Isn’t it bewildering to try to crawl inside a liberal’s head, and follow along their thought processes? They feign indignation and condemnation if you suggest “my country, right or wrong” to them. It’s off to the races about the Ugly American, how nationalism has been over with since the sixties, and if I wasn’t so stupid I would know that it’s all relative, man. Makes it hard to follow when they’re so far past my linear thinking, of course. Anything you say in that conversation is going to be met with: the Indians; slavery; Jim Crow laws; etc. And you will either have to waste a lot of breath disecting their stance of moral equivalence between us and the terrorists, or you will give up.
Having not given up yet, I find this deathgrip by Obama around the notion that it is BEST to divulge our innermost interrogation procedures and other secrets never revealed before to be nothing short of strangling the baby in the crib. Our stance against the Middle East has been put off since the 1972 oil embargo, done by OPEC in alliance against our support of Israel, which amounts to an act of economic terrorism. Add to that the more lethal acts of terrorist activities–hijackings, kidnappings, and bombings have followed for the past 35 years–and it becomes obvious that our attention to the problem has been compromised because of oil for far too long.
When we finally begin to fight not the oil shieks and the ruling families, but the crazy lunatic fringe who control to some degree the king’s population, we are met with what seems to be operatic hues and cries from the Left. All of the “Bush lied, people died”, has seemed so juvenile and niave from the moment it went up on the MSM, but…we have actually become sidelined because of it.
And now, we actually see a grown adult try to commit Americide. He is helped along by the conversation between regular Americans, many misguided, that goes something like this:
YOU: Well, we sure are handing the enemy everything he needs to win this war, thanks to Obama.
THEM: It’s international law we’re worried about. We have to follow these rules of engagement when we do war.
YOU: Does al Qaeda follow those rules?
THEM: Doesn’t matter.
YOU: Really? How does that work?
THEM: We need to Mirandize battlefield combatants we catch, so as to lead the world by example, then they’ll see the error of their ways and do the same.
YOU: So, you have faith that the Islamic Brotherhood will reform their jihadist ways if we set the example first…
THEM: Yes.
YOU: But you don’t have any faith that abstinence programs work for teenage American girls.
Obama Administration Says Some Detainees Overseas Are Being Mirandized -- and Bush Did It, Too
June 11, 2009 9:51 AM
The Obama administration announced this week that some detainees captured and held abroad have been read Miranda rights to preserve evidence for a potential prosecution.
Administration officials say the Bush administration did this as well in some instances relating to certain criminal cases.
They would not offer specifics in any of the cases, whether under President Obama or President Bush.
The question of detainees being Mirandized was raised by the Weekly Standard's Steven Hayes who wrote 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, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee."
The Obama administration took issue with the notion that this was a blanket policy change, one ordered by the Justice Department.
"There has been no policy change and no blanket instruction issued for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas," Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said. "While there have been specific cases in which FBI agents have Mirandized suspects overseas, at both Bagram and in other situations, in order to preserve the quality of evidence obtained, there has been no overall policy change with respect to detainees."
Miranda rights come from the 1966 Supreme Court ruling Miranda v. Arizona. They are a way to protect a suspect's Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.
While the actual Miranda rights differ in different states, they adhere to the court ruling that "the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says may be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him or her."
The ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., told Hayes that he was concerned about this news.
"It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent," Hoekstra said. "Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation--lawyering up."
In March, President Obama told 60 Minutes that "the whole premise of Guantanamo promoted by Vice President Cheney was that somehow the American system of justice was not up to the task of dealing with these terrorists. I fundamentally disagree with that. Now do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not."(source)
No comments:
Post a Comment