Who Said This?

Who said these things?

  • A: Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he’s worried that someone won’t read ’em their rights.
  • B: Now, do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not.

The answer to A is Sarah Palin at her acceptance speech in St. Paul.

The answer to B is Barack Obama in March 2009 on 60 Minutes.

So why are we now reading the terrorists Miranda Rights? Palin told us Obama was worried about it but Obama said they did not deserve them so why are we reading the Miranda Rights to the terrorists?

…For, 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 administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan. [emphasis mine] The Weekly Standard

It looks like Obama paid lip service to the idea that terrorists do not deserve Miranda Rights.

It also looks like Sarah Palin was correct.

Quotes A and B from Rush Limbaugh’s website.

Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

25 Responses to “Who Said This?”

  1. Darrel says:

    Bigd: “why are we now reading the terrorists Miranda Rights?”>>

    DAR
    It’s probably being done in this instance, in case they end up in Federal court, as per the SOCTUS decision (reference cited many times).

    So it’s a smart move.

    Executive branch doesn’t control SOCTUS decisions.

    D.
    ——————-
    “What is really the question is what rights we have to give people to maintain our credibility around the world.

    That is, the way the world viewed the Bush administration was that, well, George Bush often looked almost Caesar-like, sending some people to federal courts, some people to military tribunal. Some people got no trial at all.

    In this case, we had Richard Reid, who was virtually identical in his act. He went to federal court. Zacarias Moussaoui went to federal court. And I think that it’s a problem if we treat a legal system as sort of improvisational, that we simply go by case by case of what we feel someone should have in terms of rights.

    The credibility of a legal system is its consistency. Without consistency, it lacks coherence.

    …part of the problem is that we’re also dealing with people who have never been given a trial. And we no that many of the people in Guantanamo Bay were not terrorists. At one time, we were offering thousands of dollars for anyone that could give us someone they said was a terrorist, and many of them ended up at Guantanamo Bay.

    And so we need to be cognizant of the fact that a nation like ours can’t hold people without a trial and retain our credibility.”
    –Johnathon Turley, professor of law, The George Washington University Law School

    Link.

  2. Big Dog says:

    Obama said they did not deserve them.

    Keep them in tribunals where they belong and we do not have to needlessly give them rights to which they are not entitled as non citizens.

    This shows how much of a rookie move it was.

    Keep them in military tribunals.

    Better yet, don’t take any prisoners…

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “Obama said they did not deserve them [Miranda rights].”>>

      DAR
      Whether they “deserve” them is a completely different matter than the question of whether the US government should act in a manner that is in it’s best interest and most likely to result in a successful prosecution of these people. The correct answer is yes, and anything less is irresponsible.

      Bigd: “Keep them in tribunals where they belong and we do not have to needlessly give them rights to which they are not entitled as non citizens.”>>

      DAR
      As you have been informed many times before, the SCOTUS ruled against Bush on this in 2008:

      Boumediene v. Bush

      “The case… challenged the legality of Boumediene’s detention at the United States Naval Station military base in Guantanamo Bay…

      On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority holding that the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the MCA was an unconstitutional suspension of that right.”

      Bigd: “This shows how much of a rookie move it was.”>>

      DAR
      In fact, it shows precisely the exact opposite.

      Oh, and I see now that your Weekly Standard citation is an old story from June. Turns out it was debunked back then. If it was a “rookie move,” you better take a look at this:

      Miranda Rights For Detainees Started Under Bush Administration.

      Don’t look now, someone just shot themselves in the foot.

      D.
      ——————
      Excerpt:

      “9:55. A Fox News reporter asks about a Weekly Standard report that detainees were getting read Miranda rights. Petraeus says he has “No concerns at all. This is the FBI doing what the FBI does. … The real rumor yesterday is whether our forces were reading Miranda rights to detainees and the answer to that is no.” Sorry, Steve Hayes.”

      “There has been no policy change and nor blanket instruction issued for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas. 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.”

      So there you have it. No, American troops are not walking around Afghanistan reading Miranda rights to people. It’s the FBI’s doing, in appropriate instances, following a policy change made by the Bush administration, which Obama has not changed. There’s no reason to panic, the end.”
      –ibid

  3. Big Dog says:

    I am sure Bush felt the need due to the court but if he did it then it was a rookie move as well.

    Habeous corpus is different than Miranda.

    HC means you have a right to seek relief against unlawful detention. They have to charge you or let you go.

    Miranda advises you of rights to an attorney etc. If they had kept the people in a tribunal and charged them then there would be no HC issue.

    And nothing was debunked. The paragraph I cited mentions the FBI reading Miranda, not the troops and that is true as shown in your final paragraph.

    You do the strawman thing quite a lot. You change the context of the argument to something that does not exist and then you attack the nonexistent thing you constructed.

    In this case, it was FBI and you changed it to troops and then attacked the argument as if I had written troops. You do that a lot.

    To those who pass by it makes it look like you are well informed but if they did deeper they can see how you change things to suit your needs.

    And Kennedy’s opinion allowed something not contained in the Constitution. Shouldn’t surprise anyone.

    However, I see no mention of Miranda, only HC which basically says charge me or let me go.

    We should have charged them in the tribunal, which would be allowed.

    The case you cite has nothing to do with any other rights. As I believe you have been shown before, it ONLY deals with the HC issue and whether the MCA addressed that. The majority said it did not and granted something that is outside the Constitution and the minority said it did. In any event, the only thing it addresses is HC and to meet the law the US would have to charge them or let them go.

    I think someone wrote yesterday that we should put them all on a plane to Yemin and bomb the baggage carousel 10 minutes after they arrive…

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “In this case, it was FBI and you changed it to troops and then attacked the argument as if I had written troops. You do that a lot.”>>

      DAR
      Had you been paying attention you would have noticed that *I* did not say anything about “troops.” The comment you refer to is in quotation marks and is a comment from the link I provided, made by a person using a little hyperbole. Thus your attempt to say I changed something in your argument fails (as always).

      Bigd: “if they did deeper they can see how you change things to suit your needs.”>>

      DAR
      Especially, ironic considering what *you* just did.

      Bigd: “And Kennedy’s opinion allowed something not contained in the Constitution. “>>

      DAR
      Kennedy, writing for the majority opinion, gets to decide exactly what is or is not contained in the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less. You on the other hand, get to decide nothing about such things. Please make a note of it.

      Bigd: “I am sure Bush felt the need due to the court but if he did it then it was a rookie move as well.”>>

      DAR
      I’ll trust that the people who have advised this procedure know a wee bit more about such things than you.

      D.

      • Big Dog says:

        As for the troops part, you referenced it to say that it was debunked so you own it. You used it then it is yours.

        I did not such thing. When you reference something to bolster your point then you own the view.

        Please make a note of this, I am not your child or wife and this is my site, so keep your condescending remarks to yourself.

        If you want to talk to someone like they are a child then pick someone at your place, not mine.

        Please make a note of that.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: When you reference something to bolster your point then you own the view.>>

          DAR
          No, obviously I don’t have to agree with every single comment made by a person I am quoting (as you don’t).

  4. Big Dog says:

    So, once again, keep them in the tribunal system and charge them there and there are no problems. WE get to decide whether they get a federal court or a tribunal. The rookie in chief is reading them Miranda because he wants them to have federal trials. It is his DOJ that decides, not the terrorists.

    Maybe that is why Bush started having some of them Mirandized, because he knew the next guy might return to the failed policies of making it a law enforcement matter, if not then it was bush league (pardon the pun).

    Obama could change things and keep them in tribunals but he does not want it that way. He told the 9/11 families that he had not made up his mind when he met with them but the decision had already been made. He lied to them. He could change it but he believes that these people deserve all the rights of US citizens.

    They have it better than our troops who are tried under the military system each time some enemy combatant cries he was mistreated.

    Note to troops, please do not take any of them alive. Kill them all in battle so we do not have to let the rookies at home deal with them. Allow no one to surrender, kill them all and let Allah sort them out.

    I wonder if there is some way of seeing if the number of prisoners taken has decreased through all of this.

    But no matter, it happened on Obama’s watch so he is responsible for it.

  5. Big Dog says:

    Darrel, I get to decide anything I want regardless of what Kennedy or others on the SCOTUS decide. They decide the Constitution and it is a document that places restrictions on government not the people so their views and interpretations are of no concern to me. I do what I want regardless of what they say. But the revolution that will one day come will include them as well.

    You seem to think because they say it then it is so, no they can be wrong. But I will make a note of this for the next time you whiny pukes cry about some decision made by the conservative members. If they say it, it is not wrong. Got it.

    But folks, do what you want, eff them.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “You seem to think because they [SCOTUS] say it then it is so, no they can be wrong.”>>

      DAR
      Nope. This is a very basic mistake you don’t seem to grasp. When it comes to interpreting the constitution the SCOTUS, today, by definition, cannot be wrong, ever, *according to the Constitution.*

      The Constitution says, and means, precisely what the SCOTUS says it does. Not a penny more, not a penny less. Our only safety mechanism to prevent completely ridiculous decisions is the rather elaborate nomination proceedings conducted by our elected representatives. Beyond that, there is no, none, zip, recourse on a decision made by SCOTUS regarding their interpretation of the Constitution.

      You say “they can be wrong,” but in fact, they cannot be wrong.

      Oh that we would have such a situation with the Bible. We have about 30,000 different divisions of Christianity and everyone who reads the book of Revelations creates a new interpretation on the spot. Thing is, there is no enforcement or codified interpretation mechanism for the Bible. People, priests, popes and paupers just make it up as they go. Hence the 30,000 divisions. Is someone right or wrong in their interpretation of such and such a verse? God, if he were to exist, would only know. So we will never know.

      We don’t have such a situation with the US Constitution. We have a very specific, elaborate and binding mechanism by which it is interpreted. It goes like this. The Constitution means what the SCOTUS says it means.

      That’s the rule, no exceptions.

      Best to make yourself aware of their decisions if you wish to speak intelligently about this document.

      D.

  6. Big Dog says:

    Yes they certainly can be wrong. If there is any dissension then one part of the group has to be wrong. In a 5-4 opinion either 5 people are wrong or 4 people are wrong because they have differing views of what the Constitution means. It is obvious in some instances that there is no justification for a ruling contained in the Constitution and the dissent lays it out. Only numbers make the difference, not the law. In the Kelo decision they are clearly wrong and are contrary to the Constitution. The elaborate process of which you speak is a political circus that cares little about the rule of law. They care about stacking a court with people of their ideology (regardless of which one) to get things passed the way they want.

    I am aware of the decisions and the document. I happen to actually have lived under it longer than you have and I carry it with me every day. We know that the SCOTUS can be wrong, it is only logical.

    If a past ruling is overturned then one of them must have been wrong. Separate but equal was a ruling of the SCOTUS. That was changed so one of them was wrong.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: Yes they certainly can be wrong.>>

      DAR
      Not in interpretation of the constitution. That’s the rule of the game.

      Bigd: If there is any dissension then one part of the group has to be wrong.>>

      DAR
      Nice try. Decision of the SCOTUS is defined by majority opinion. Dissension is effectively irrelevant.

      Bigd: It is obvious in some instances that there is no justification>>

      DAR
      Your opinion of what is or is not obvious or justified, is irrelevant, according to the rules.

      Bigd: The elaborate process of which you speak is a political circus>>

      DAR
      Don’t like it, change the Constitution.

      Bigd: They care about stacking a court… to get things passed the way they want.>>

      DAR
      It’s called representative democracy in action. It’s also called politics. It’s actually the goal of the game.

      Bigd: We know that the SCOTUS can be wrong, it is only logical.>>

      DAR
      You are speaking of “wrong” in some fantasy imaginary sense, I am speaking of wrong in the real world, on the ground, binding, rules of the game sense.

      It’s like we are playing chess and you say, hey, why can the king only move one square at a time, that’s “wrong” he should be able to move more than that, he’s the king. Well, when you are playing the game called chess, there are rules and the rule is the king can move a certain way. Otherwise you’re not playing chess. Period.

      In the game called USA, the Constitution means what the majority of the SCOTUS says it means, today. Otherwise you are not playing the game called USA. Period.

      Bigd: If a past ruling is overturned then one of them must have been wrong.>>

      DAR
      I already anticipated this objection. Notice that in the comment your are responding to I had the word “today”:

      “When it comes to interpreting the constitution the SCOTUS, today, by definition, cannot be wrong, ever, *according to the Constitution.*”

      It may be difficult for inerrantists and literalists to understand how a comment in the Constitution can mean one thing in 1940 and something different in 2009, but alas, there it is. That’s how it works. Earlier decisions were right in their day, latest interpretation rules.

      Religions do this all the time by the way.

      Bigd: Separate but equal was a ruling of the SCOTUS.>>

      DAR
      Then at that point in time, that’s what it meant.

      Bigd: That was changed so one of them was wrong.>>

      DAR
      But it didn’t become wrong until it at the very same point in time became irrelevant, nullified and completely superseded by the new ruling, which according to the rules, is correct.

      D.

  7. Big Dog says:

    Then you should be clear about which part you are using to support your case.

  8. Big Dog says:

    I anticipated this would be your answer.

    So, if every ruling was right at and for the time it was made and that made it the law and then it was determined to be wrong when it was no longer relevant and was null and void tell me, why are we paying reparations, why are we paying for slavery, why do we have affirmative action that allows people a leg up based on a past injustice that was not an injustice at the time?

    Slavery was Constitutional and it was the law. SCOTUS had no problem with it so why are we paying for this past injustice when it was not an injustice then? If it was the law it was OK and now that it has been changed it is no longer relevant.

    If the court makes rulings that are against the Constitution as written and as explained by the people who wrote it in all their writings then yes the court is wrong. Kelo was a wrong decision and so are many others. I do get to say that because it is I as part of we the people who lend them the power they have.

    But if it is a law for today and any court can change things then tell me this, why do we have a circus with every nominee about abortion? Why do they all have to say it is settled law based on the past court ruling and the time it has been in effect? Why is this issue settled law but no other law is settled?

    Suppose that slavery was settled law and every nominee had to affirm that…

    Yes, they can be wrong. The Constitution is interpreted by them and they can get it wrong. They get their power to do their job from we the people so we get to say that they are wrong.

    I find it funny that they work to ensure that their rulings do not affect them like with Kelo.

    I know you believe what they say is not wrong but if they ruled that any right was invalid no one would view it as a valid law.

    When we discuss religion you can make the points, it has no bearing on this. We don’t have a bunch of different Constitutions that we choose to believe. The Constitution was written in a manner that it applies to us all at all times and the writings of the founders indicate what it means how it is to be interpreted. It does not change with the times. That is what the amendment process is for.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “why are we paying reparations,>>

      DAR
      I have no idea what are you talking about.

      Bigd: Slavery was Constitutional and it was the law.>>

      DAR
      You miss it don’t you? Just admit it.

      Bigd: If the court makes rulings that are against the Constitution as written>>

      DAR
      Impossible, by definition, by the rules of the game. The court, while interpreting the constitution cannot make rulings “against the Con. as written.” They decide what it means. Period, no exceptions. See the Constitution.

      Bigd: I do get to say that because…>>

      DAR
      Because, right now they have interpreted it to mean that such speech is protected. If they interpret the 1st Amendment to mean “everyone gets a popsicle,” then, it means, according to the rule of law, that “everyone gets a popsicle.” I would like mine grape.

      Bigd: it is I as part of we the people who lend them the power they have.>>

      DAR
      Bah, that was a long time ago.

      Bigd: why do we have a circus with every nominee about abortion?>>

      DAR
      Because of religious nuts who don’t know how to read and comprehend their Bible. They are also played by smarter politicians who know how to use it shamelessly as a wedge issue. The highest abortion rates are in the red states (divorce too). Want lower abortion rates? Look to our more liberal peer countries that know to teach accurate sex ed rather than lie to the kiddies.

      Bigd: Why is this issue settled law but no other law is settled?>>

      DAR
      In fact, the VAST MAJORITY of “other law” is settled and was settled long ago. That one about marriage is going to be modified though. It’s going to be a little more inclusive soon. It’s what the people want. And the people should get what they want.

      Bigd: Suppose that slavery was settled law and every nominee had to affirm that…>>

      DAR
      Then we would be living in the conservative hey day of 1821. Slavery was a moral abomination we grew out of when we decided to recognize the fact that these minorities are fully human.
      The abortion question balances the value of a woman having the right to control her body and reproductive ability with the value of a fetus. Roe v. Wade is a reasonable compromise that only protects the right of abortion in the first trimester. It’s unlikely to be overturned.

      Bigd: Yes, they can be wrong.>>

      DAR
      By definition, not possible. Not legally wrong, and that’s what matters when it comes to what is going to be enforced.

      Bigd: the writings of the founders indicate what it means how it is to be interpreted.>>

      DAR
      And members of the court are (usually) well trained and cognizant of these writings and make use of them constantly in their written decisions. But that’s optional.

      According to the system the founders set up, the SCOTUS decides, exclusively and without exception, what it means. That’s it.

      All else is mere opinion and has the value of a warm cup of spit.

      D.

  9. Big Dog says:

    Where are those abortions in the red states? In the very blue cities.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: Where are those abortions in the red states? In the very blue cities.>>

      DAR
      Your excuse makes not sense because blue states have blue cities and they are even bluer.

      Why do your red states have more abortions Bigd?

      One Christian site puts it this way:

      ***
      Red States Are More Pro-Abortion

      The numbers show that liberal influence is more effective in reducing abortions than is conservative influence.

      [These numbers] show which party’s impact over time is most effectively anti-abortion – and it’s not the so-called conservatives! Liberal policies, behaviors and attitudes apparently REDUCE abortions. Republican policies, attitudes and behaviors apparently INCREASE abortions. The results are similar regarding teen pregnancy.

      Public Christian.

      RED-STATE / BLUE-STATE ABORTION RATES COMPARED:

      All but one of the ten states with the LOWEST rates of abortion are considered “LIBERAL”: [see list at link]

      All but one of the Sixteen states with the HIGHEST rates of abortion are considered “CONSERVATIVE”: [see list at link]

      http://www.publicchristian.com/?p=734

      D.

  10. Big Dog says:

    Look at a map of the country and tell me which states are red an which are blue. If you go by elections by country they are nearly all red. The blue ones are only blue because of densely populated blue cities. This is where the abortions take place.

  11. Big Dog says:

    To 10 for abortion:

    1. New Jersey (47)
    2. New York (46)
    3. Maryland (38)
    4. Nevada (36)
    5. California (36)
    6. Hawaii (34)
    7. Florida (33)
    8. Delaware (31)
    9. Connecticut (30)
    10. Illinois (27)

    The 2008 electoral map shows these as blue. Since the numbers are from 2006 I went to the 2004 electoral map. Two of the 10 are red.

  12. Big Dog says:

    The Guttmacher Institute estimated that “most abortions in the United States are obtained by minority women” because minority women “have much higher rates of unintended pregnancy.”

    Wikipedia

    What party do you suppose most of the minorities belong to?

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “What party do you suppose most of the minorities belong to?”>>

      DAR
      I thought it was the republicans. Haven’t you seen the video shots from their conventions? Full of minorities.

      Actually, I suspected these stats from that site. Not well referenced. Bloody xtians lying to me!

      There’s lots of ways to jigger the abortion stats, teen pregnancy, people traveling out of state and fibbing. I’ll check more later but here is another way to look at it:

      Secular areas v. religious areas, nationally and internationally:

      The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional
      Psychosociological Conditions

      “Of the 25 socioeconomic and environmental indicators the most theistic and procreationist western nation, the U.S. scores the worst in 14 and by a very large margin in 8, very poorly in 2, average in 4, well or very in 4, and the best in 1. Specifically, the U.S., scores the most dysfunctional in homicide, incarceration, juvenile mortality, gonorrhea and syphilis
      infections, abortions, adolescent pregnancies, marriage duration, income disparity, poverty, work hours, and resource exploitation base. The level of relative and absolute societal pathology in the U.S. is often so severe that it is repeatedly an outlier that strongly reinforces
      the correlation between high levels of poor societal conditions and popular religiosity.
      Because the U.S. performs so poorly in so many respects, its cumulative score on the
      SSS is a uniquely low 2.9 (Fig. 1), placing it as an outlier so dysfunctional relative to the other advanced democracies that some researchers have described it as “sick” (Sapolsky, 2005; Wilkinson, 2005).”

      http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP07398441_c.pdf

      pg. 19

      D.

      • Big Dog says:

        Now you are learning Darrel what I have known all along. There are plenty of ways to jigger numbers and that includes in global warming and health care. The difference is when they agree with you they are correct but when they disagree they are jiggered.

        Lies, damn lies and statistics. Keep that in mind the next time you start spouting off some number. It can be manipulated any number of ways, you said so yourself.

      • Darrel says:

        Correction, I didn’t mean jigger as in dishonest. See the context I gave. Correction:

        “There’s lots of ways to [look at] the abortion stats, teen pregnancy, people traveling out of state and fibbing.”

        I’ve seen your very best examples of supposed GW fudging and the AP looked at every single email. You have nothing.

        D.