Ahmed Abu Khatalla

[Xavier_Onassis]

Miranda rights are an interpretation of the Constitution. They are not solely the province of the police.
You are soooooooo fulla shit.

[sirs]

.....And the Constitution is specifically the province of the United States, professor deflection.     

Not to mention I specifically said law enforcement, which includes the police, but does NOT include the military

[Xavier_Onassis]

Anyone detained by the US government comes under the Miranda decision. The Constitution applies to rights of everyone in this country, and that includes anyone who was forceably brought here.

It is not a deflection, imbecile.

[sirs]

Anyone detained by the US government comes under the Miranda decision.

WHERE??   And no, your "its obvious" tactic doesn't cut it.  Where does it say that any enemy combatant or enemy soldier must be read their Miranda Rights??  Gitmo is U.S. territory, and there's a boat load of terrorists being housed there, apparently having been denied their Miranda rights   

The Constitution applies to rights of everyone in this country,

exactly...THIS COUNTRY, and ITS CITIZENS

and that includes anyone who was forceably brought here.

No it doesn't....see Gitmo reference

It is not a deflection, imbecile.

It's 100% deflection, idiot

[Xavier_Onassis]

Up you giggie with a wah-wah brush.

[sirs]

Couldn't back up your claim that enemies captured by our military are routinely read their Miranda Rights.  No surprise there.  I do appreciate your consistency     

[Xavier_Onassis]

They should be, or course.

I merely state that if we are going to try people in a public trial, be have an obligation to follow our own laws.

[sirs]

So now we've transitioned to what you claimed is our policy to what you think it should be.  That at least is a step in the right direction of debate, though it also helps reinforce the point I was making, that of a likely PR boon for Islamic terrorists across the globe, when one of the supposed ring leaders of Benghazi, gets to walk on a technicality.  Should have used a drone as Judge & Jury, like so many other terrorists were handled

[Plane]

  I do not think that prisoners of war captured in combat have the same set of rights that citizens arrested or charged with crime have.

   Part of this being a problem is how ambivalent we are about the nature of the conflict.

     If it is a war , then the prisoners have reasonable expectation of good treatment because the US has signed onto the Geneva Convention, which should bind us even if there is not reciprocity.

     If this is a criminal prosecution then there is a jurisdictional question to settle , there are certain rights guaranteed by the constitution whether the detainee is a citizen or not.  And the rights of the fourth and fifth amendment should apply.

     If the prosecution is for piracy, there is a third set of rules, but there is still never a total absence of rights.