As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
All men are created equal (except those guys over there)
Cognisseur
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
A travesty has occurred, gentlemen. Apparently, Obama may have ordered FBI to read Miranda Rights to detainees in Afghanistan, Full story here
Choice tidbits:
Summary:
Or so I thought... until I started looking at the Fark comments, and lots of people were defending the Republican side here.
So, let's try to hold our own debate on this whole issue; here are some key issues to consider:
1. Our Declaration of Independence starts with:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Is the lack of the term 'citizen' or anything else specifically tying this to USA an implication by the founding fathers that all people get rights, or just people in USA? Since we reinterpret lots of stuff anyway, is this the interpretation we should be using in this modern interconnected world? Are people really worth less, or should be treated below the most basic human rights just because they live elsewhere? I'm not suggesting mailing welfare to Sudan, but things like 'dont torture' and 'conduct an actual investigation into the guilt of an individual' dont seem too farfetched.
2. POW or "suspected terrorist"
We decided not to call the dudes we're torturing POW's because then we'd have to abide by the Geneva Convention, which frowns upon a lot of what we do I'm told. However, by calling them suspected terrorists, we're implying we're going to try them as criminals, which also calls for certain rights (like Miranda Rights).
Which one is it then? Are the things we're doing acceptable under either definition? Is it acceptable that we change the classification of these guys to whatever definition allows us to do whatever we want to them?
3. Regardless of classification, do they deserve human rights, Miranda Rights, etc.?
It's hard to set an example and try to bring the populace of Iraq and Afghanistan to our side when we continue to treat them like this. If we don't torture, as the FBI keeps telling us, what's the problem with treating them like criminals and giving them basic human rights? I understand that potentially we could be losing some valuable information and that could potentially lead to some loss of American lives, but it seems like becoming a nation that's okay with torturing is a worse price to pay.
I don't know, it's just warping my mind that anyone is against us actually acting humane and setting a decent example. We're a nation supposedly built on ideals, yet here we are throwing all of them out the window?
Choice tidbits:
The soldiers, especially, he says, are frustrated that giving high value detainees Miranda rights -- the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney -- is impeding their ability to pursue intelligence on the battlefield.
"What I found was lots of confusion and very frustrated people on the front lines who are trying to, well, make Afghanistan successful for the United States and its allies."
"I witnessed it myself, talked to the people on the ground," he said. "What you have is two very separate missions colliding in the field in a combat zone. Again, anytime that you offer confusion in that environment that's already chaotic and confusing enough, you jeopardize a soldier's life."
Some senators wonder what would have happened if Khaled Sheikh Mohammad, a self-confessed architect of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, had been read his Miranda rights.
Summary:
Or so I thought... until I started looking at the Fark comments, and lots of people were defending the Republican side here.
So, let's try to hold our own debate on this whole issue; here are some key issues to consider:
1. Our Declaration of Independence starts with:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Is the lack of the term 'citizen' or anything else specifically tying this to USA an implication by the founding fathers that all people get rights, or just people in USA? Since we reinterpret lots of stuff anyway, is this the interpretation we should be using in this modern interconnected world? Are people really worth less, or should be treated below the most basic human rights just because they live elsewhere? I'm not suggesting mailing welfare to Sudan, but things like 'dont torture' and 'conduct an actual investigation into the guilt of an individual' dont seem too farfetched.
2. POW or "suspected terrorist"
We decided not to call the dudes we're torturing POW's because then we'd have to abide by the Geneva Convention, which frowns upon a lot of what we do I'm told. However, by calling them suspected terrorists, we're implying we're going to try them as criminals, which also calls for certain rights (like Miranda Rights).
Which one is it then? Are the things we're doing acceptable under either definition? Is it acceptable that we change the classification of these guys to whatever definition allows us to do whatever we want to them?
3. Regardless of classification, do they deserve human rights, Miranda Rights, etc.?
It's hard to set an example and try to bring the populace of Iraq and Afghanistan to our side when we continue to treat them like this. If we don't torture, as the FBI keeps telling us, what's the problem with treating them like criminals and giving them basic human rights? I understand that potentially we could be losing some valuable information and that could potentially lead to some loss of American lives, but it seems like becoming a nation that's okay with torturing is a worse price to pay.
I don't know, it's just warping my mind that anyone is against us actually acting humane and setting a decent example. We're a nation supposedly built on ideals, yet here we are throwing all of them out the window?
Cognisseur on
0
Posts
You got your documents wrong, which, if you're a US citizen, is kind of sad.
...what.
He would have gone, "really, I can remain SILENT!? I never thought of that! No confession for you, suckas!"
I'm sure the professional interogators have never run up against someone who wanted to remain silent.
If we're going to have a global police state, fundamental rights for suspected (and obvious) criminals need to be extended to all human beings.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Yes, I too am in favor of a global police state that enforces all my own favored policies.
Why is the FBI involved in this? I can see FBI involvement in domestic terrorism cases, but wouldn't some guy in Bagram be under the CIA's purview?
Yeah, haha, that was pretty bad on my part. Wasn't even thinking when I wrote it initially. In my defense, I wasn't born here?
I'm sorry, you've failed at America and will have to go back.
Unless you like cheeseburgers - then the preponderance of evidence shows sufficient assimilation.
"Wait a minute, he's still holding the- DON'T YOU THROW THAT KEY AWAY! DAMNIT!"
"Did anyone see where it went?"
"Goddamnit, it better not have gone under the fridge again."
That said I'm not too fond of Obama's decision to keep the military tribunals around even if he did make them better.
Also, cheeseburgers are awesome. I have a Five Guys a block away from my house.
I have to second this. Isn't the FBI supposed to be, oh I dunno, the FEDERAL Beurau(sp so sue me) of Investigations??? Meaning they are on a federal, or national level??
Honestly, I'm glad that we now have to read them Miranda's Rights. We were comitting bullshit acts on people, and they didn't even have to be from out of country.
But if we're talking about some random guy picked up for setting up an IED on some road in Cameltaint, Iraq, why in the world would any of the rules that apply to someone arrested in the States apply to him?
I'm not sure of the reasoning behind FBI involvement, but treating suspects like human beings worthy of basic rights and some level of respect is what civilized societies do. Last I checked, anyway.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Whoa man, I'm not arguing for summary execution or what have you. My question comes from a legal standpoint. Is the issue from the article in the OP that new policy will extend the same guarantees US citizens and nationals enjoy to anyone, anywhere when dealing with US forces?
Pretty much. It's the law to treat criminals that way in the US because it's the most fair and just way to go about it. That doesn't mean once you're outside the border you start sodomizing prisoners just for the sake of "Woooooo, can't do THIS at home!" like a sophomore in Amsterdam.
I'm sure I've got a knowledge gap here, so please fill me in.
Article if anyone's interested:
Moreover, the CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations will be replaced with one built around transparent investigations and prosecutions, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Under the ‘global justice’ initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort were quoted as saying.
While the initiative is a work in progress, some senior counter-terrorism officials and administration policymakers see it as key to the national security strategy President Barack Obama laid out last week — one that presumes most accused terrorists have the right to contest the charges against them in a “legitimate” setting, the Times said.
The “global justice” plan aims to bring virtually all suspects to a court of law in the US or abroad. That will be the case whether a suspected terrorist is captured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, in the Philippine jungle or in a mosque in Nigeria, said a senior US counter-terrorism official with knowledge of the initiative.
“Regardless of where any bad guy is caught, we want the bureau to be in a position to put charges on them,” the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, was quoted as saying.
Asked about the initiative, FBI assistant director and chief spokesman John J. Miller said: “We have no comment on it at this time.”
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
ok now I got a case of the giggles
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
These guys are not US citizens. We are not obligated to grant them anything other than basic human rights, and Miranda doesn't qualify. We're also not going to enroll them in Medicare and guarantee them social security. (We aren't, right? Right?)
That said, I don't object too much to telling them they can remain quiet and that they can have an attorney, as long as we don't start hucking these guys back into the wild because someone forgot to read them their rights. Letting them know their options is fine. Granting them a constitutional right particular to our nation's legal system is fucking dumb.
Edit - OK, wait, here we go. Here's my problem: The exclusionary rule in US law is derived from a constitutional right. Last time I checked, we do not extend constitutional rights to foreign nationals/operators/&c. And what ElJeffe said.
It's not really an imposition of anything, in reality. It's just an addition to the process of a step where we make sure the people we're taking prisoner are at least told that they will be given some semblance of basic human rights.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
But I hear that "they hate us for our freedoms." If we start reading them Miranda Rights, they're going to think we're just flaunting our freedoms in their faces and they'll get all mad.
From what I understand, we're not offering them Miranda Rights because we're feeling extra generous but rather because until now they've had no rights.
Again, I'm not sure, but I'm under the impression that we're not trying to 1-up the Geneva Convention; we're trying to provide them with some semblence of rights after we did some clever wording tricks to exclude them from Geneva Convention rights a few years back.
But in that case, why is the FBI involved? Like someone else said, shouldn't this be a matter for the CIA or the military or whatever?
http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/criminal-defense/defendants-rights/understanding-miranda-rights.htm
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
It's a recent policy shift - check this LA Times article out for more info: FBI planning a bigger role in terrorism fight
So that they could become martyrs.
I've stayed away from the news for a couple of days so it might have been from a nightmare I had earlier.
edit: no, that's something separate.
They're not POWs. If they were POWs, they'd be subject to Geneva Convention rights, and we wouldn't be torturing them as far as I understand. By calling them "suspected terrorists", we can get away with it.
I also don't really like the notion of "white lies", especially in this case when the white lie is an angry sergeant waving a gun in front of your face telling you that you better fucking tell him everything, because he knows you're not aware he won't actually hit you with it, shoot you with it, and that you should really have a lawyer present.
The whole point of having these rights is to PREVENT intimidation, torture, undue process, etc. By practicing all of those things so long as the prisoner doesn't pipe up and say something pretty much goes against the whole point of creating those rights.
Banned from... Geneva Convention? Banned from our military operations?