Why do criminals have a right to remain silent?
Why do criminals have a right to remain silent?
Something along the lines of a constitutional right not to incriminate oneself
I believe it's bigger cousin to a "right to remain silent" is the 5th amendment. Then again, I think you already knew that, so I'm curious as to why the inquiry
Do we? I know I do not have it memorized. But let's look at it.
I think we all know what the 5th amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) of the Constitution says.
| No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. |
I beleive it was hoped that a right to refuse to incriminate onsself would prevent the practice of torture.
Yea......and? Still missing the point there, Prince
The point has been presented. I don't plan on spelling it out for you. You're smart enough to figure it out.
I beleive it was hoped that a right to refuse to incriminate onsself would prevent the practice of torture.
Oh? Why would that be a concern?
I think you are pointing to the fact that citizenship is not required to take advantage of the fifth admendment.
Another reason to use the rules that apply to prisoners of war, rather than criminals .
I beleive it was hoped that a right to refuse to incriminate onsself would prevent the practice of torture.Oh? Why would that be a concern?
King George that Third had no compunctions at all about the use of corporal punishment or outright torture. The founders spent years under this threat, if captured, they would have been killed in a manner that would have impressed a Taliban.
I imagine that there was an empathy happening.
Another reason to use the rules that apply to prisoners of war, rather than criminals .
I support using the rules that apply to prisoners of war. Last I checked, the U.S. government had argued against that and basically refused to do it.
No, the point has not been presented. Unless you're trying to play the same game Clinton, and now Obama are trying to do, in claiming that these acts of terrorism, are merely criminal activity, that rates up there with your typical mugging, or gas station hold up, or drive by shooting. In those cases, the acts are being perpetrated by criminals, and as such are provided constitutional protections. Acts of terror/war, perpetrated by enemy combatants, foreign I might add, have no such rights. If you don't believe me, explain the continued use of drones to target and kill terrorists, prior to their even performing their latest terrorist act. Where's their "right to remain silent"??
And last I checked, we ARE using the rules that apply to enemy combatants in a war. No?
Nor did I limit my reference of the 5th amendment to ONLY american citizens/criminals
And last I checked, we ARE using the rules that apply to enemy combatants in a war. No?
To which rules are you referring? The U.S. government specifically argued that the detainees suspected of terrorism were not prisoners of war. So clearly those rules regarding enemy combatants are not the rules we are using.
No, the point has not been presented. Unless you're trying to play the same game Clinton, and now Obama are trying to do, in claiming that these acts of terrorism, are merely criminal activity, that rates up there with your typical mugging, or gas station hold up, or drive by shooting. In those cases, the acts are being perpetrated by criminals, and as such are provided constitutional protections. Acts of terror/war, perpetrated by enemy combatants, foreign I might add, have no such rights. If you don't believe me, explain the continued use of drones to target and kill terrorists, prior to their even performing their latest terrorist act. Where's their "right to remain silent"??
So military action determines who does and does not have rights? No, of course not.
But in any case, my point was made, and it has nothing to do with equating acts of terrorism with ordinary criminal behavior. But you've asked an interesting question, though I think you have far more to gain from contemplating the answer than I do.
Nor did I limit my reference of the 5th amendment to ONLY american citizens/criminals
Of course you did not. Yet you still seemed to have missed the point.
Clearly they are referring to enemy combantants NOT of a deisgnated country's military force, but still deemed enemy combantats. POW's were specific to those soldiers that are part of an orgnainzed country's military. that's why terrorists, of the Islamic militant version, are not offered that luxury
So military action determines who does and does not have rights? No, of course not.
YES, of course they DO. Whether the rights are that of Constitutional protections, as in cases of criminal activity, or limited rights provided for terrorists/enemy combantants/POW's, when engaging in terrorist and/or war-like activity
Not really, and I noticed you decided not to answer the main point as to the disconnect between our military actions against terrorists abroad, but providing them full constitutional protections here. Let's hope the GOP can help enlighten the populace on that same disconnect
A point that continues to reside soemwhere in Bin Laden's cave, somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=8939.msg93962#msg93962 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=8939.msg93962#msg93962)
Let's pretend I'm a product of the LA Unified Public School system:
Prince's point is that: ------> < insert answer here >
"Where's their 'right to remain silent'??"
The disconnect between taking out terrorists with drones, in no act of trying to mass murder vs providing terrorists with full U.S. Constitutional protections while in the act of trying to cause mass murder would be: -------> < insert answer here >
So, your point is......repeating the 5th amendment with "no person" while failing to answer the overiding disconnect associated with it & militant terrorists, and answering a question with a question, one that appears to infer a right to be killed??
Sorry Prince, not playing that game of 30 questions any longer. If you didn't have a point, or simply didn't want to bother in answering a rather straight forward question, just say so, instead of this joint wasting of our time
Sorry Prince, not playing that game of 30 questions any longer. If you didn't have a point, or simply didn't want to bother in answering a rather straight forward question, just say so, instead of this joint wasting of our time
Granted, I'm being less direct than usual
but the point is not esoteric or hidden. Here's a hint: there is a disconnect between what the Fifth Amendment says and what you apparently want it to say.
I'd opine that your continued vague assessements remain just as elusive as when you entered this thread
I'd opine that your continued vague assessements remain just as elusive as when you entered this thread
I'd opine that this whole situation is kinda funny. When I am direct and straightforward, you and others try to read between the lines to find some hidden meaning that has nothing to do with what I actually said. Now here I am trying to be more socratic, and you're complaining that I'm not being direct enough to be understood. It's humorous.
the skillfull Socratic teacher..
the skillfull Socratic teacher..
Who is apparently not me.