitution. The "public safety" exception to Miranda is not new. You should not be so shocked. The Supreme Court ruled on the matter in 1984. " (a) Although respondent was in police custody when he made his statements and the facts come within the ambit of Miranda, nevertheless on these facts there is a "public safety" exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect's answers may be admitted into evidence, and the availability of that exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved. The doctrinal underpinnings of Miranda do not require that it be applied in all its rigor to a situation in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety. In this case, so long as the gun was concealed somewhere in the supermarket, it posed more than one danger to the public safety: an accomplice might make use of it, or a customer or employee might later come upon it. Pp. 655-657." New York vs Benjamin Quarles Removing a citizen completely from the protection of the Constitution recalls the Special Courts established in Germany 1933/34. Apologies for playing the Nazi card here but that's what happened and that's why designating a citizen as enemy combatent is so abhorrent and so threatening to civil liberty. Furthermore, there seems to be no basis for it in the 2001 authorization of force resolution that gave to the President the authority: to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. And no basis in any other US Law. Welcome to the world of constitutional liberty, Rich.
|