Posted on 11/19/2009, 5:34:27 PM by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to give a federal court trial instead of a military commission hearing to five Guantanamo detainees the government has linked to the 9/11 attacks has led to criticism that the Obama Administration is transforming the war on terror from a military to law-enforcement affair.
This has led some critics to wonder if captured terrorist suspects would have to be read their Miranda rights on being captured by U.S. military or law enforcement representatives.
In one of the highlights of Wednesday's Justice Department oversight hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, attempted to put Holder on the spot with the question: would U.S. officials need to Mirandize Osama bin Ladin if it captured him, including telling the al Qaeda leader that he had the right to remain silent?
Holder essentially said no, not necessarily. It would depend on the tack the U.S. government decided to take after capturing the terrorist leader. Graham clearly wasn't persuaded by Holder's answer.
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
Leahy: We don't need to interrogate bin Laden
If he doesn't need to be questioned, he doesn't need to be Mirandized.
So is Holder going to ask Obama to pull the US military out of Afghanistan and send in the FBI?
I would prefer they read his Miranda rights to his remains...
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, let me ask you this. Okay, let me ask you this. Let’s say we capture him tomorrow. When does custodial interrogation begin in his case?
If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Again I’m not — that all depends. I mean, the notion that we —
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you’re going to 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 that you’re criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we’d have mixed theories and we couldn’t turn him over — to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence — for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we’re saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you’re confusing the people fighting this war.
What would you tell the military commander who captured him? Would you tell him, “You must read him his rights and give him a lawyer”? And if you didn’t tell him that, would you jeopardize the prosecution in a federal court?
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: We have captured thousands of people on the battlefield, only a few of which have actually been given their Miranda warnings.
With regard to bin Laden and the desire or the need for statements from him, the case against him at this point is so overwhelming that we do not need to —
SEN. GRAHAM: Mr. Attorney General, my only point — the only point I’m making, that if we’re going to use federal court as a disposition for terrorists, you take everything that comes with being in federal court. And what comes with being in federal court is that
the rules in this country, unlike military law — you can have military operations, you can interrogate somebody for military intelligence purposes, and the law-enforcement rights do not attach.
But under domestic criminal law, the moment the person is in the hands of the United States government, they’re entitled to be told they have a right to a lawyer and can remain silent. And if we go down that road, we’re going to make this country less safe. That is my problem with what you have done.
Would U.S. Need To Read Bin Laden His Miranda Rights?
No.
Not if he's shot on sight or have an *accident* while in custody.
Plus, there's a 'Wanted Dead or Alive' bounty out on him.
The very fact that this question could be asked is a disgrace to the Obama administration.
Impeach Obama
Impeach political correctness
What about informing him of his right to an attorney?
Interrogation and torture of terrorists is against Obama’s law.
How very profoundly sad.
I just checked the WH dot gov page. Hey guess what??? Gibbs slid out of a Q&A... some ambassador took questions.We will see about today. The press pool will probably ask about Obama’s future date nights and puppy and why he is so thin.
What about Fort Hood?
What about Obama bowing to the Japanese Emperor?
What about Obama and Holder aiding and abetting terrorists?
What about the ObamaCare bill and abortion?
What about our owners; the Chinese telling Obama that ObamaCare is too much money?
What about calling the WH to the carpet for LYING about jobs and uneployment?
What about the bogus climate bill and Obama wanting a global currency and order?
What about asking Gibbs if the Obama Administration does marxist laced crack?
What about asking Obama if he and Holder and the entire administration gets read miranda rights for aiding and abetting terrorists?
Just heard on Rush re: a comment made by former AG Ashcroft and one which has bothered me and (honestly) I meant to ask yesterday; that of the "AUTHORITY" of Holder to "ORDER" the Military to turn over jurisdiction of KSM and the other scumbags to the Justice Dept for trial in a Civilian Court and Ashcroft said: "HOLDER, DOES NOT!!!!
Thus, ispo, facto, the ONLY person who would have said AUTHORITY is the one who denies he had ANYTHING to do with this and this decision was the SOLE responsibility and personal decision of Holder--the FASCIST, Liar-in-Chief, himself.
That and the fact that there is not ONE SINGLE case in our History to use as precedent!!!
OH, this is gonna get good!!!
PS: While everyone is praising Twinkle Toes Gramnesty for taking Holder apart (and I admit he did) as a Jag Officer and supposed Military Law Authority (as well as all the other Lawyers on the panel) HOW is it that NO ONE "dared" to ask Holder this most important question: "What give you the authority to do this?????"
Im tuning into Rush as soon as I can. Thanks.
Excellent post.
No. He has no rights under our constitution.
The marxist scumbags will weasal out of this by saying by the authority of the CIC authorizing Holder. The question is: Does the acting CIC have this authority?
A full impeachment investigation BETTER pursue! As this in unprecedented.
So, Sen. Leahy in aaying there’s no need to question bin Laden, assumes we know all there is to know about him and his operation ? His associates? How his network operates worldwide, and under what names? We just know it all and there is no more to be learned ?
Before anyone corrects me, I do know one does not need to be a citizen to have rights under our constitution. Just not him. Sorry. He has none. Nada.
Let me try that again....please
the “AUTHORITY” of Holder to “ORDER” the Military to turn over jurisdiction of KSM and the other scumbags to the Justice Dept for trial in a Civilian Court
The marxist scumbags will weasal out of this by saying by the authority of the CIC authorizing Holder. The question is: Does the acting CIC have this authority?
A full impeachment investigation BETTER pursue! As this is unprecedented.
Yes, I believe possibly; illegal aliens that possibly are cought in a crime scenerio on American soil, have rights under our constitution???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.