So much for the rule of law...

[Skeptic]

This (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024984.php) is absurd.

It's not so much what they said, it's how they said it. If they have just said: "look, if acquitted they will go free, but that won't happen, because the evidence against them is overwhelming", that would be one thing.

This was the position of the Americans stated in the Nuremberg trials -- and in fact the court did acquit three of the 21 defendants, and let them go free. No matter how much the American prosecution wanted a conviction.

What's more, that is, I think, what Obama and Holder are trying to say. But they are so concern to avoid saying the magic words -- "if acquitted they will go free" -- that they say in advance that the trial will certainly result in conviction (and execution, to boot).

This is not some functionary in the DOJ saying this. It is Eric Holder and Barak Obama. Thanks a lot, guys: now, if they are convicted, everybody will say it was a sham trial with the result preordained.

And don't tell me they don't want to say these magic words because the right-wing FOX will make it into a headline. Even if so, so friggin' WHAT? You're the POTUS, you need to be able to put up with unfair headlines. And ones that would be very easily refuted by simply putting them in context, too...

Instead, what do you do? You go on record making a mockery of the rule of law -- claiming in advance that the conviction is certain, and that, therefore, the trial is a mere formality. All in order to deny FOX an idiotic non-"victory".

This is simply lack of moral courage, a constant theme in the Obama presidency so far: he only tries to bully, or stands firm, against those (Israel, etc.) who he knows will not threaten back.

[Darth Rotor]

The
"Stop!"
BANG
"Or I'll shoot!"

approach to use of Executive Branch rhetoric doesn't work so well, as we saw in the President's quick draw shot at the cop in Boston. In this case, a few beers won't help.

I think that Mr President overlooked Rule Number One.

What is Rule Number One?

"Never overlook an opportunity to keep your mouth shut."

I've had my own problems there. Easy mistake to make. At his level, the impact of such mistakes is magnified.

DR

[Ausmerican]

This (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024984.php) is absurd.

It's not so much what they said, it's how they said it. If they have just said: "look, if acquitted they will go free, but that won't happen, because the evidence against them is overwhelming", that would be one thing.
.

Yes, but if they had said that the first part is all that would be read in a world that generally doesn't read past headlines/talking points.

"POTUS says terrorists may be freed!" The headline almost writes itself.

Also, I think anyone that didn't want to make a controversy over this, and even those that did, knew what Obama and Holder meant. It was just the end of week controversy.

It is so early in the term for it to be at this stage already but these 'nontroversies' have already had a boy who cried wolf effect. The more of these tiny nonsenses that get inflated to national and international level the bigger Obama would have to really screw up before people would bother noticing these days.

[Skeptic]

Yes, but if they had said that the first part is all that would be read in a world that generally doesn't read past headlines/talking points.

"POTUS says terrorists may be freed!" The headline almost writes itself.

But that's exactly the problem -- Obama considers the next day's headline more important than the POTUS supporting the rule of law, or the long-term consequences of his statements. If you cannot say the simple truth for fear of a lousy headline in the next day's papers, how can we trust you to say to take tough decisions about, say, Iran or the health-care bill?

[T.A.M.]

I personally think the easier road for Obama to have gone, would have been to JUST deal with the Economy, and when anyone else asked about everything else, he could simply say, "The Economy is the most important, so I am gonna stick with fixing it first." he would have avoided most of the criticism out there.

Instead, in his first year he,

1. Put out a Stimulus Package for the Economy
2. Announced closure of Gitmo
3. Began to tackle the withdraw from Iraq
4. Tackled Health Care (or at least asked congress to do so)
5. Produced an Energy Bill.
6. Refocused on Afghanistan (and will likely announce the slow end to that war)
7. Has raised the image of the USA in the eyes of the world.

Now, of course, he had "a little help from his friends", but overall I think he has been pretty ambitious in his first year...courageous almost.

Of course, he is a politician, and has platformed as a negotiator who wants bipartisanship and for everyone to "just sit down and work it out", so he lacks the six shooter that Bush has on his side...

TAM:)

[Ziggurat]

This is a problem entirely of his own manufacturing. Rule of law may require that KSM should walk free if a civilian court acquits him, but the rule of law never required that he be tried in a civilian court in the first place. There was a process in place for trying such people in military tribunals (the oft-cited Nuremburg trials were not civilian trials, and afforded defendents less protection than our current military tribunal system). Obama has nobody to blame for this but himself. It's an own-goal if there ever was one.

[Sporanox]

Great Scott, I hadn't seen that exchange before. Graham completely leveled Holder.

Does anyone know if the criteria for trying someone in a civilian court is indeed whether they attacked a civilian target or not?

[XBoxWarrior]

Five Terrorism Suspects To Be Tried, Right Freaks Out !

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=159178

Sure Obama shouldn't have said what he said...but get over it.

I won't even begin to venture into all the stupid **** Bush said...;)

[Sporanox]

Five Terrorism Suspects To Be Tried, Right Freaks Out !

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=159178

Sure Obama shouldn't have said what he said...but get over it.

I won't even begin to venture into all the stupid **** Bush said...;)

This is your actual response?

[JoeTheJuggler]

This (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024984.php) is absurd.

It's not so much what they said, it's how they said it. If they have just said: "look, if acquitted they will go free, but that won't happen, because the evidence against them is overwhelming", that would be one thing.

This was the position of the Americans stated in the Nuremberg trials -- and in fact the court did acquit three of the 21 defendants, and let them go free. No matter how much the American prosecution wanted a conviction.

What's more, that is, I think, what Obama and Holder are trying to say. But they are so concern to avoid saying the magic words -- "if acquitted they will go free" -- that they say in advance that the trial will certainly result in conviction (and execution, to boot).

This is not some functionary in the DOJ saying this. It is Eric Holder and Barak Obama. Thanks a lot, guys: now, if they are convicted, everybody will say it was a sham trial with the result preordained.

And don't tell me they don't want to say these magic words because the right-wing FOX will make it into a headline. Even if so, so friggin' WHAT? You're the POTUS, you need to be able to put up with unfair headlines. And ones that would be very easily refuted by simply putting them in context, too...

Instead, what do you do? You go on record making a mockery of the rule of law -- claiming in advance that the conviction is certain, and that, therefore, the trial is a mere formality. All in order to deny FOX an idiotic non-"victory".

This is simply lack of moral courage, a constant theme in the Obama presidency so far: he only tries to bully, or stands firm, against those (Israel, etc.) who he knows will not threaten back.

I agree.

FWIW, I've written several letters on this topic to Obama and Holder.

[quixotecoyote]

This is your actual response?

Yah, tu quoque is never a good response, and that's not even a good tu quoque.

Obama talked a good game, but he's wiffling and waffling back to the same center-right Bush was living in. I still think he's better than McCain, who would have marched further right with a brass band behind him, but it's disappointing.

[linusrichard]

I think I agree in the main with this criticism of the administration. I don't necessarily agree with Graham, and I don't necessarily object to trying these folks in federal court, but I think it is a perversion of the rule of law to adjust what procedures you'll use based on the result you think you'll get. Tribunals when we need them, civilian court only if we're "guaranteed" a conviction -- it's pretty sickening.


That said, I have a big gripe with this bit from the link:
Under the Obama administration's policies, if we capture Osama bin Laden tomorrow, the first thing we will have to do is read him his rights, and the second is get him a lawyer at taxpayer expense. The argument that Holder tries to interpose--maybe we won't have to Mirandize bin Laden because the evidence of his guilt is "overwhelming"--is pathetic. Can you imagine trying to explain to a federal judge that a criminal defendant had a constitutional right to have his rights read to him, but you skipped that step because the evidence of his guilt is overwhelming?
This is plain wrong in itself, and especially bad coming from a lawyer. You don't have a freestanding constitutional right to be Mirandized. What you do have is a right to not have a confession used as evidence against you if it was involuntary. And in order for a confession to be voluntary, the defendant has to have voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. And in order for a defendant to have voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, he has to know his Miranda rights. And in order for the court to be sure a defendant has voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, it has to know that he was read his Miranda rights. So - if the evidence against a defendant is overwhelming, then there may be no need to use a confession as evidence. And if there's no need to use a confession as evidence, then there's no need to demonstrate that the confession was voluntary. And if there's no need to demonstrate the confession was voluntary, then there's no need to Mirandize the defendant. So Holder was not being "pathetic"; he was being correct, and attorney Hinderaker is incorrect.

Also, minor quibble, the only people who have a right to an attorney at public expense are indigents. I'm not sure, but I thought bin Laden was actually fairly wealthy.

[Bikewer]

There are understandable worries about the fact that some of the defendants were tortured, and that they were held without charge for a prolonged period.

The administration's line seems to be "we have plenty of evidence against the suspects even if some is held inadmissible."

I wonder....

One can easily see these cases being run through the judicial system for a very long time...

[mhaze]

This (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024984.php) is absurd.
.....
Instead, what do you do? You go on record making a mockery of the rule of law -- claiming in advance that the conviction is certain, and that, therefore, the trial is a mere formality. All in order to deny FOX an idiotic non-"victory".

This is simply lack of moral courage, a constant theme in the Obama presidency so far: he only tries to bully, or stands firm, against those (Israel, etc.) who he knows will not threaten back.Given that the drama is to be played out in the run up to the 2010 elections, the motives are not absurd. Given a strictly political motivation, not absurd at all but quite logical.

They may misunderestimate, though.

[Skeptic]

This is a problem entirely of his own manufacturing. Rule of law may require that KSM should walk free if a civilian court acquits him, but the rule of law never required that he be tried in a civilian court in the first place. There was a process in place for trying such people in military tribunals (the oft-cited Nuremburg trials were not civilian trials, and afforded defendents less protection than our current military tribunal system). Obama has nobody to blame for this but himself. It's an own-goal if there ever was one.

Like the closing of Gitmo. Nobody asked him to say he will close Gitmo. Just how much foresight do you need to realize it might not be a bright idea?

[Skeptic]

I agree.

FWIW, I've written several letters on this topic to Obama and Holder.

FWIW, I don't think Obama and Holder really want to pervert the rule of law and really have the trial "in their pocket". I think they're just putting things this way because they're afraid of a bad headline.

But if you're so scared of a bad headline so much you go on record, as president of the United States, assuring everybody a suspect before trial is guilty and will get the death penalty, without even meaning to sound like that in the first place... something is very wrong.

I think Obama gives way too much credit to the fourth estate. Which is one reason they love him.

[Skeptic]

Given that the drama is to be played out in the run up to the 2010 elections, the motives are not absurd. Given a strictly political motivation, not absurd at all but quite logical.

They may misunderestimate, though.

You're forgetting something.

In American politics, and probably politics all over the world, being a scheming, calculating politician that thinks of nothing but the next day's headline is fine.

But looking like a scheming, calculating politician that thinks of nothing but the next day's headline -- even if you are one -- is something else entirely.

[MattusMaximus]

You know, we have tried terrorism suspects (damned dangerous ones, too) in the U.S. federal courts before. It's not like this is any kind of new precedent or something.

Meh. Another tempest in a teapot for the political talking class & media to chatter about.

[leftysergeant]

Like the closing of Gitmo. Nobody asked him to say he will close Gitmo. Just how much foresight do you need to realize it might not be a bright idea?

Actually, all you need is an IQ over 75 to see that opening Gitmo was a brain-dead idea.

[leftysergeant]

Military tribunals should only be used against persons acting as agents of a state. Try all the contractors with Black Water and KBR in a military tribunal. That would go a lot farther to securing the future of America against terrorism.

[geni]

Like the closing of Gitmo. Nobody asked him to say he will close Gitmo. Just how much foresight do you need to realize it might not be a bright idea?

The alturnative is to continue to waste money on a jail with expensive support costs and massive PR damage. The supreme court long since knocked out all the advantages of holding anyone there.

[geni]

Military tribunals should only be used against persons acting as agents of a state. Try all the contractors with Black Water and KBR in a military tribunal. That would go a lot farther to securing the future of America against terrorism.

Won't make any difference one way or the other. They don't have enough profile to make it worthwhile PR wise and the supply of mercenaries with a relaxed atitude to the law is large enough that a few trials won't make a dent in it.

[Skeptic]

Military tribunals should only be used against persons acting as agents of a state.

So if you're a soldier, you get tried with less rights and more severe penalties of military tribunals.

But if you're a terrorist, who blows up buildings with airplanes but doesn't do it as part of a recognized state... ah! THEN you got all the rights of a civilian court!

(and anyway, it's just a few lousy capitalist bloodsuckers who died, so who cares -- right, lefty?)

[Skeptic]

The alturnative is to continue to waste money on a jail with expensive support costs and massive PR damage. The supreme court long since knocked out all the advantages of holding anyone there.

My problem with Obama is neither in closing or in not closing Gitmo. I may disagree with whatever decision he makes, but he's president, and, presumably, he has the facts which I don't.

My problem is that he says he will close it sometime soon, while in the meantime keeping it open indefinitely -- because he wants to avoid making a decision on it, fearing a PR disaster whatever he does.

But the president is there to make hard decisions despite what the press says. He is not there to be be paralyzed into inaction because he's afraid he will lose popularity or from a bad headline.

And again: I will bet anything the press will be unfair to him whatever decision he makes. But that's just tough. It comes with the job.

[leftysergeant]

My problem is that he says he will close it sometime soon, while in the meantime keeping it open indefinitely -- because he wants to avoid making a decision on it, fearing a PR disaster whatever he does.

WRONG!

Congress refused him the money to close the facility and rel;ocate the detainees Obama is not a dictator like the Shrub, He is far more observant of rule of law, even when national emergencies would offer him an easy out.

But the president is there to make hard decisions despite what the press says.

WRONG. HE is there to reperesent the will of the people.

Read Clausewitz, will you, please?

If you do not have the national will behind a war, you are probably going to get your ass handed to you on a stick, well-done, with a nice teriyaki glaze.

And again: I will bet anything the press will be unfair to him whatever decision he makes.

When you refer to "the press," I assume you are referring to the Moony times and Faux News.

[Ziggurat]

Actually, all you need is an IQ over 75 to see that opening Gitmo was a brain-dead idea.

Irrelevant. That was never the question before Obama.

Military tribunals should only be used against persons acting as agents of a state.

Why should terrorists acting on behalf of non-state terrorist groups be given more protections than terrorists acting on behalf of a state? Sorry, but there's no coherent legal theory, let alone any sensible justification, for making that the operative distinction.

Try all the contractors with Black Water and KBR in a military tribunal. That would go a lot farther to securing the future of America against terrorism.

You have strange ideas about who our enemies are.

[leftysergeant]

Irrelevant. That was never the question before Obama.

But the righties are shrieking like little babies now that Obama wants to close it.

Why should terrorists acting on behalf of non-state terrorist groups be given more protections than terrorists acting on behalf of a state? Sorry, but there's no coherent legal theory, let alone any sensible justification, for making that the operative distinction.

HUH? Even if convicted under a military tribunal, they would have rights under the Geneva Conventions.

Criminal convicts get what the system decides to give them.



You have strange ideas about who our enemies are.

War criminals are the enemy of all of humanity.

[Sporanox]

But the righties are shrieking like little babies now that Obama wants to close it.

Obama CAN'T close it because he's a neophyte, lefty. That's the point. Apparently it never entered into his mind that all nations, including his own, would refuse to take people detained for terrorism.

HUH? Even if convicted under a military tribunal, they would have rights under the Geneva Conventions.

Criminal convicts get what the system decides to give them.

You're going to argue that military tribunals are just as fair if not more than civilian court? That seems to be the point of the solipsism you just engaged in. Then why not try KSM in a tribunal along with the other detainees slated for that route?

[leftysergeant]

Obama CAN'T close it because he's a neophyte, lefty. That's the point. Apparently it never entered into his mind that all nations, including his own, would refuse to take people detained for terrorism.

Get a clue. He wanted to close Gitmo and put the detainees in a military facility stateside. He said nothing about releasing them unless and until they were cleared of wrong-doing, as was the case with the Uighars who were released and are now enjoying life on Bermuda, while ranting dirtbags like Michael Wiener and the fat deaf eunuch pitch a hissy fit.

The only thing keeping Gitmo open is that all the Republicans and the less intelligent Dems voted against funding the transfer.



You're going to argue that military tribunals are just as fair if not more than civilian court? That seems to be the point of the solipsism you just engaged in.

No.

Then why not try KSM in a tribunal along with the other detainees slated for that route?

KSM is not a soldier and not entitled to be treated as one. It would actually confer a superior status on him to be tried and shot like a soldier. To be tried as a criminal and hanged or thrown in a dungeon is not that glamorous, thus the better way to deal with him, because it reduces his value to his movement.

[Sporanox]

Get a clue. He wanted to close Gitmo and put the detainees in a military facility stateside. He said nothing about releasing them unless and until they were cleared of wrong-doing, as was the case with the Uighars who were released and are now enjoying life on Bermuda, while ranting dirtbags like Michael Wiener and the fat deaf eunuch pitch a hissy fit.

The only thing keeping Gitmo open is that all the Republicans and the less intelligent Dems voted against funding the transfer.

You can look long and hard lefty, but nothing I said suggested that all the detainees were going to be released into public society.

And yes, the only thing keeping Gitmo open is most states in the US being unwilling to take the terrorists (ETA: besides the whole no nations willing to take them thing). That Obama didn't anticipate this and really has no clue how to work around it is another example of his naivete.

No.

Then I don't understand the point of that part of your post.

KSM is not a soldier and not entitled to be treated as one. It would actually confer a superior status on him to be tried and shot like a soldier. To be tried as a criminal and hanged or thrown in a dungeon is not that glamorous, thus the better way to deal with him, because it reduces his value to his movement.

So now you're going to argue that the other detainees on the docket for military tribunals are soldiers?

[leftysergeant]

That Obama didn't anticipate this and really has no clue how to work around it is another example of his naivete.

Wrong. There was no rational reason to expect the public to react as they did. That is the result of right-wing radio-driven propoganda and lies,, not Obama's naivete

So now you're going to argue that the other detainees on the docket for military tribunals are soldiers?

Some were captured in battle. Some were sold by rival warlords as al Qaeda.

Sort them out and review the evidence against those captured in battle by military tribunal, those sold to us unjustly can go whereever they wish, at out expense. Those actual criminals who came into our hands by whatever means can go to federal civilian courts.

Pretty simple, really

[Sporanox]

Wrong. There was no rational reason to expect the public to react as they did. That is the result of right-wing radio-driven propoganda and lies,, not Obama's naivete

Nobody could have predicted this? That's hilarious. Maybe he should have consulted people outside his echo chamber.

If we grant your assumption that conservative propaganda is driving the refusal (Pelosi refusing to accept detainees is a result of conservative propaganda...who knew?), Obama should have been able to see that coming quite easily. After all, "Faux" News and its ratings are nothing if not predictable.

Some were captured in battle. Some were sold by rival warlords as al Qaeda.

Sort them out and review the evidence against those captured in battle by military tribunal, those sold to us unjustly can go whereever they wish, at out expense. Those actual criminals who came into our hands by whatever means can go to federal civilian courts.

Pretty simple, really

By "review the evidence" you really mean "try." Aside from that, I guess that means that whether Osama is captured in the midst of a firefight or a sting as he's attempting to travel will determine whether he's tried in a civilian or a military court. That criteria is completely horrible.

Terrorists are terrorists, whether they bomb here or there.

[Fiona]

Obama CAN'T close it because he's a neophyte, lefty. That's the point. Apparently it never entered into his mind that all nations, including his own, would refuse to take people detained for terrorism.




How could anyone not have known that no other state would take these people? The whole issue was very widely discussed when the issue with the Uyghur's came up. That was before Obama was elected but he can hardly have been unaware of it, surely?

It may be there is some difference I am not aware of, though?

[leftysergeant]

By "review the evidence" you really mean "try." Aside from that, I guess that means that whether Osama is captured in the midst of a firefight or a sting as he's attempting to travel will determine whether he's tried in a civilian or a military court. That criteria is completely horrible.

He is already wanted by civilian authorities for murder and that is how he will be treated. Quite simple.

Terrorists are terrorists, whether they bomb here or there.

People of another country are quite at liberty to kill our soldiers in their countries when we invade. We are, however,entitled to hold them as prisoners of war until the end of the conflict.

If they come here and plant bombs, they arer terrorists.

[Sporanox]

He is already wanted by civilian authorities for murder and that is how he will be treated. Quite simple.

So if you aren't indicted then you'll be tried in a military tribunal? As in Osama's right hand man, for instance?

People of another country are quite at liberty to kill our soldiers in their countries when we invade. We are, however,entitled to hold them as prisoners of war until the end of the conflict.

If they come here and plant bombs, they arer terrorists.

You still think that the al-Qaeda lackeys we fought over there for so long aren't on the same team as the people who come here and raise trouble? You need to snap out of your pre-9/11 mentality. This distinction is artificial, especially when one considers that those attacking our military targets often engage in, well, terrorizing the civilian populace there too.

That also segues into the Holder belief that we should give throw civilian court and its attendant protections and rights to terrorists who attack civilian combatants as opposed to terrorists who attack our military members. That in and of itself creates an incentive towards one over the other as such schemes are plotted. Guess which side?

[Sporanox]

Basically, this whole civilian/military separation leads to the United States government differentially treating members of the same terrorist organization/network of terrorist organizations, which we are at war with, on the basis of arbitrary distinctions.

[leftysergeant]

So if you aren't indicted then you'll be tried in a military tribunal? As in Osama's right hand man, for instance?

He would be a criminal, not a prisoner of war. He would stand trial for the criminal charges. If convicted, he takes the civilian penalties. If acquited, he goes back to where ever POWs are being held for the duration. Really quite simple.

You still think that the al-Qaeda lackeys we fought over there for so long aren't on the same team as the people who come here and raise trouble? You need to snap out of your pre-9/11 mentality.

You need to snap out of the attitude that one attack against us allows us to re-write all the laws of civilization.

[Sporanox]

He would be a criminal, not a prisoner of war. He would stand trial for the criminal charges. If convicted, he takes the civilian penalties. If acquited, he goes back to where ever POWs are being held for the duration. Really quite simple.

I don't know who you're referring to, but let's set that aside. If acquitted, he goes to POW holding? How does that make any sense?

According to our justice system, if you're acquitted then you're free to go. Done. Reverting to the POW model after failure to convict is utterly devoid of any logical framework.

You need to snap out of the attitude that one attack against us allows us to re-write all the laws of civilization.

Straw may be cheap, lefty, but the costs sure do add up over time.

[leftysergeant]

I don't know who you're referring to, but let's set that aside. If acquitted, he goes to POW holding? How does that make any sense?

If he is captured in battle he is a POW. That's how.

If he is not captured in battle and not convicted in a civilian court, he is an ordinary person free to go where he will. That's the law. Live with it.

[Sporanox]

If he is captured in battle he is a POW. That's how.

If he is not captured in battle and nopt convicted in a civilian court, he is an ordinary person free to go where he will. That's the law. Live with it.

If he's a POW then how is he supposed to go to civilian court in the first place, under the situation you described?

[Ziggurat]

HUH? Even if convicted under a military tribunal, they would have rights under the Geneva Conventions.

Criminal convicts get what the system decides to give them.

Which is considerably more than the Geneva Conventions gives them (my favorite bit of stupidity in this regard is the people who complain both that we hold terrorists indefinitely and that we don't follow the Geneva conventions). Especially for combatants who are not entitled to POW status because of their actions, which includes basically all terrorists.

War criminals are the enemy of all of humanity.

But apparently you think terrorists are ordinary criminals, while Blackwater employees are not.

[corplinx]

So much for the rule of law...

Its a compromise. We give him a fair trial (to appease the hippies) and then we execute him (to appease the nascar fans).

Hence why its pronounced the "rule of lol".

[leftysergeant]

But apparently you think terrorists are ordinary criminals, while Blackwater employees are not.

Mercenaries in our employ who commit war crimes need to be subject to some law, and, since they were outside the jurisdiction of civilian law, the military should be the ones to take them out and shoot them.

[Pardalis]

You really think you are impressing anyone with your Rambo antics?

[tyr_13]

You really think you are impressing anyone with your Rambo antics?

So he's going out into the jungle by himself to take on Blackwater? I never knew.

[Ziggurat]

Mercenaries in our employ who commit war crimes need to be subject to some law, and, since they were outside the jurisdiction of civilian law, the military should be the ones to take them out and shoot them.

I find it rather telling that you don't say, "the military should be the ones to put them on trial for any crimes they commit". Jump right to the execution.

[Pardalis]

I find it rather telling that you don't say, "the military should be the ones to put them on trial for any crimes they commit". Jump right to the execution.

Obviously, for reasons I can't begin to understand, LeftySergeant has more sympathy for OBL than for them. :boggled:

[Darth Rotor]

This is plain wrong in itself, and especially bad coming from a lawyer. You don't have a freestanding constitutional right to be Mirandized. What you do have is a right to not have a confession used as evidence against you if it was involuntary. And in order for a confession to be voluntary, the defendant has to have voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. And in order for a defendant to have voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, he has to know his Miranda rights. And in order for the court to be sure a defendant has voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, it has to know that he was read his Miranda rights. So - if the evidence against a defendant is overwhelming, then there may be no need to use a confession as evidence. And if there's no need to use a confession as evidence, then there's no need to demonstrate that the confession was voluntary. And if there's no need to demonstrate the confession was voluntary, then there's no need to Mirandize the defendant.

Also, minor quibble, the only people who have a right to an attorney at public expense are indigents. I'm not sure, but I thought bin Laden was actually fairly wealthy.
FWIW, last I checked the orders on Obama were 'kill or capture' and yes, that's a few years old. I doubt it's been changed. This renders the Miranda consideration moot, if you ask me. ;)

DR

[BobTheDonkey]

FWIW, last I checked the orders on Obama were 'kill or capture' and yes, that's a few years old. I doubt it's been changed. This renders the Miranda consideration moot, if you ask me. ;)

DR

A telling typo... :D

[linusrichard]

FWIW, last I checked the orders on Obama were 'kill or capture' and yes, that's a few years old. I doubt it's been changed. This renders the Miranda consideration moot, if you ask me. ;)

DR

Eh, renders the whole thread moot, right?

[Darth Rotor]

A telling typo... :D
Not telling, but what a gaffe! DOH! That was supposed to be Osama. :blush:
Eh, renders the whole thread moot, right?
I don't think so. Since the decision was made to capture, rather than kill, this lot, something has to be done with them, eh?

This thread is argumentation about which something that is.

[Rolfe]

This is giving me a horrible, horrible, sense of deja-vu.

Rolfe.