Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Feb 16, 2010 14:42:15 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Feb 16, 2010 14:50:47 GMT -5
This is very good news no matter where your political leanings (though I did read a commenter on the Washington Post today who said that UBL was a better person than Dick Cheney, so maybe that person doesn't like this news).
I can guarantee this dude will NOT be mirandized anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 16, 2010 16:07:47 GMT -5
I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone is arguing that Taliban commanders captured on the battlefield should be mirandized. The Reid and Mufftalab (spelling?) issues arise when an attacker is captured on American soil. Now, you can argue that all US territory is part of a battlefield in a War on Terror, however defined, but that is likely a tougher road than the clear situation of an armed commander in a cave or something of the sort.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 16, 2010 16:52:57 GMT -5
This is good news. I actually believe President Obama is doing well in both the Afghanistan/Pakistan War and the Iraq War and should be commended. His treatment of prisoners concerning Mirandizing them, trying them in a civilian court, and closing GITMO - well, that's another story for me. But, back to the original subject, President Obama, keep taking it to the enemy.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Feb 16, 2010 16:57:26 GMT -5
He wasn't on the battlefield, he was in Karachi, Pakistan. And really, it's highly probable that he wasn't armed. He wasn't captured by our military, he was captured by intelligence officers.
As I said, I don't think anyone plans to mirandize him, but those I know in the intelligence community are hardly clear on what the rules are these days. I certainly don't think there's been any establishment, as you claim, of "American soil," as the rule. And why would there be? If we capture a terrorist cell in an apartment in San Diego with blueprints of a mall, lots of explosives and automatic weapons, should the be mirandized because they are on American soil?
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Feb 16, 2010 17:16:07 GMT -5
He wasn't on the battlefield, he was in Karachi, Pakistan. And really, it's highly probable that he wasn't armed. He wasn't captured by our military, he was captured by intelligence officers. As I said, I don't think anyone plans to mirandize him, but those I know in the intelligence community are hardly clear on what the rules are these days. I certainly don't think there's been any establishment, as you claim, of "American soil," as the rule. And why would there be? If we capture a terrorist cell in an apartment in San Diego with blueprints of a mall, lots of explosives and automatic weapons, should the be mirandized because they are on American soil? There is precedent for distinguishing American soil from non-American soil with regards to typical 4th, 5th, 6th Amendment rights. I mentioned in a thread a few months ago a case where the Supreme Court said it was ok for the DEA and some Mexican drug agents to bash in a drug kingpin's door without a warrant because his door (and house, and drugs) were in Mexico. The Court said he didn't have sufficient ties to the US to be treated as someone protected by the Bill of Rights. And there was also some mention of the fact that it would be impracticable to deal with warrants abroad (I think a Stevens concurrence, maybe). And that Mexican individual did stand civilian trial in American courts, despite the violation of his constitutional rights abroad. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-UrquidezI'm surprised this case and its implications haven't really been argued as obviously applicable to terrorists arrested and interrogated abroad. Admittedly, I'm no expert in this area, but I do wonder why we can't extend this holding to its logical conclusion.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Feb 16, 2010 17:21:16 GMT -5
The capture itself is great news. This is easily the top Taliban scalp we've gotten, and probably the 2nd biggest scalp overall after KSM. As Bando pointed out, the ISI's involvement is also very welcome, although I'm sure the CIA-ISI cooperation might cause some trouble in Pakistan.
However, the fact that Baradar was captured in Karachi worries me. KSM was also captured in Karachi, and there are growing rumors that Mullah Omar or Bin Laden himself may be in Karachi, at least on occasion. That's problematic because finding somebody in a city of 15 million is fairly tough, and we can't exactly launch Predator strikes on Pakistan's biggest city.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,598
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Feb 16, 2010 17:25:41 GMT -5
If we capture a terrorist cell in an apartment in San Diego with blueprints of a mall, lots of explosives and automatic weapons, should the be mirandized because they are on American soil? If you would like to follow the U.S. Constitution, then yes.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 16, 2010 17:30:35 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarifications - haven't been through the news stories on it. The argument about battlefield may be more nuanced than ever since we are at war with the Taliban as a quasi-state entity that aided the 9/11 attacks. One could argue that the battlefield for the purposes exists wherever they may be found, including in Pakistan and its uncontrolled provinces (Waziristan). The obvious tension is with Pakistani sovereignty, which is why we probably got a wink and a nod from the Pakistani government.
There is some "American soil" rule that has evolved since at least the Civil War as to similar questions. The question arose as to whether an individual (who would now be called a terrorist) suspected of plotting to invade a Union POW camp in Indiana (not a belligerent) could be brought before a military tribunal. Some of the detainee/war on terror arguments date back at least this far. If anything, this line of cases foreshadows many of the arguments we now confront even as lay people interested in politics.
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Feb 16, 2010 18:01:06 GMT -5
If we capture a terrorist cell in an apartment in San Diego with blueprints of a mall, lots of explosives and automatic weapons, should the be mirandized because they are on American soil? If you would like to follow the U.S. Constitution, then yes. When German comandos not in uniform or otherwise acting as soldiers were caught in the US during WWII they were not tried according to civilian courts and rules. They were tried and executed according to military courts. Whether you want to follow that example or not I think it is instructive that the constitution does not de facto convey civilian court rights to anyone who is on US soil as part of a military/terrorist operation.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 16, 2010 18:18:05 GMT -5
I am not sure the facts there on Quirin are entirely right - they were part of a German military operation (Operation Pastorius), albeit an asymmetrical one. They wore German uniforms upon entering the United States by boat and subsequently discarded their uniforms before arrest by the FBI. All this is to say that the issue remains hotly debated.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Feb 16, 2010 18:48:43 GMT -5
If you would like to follow the U.S. Constitution, then yes. When German comandos not in uniform or otherwise acting as soldiers were caught in the US during WWII they were not tried according to civilian courts and rules. They were tried and executed according to military courts. Whether you want to follow that example or not I think it is instructive that the constitution does not de facto convey civilian court rights to anyone who is on US soil as part of a military/terrorist operation. Trial by civilian court is not one of the Miranda Rights.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,598
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Feb 16, 2010 18:53:13 GMT -5
If you would like to follow the U.S. Constitution, then yes. When German comandos not in uniform or otherwise acting as soldiers were caught in the US during WWII they were not tried according to civilian courts and rules. They were tried and executed according to military courts. Whether you want to follow that example or not I think it is instructive that the constitution does not de facto convey civilian court rights to anyone who is on US soil as part of a military/terrorist operation. Military and terrorist are two very different concepts under the law and should not be conflated. Agents of a belligerent power operating covertly on the territory of the enemy are treated as spies. We don't summarily execute those anymore either, but that is their legal status in wartime. We are not under a state of war, congressional authorizations for the use of force abroad notwithstanding, and terrorists are not agents of a belligerent foreign power (this point is debatable in spirit but not in letter). So the comparison doesn't quite hold.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Feb 16, 2010 19:13:04 GMT -5
I'm going to sound like a complete idiot but practically speaking, what is the difference whether or not we mirandize them? I've heard everyone say it's a big deal but why?
And I'm not talking about we "want to treat them differently" I'm talking about what actually happens if we mirandize a terrorist suspect versus what would happen otherwise. Inquiring non-lawyers want to know.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Feb 16, 2010 21:07:34 GMT -5
I'm going to sound like a complete idiot but practically speaking, what is the difference whether or not we mirandize them? I've heard everyone say it's a big deal but why? And I'm not talking about we "want to treat them differently" I'm talking about what actually happens if we mirandize a terrorist suspect versus what would happen otherwise. Inquiring non-lawyers want to know. It boils down to this: if you torture someone, you're tough on terrorism. If you don't, you're weak on terror. It's a philosophy of national security that views posturing as all that matters, rather than ends.
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on Feb 16, 2010 21:42:46 GMT -5
We mirandize overseas and have been doing it for years. The question is not whether it's overseas or in the U.S., the question is whether you do it to a belligerent. The FBI and DEA have always mirandized overseas. Then the added question is what you do since they are probably legally not in U.S. custody. I'm not sure under what conditions you have to mirandize (e.g. how involved does the U.S. have to be to warrant a miranda warning) when the detainee is not in U.S. custody and the CIA is just observing/interrogating. Then again, it's all moot if the President decides not to try him in a civilian court.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Feb 16, 2010 21:43:45 GMT -5
I'm going to sound like a complete idiot but practically speaking, what is the difference whether or not we mirandize them? I've heard everyone say it's a big deal but why? And I'm not talking about we "want to treat them differently" I'm talking about what actually happens if we mirandize a terrorist suspect versus what would happen otherwise. Inquiring non-lawyers want to know. It boils down to this: if you torture someone, you're tough on terrorism. If you don't, you're weak on terror. It's a philosophy of national security that views posturing as all that matters, rather than ends. Yeah, that's about what I thought. I mean all miranidzing them does is alert them of rights. You can still interrogate them. They've just been warned they don't have to talk. Also you don't have to mirandize as policy, right? If you think a terrorist is a sufficient threat, you can interrogate prior to the Miranda warning. Or is that not true? This seems like such small potatoes in this case compared to not acting on a phone call from this guy's parents or being slightly suspicious of his travel plans. But the part of this story with two months of legs is this Miranda squabble. I don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Feb 16, 2010 22:18:06 GMT -5
It boils down to this: if you torture someone, you're tough on terrorism. If you don't, you're weak on terror. It's a philosophy of national security that views posturing as all that matters, rather than ends. Yeah, that's about what I thought. I mean all miranidzing them does is alert them of rights. You can still interrogate them. They've just been warned they don't have to talk. Also you don't have to mirandize as policy, right? If you think a terrorist is a sufficient threat, you can interrogate prior to the Miranda warning. Or is that not true? This seems like such small potatoes in this case compared to not acting on a phone call from this guy's parents or being slightly suspicious of his travel plans. But the part of this story with two months of legs is this Miranda squabble. I don't get it. I might be wrong on this, but if I recall correctly, Miranda was created as a way to protect the right to counsel. So if you Mirandize, you're also committing to give the person counsel. And if you Mirandize and the suspect says "I don't want to talk without an attorney present," then interrogation must stop. So I do understand why Mirandizing could be a problem. I just don't think there's any basis for saying we have to do it abroad under any circumstances.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Feb 16, 2010 22:30:19 GMT -5
I think the main question is whether we capture somebody with the intent of prosecuting them or capture them with the intent of finding more information on future terrorist activities.
In the case of Abdulmutallab, our primary goal seems to be to prosecute him, which makes sense in my book. He was pretty small potatoes in terms of terrorist hierarchy, and he very clearly attempted to commit a crime against the United States.
In the case of Baradar, it's not so clear cut. He's clearly a Taliban bigwig, and he's probably our best chance right now to find info on the whereabouts of Mullah Omar and maybe even Bin Laden. At the same time, it might be difficult to directly link him to any crime against the United States. There's a chance we'll use the Saddam precedent here - have the US capture and interrogate him, but have the Afghans try him for crimes he committed as part of the Taliban government or during the various wars there. Whether the Afghans are capable of trying him is another argument altogether, but this whole debate we're having might be moot because Baradar may never see a US courtroom, civil or military.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,598
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Feb 16, 2010 22:37:50 GMT -5
I'm going to sound like a complete idiot but practically speaking, what is the difference whether or not we mirandize them? I've heard everyone say it's a big deal but why? And I'm not talking about we "want to treat them differently" I'm talking about what actually happens if we mirandize a terrorist suspect versus what would happen otherwise. Inquiring non-lawyers want to know. The logic runs something like this: If you read a terrorist his Miranda Rights, you are telling him that he has the right to remain silent. But you don't want him to remain silent, you want him to provide you with as much intelligence as possible. You don't want him to think that he can remain silent. In addition, since the Miranda warning is a "legal nicety," its use also signals to the terrorist that he is going to be treated by the book and not subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques." You can't very well tell a guy that he has the right to remain silent and then waterboard him to get him to talk. So, by telling him he can just be quiet and lawyer up, you've lost all of the potential benefits that proponents of "enhanced interrogation" see in the use of such techniques, and all of that highly useful intelligence that he no doubt possesses will be lost.
|
|