Miranda Rights For Terrorists!
06-11-2009, 07:29 AM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE (Stocker @ Jun 10 2009, 11:14 PM)
You're right Red, you can't wage war on an idea. That was stupid when we started the "war"s against drugs, poverty, homelessness, illiteracy, etc. as well. If you don't identify an enemy, expect a war to be as long as the profitability of the war materiel manufacturers continues unabated.
Since when are drugs an idea? I'm pretty sure you can hold drugs in your hand, you can transport drugs in crates, and you can eat them, drink them, set fire to them and otherwise physically destroy them. Bad example on your part.
So let's talk about poverty, homelessness -- are we using guns, bombs, and other artillery to solve these things? Or are we using education, welfare and people who are providing free labor and donations? Welfare might be a great example of using "action" to feed the wrong result, similar to war on terror feeding more terror.
QUOTE (Stocker @ Jun 10 2009, 11:14 PM)
But you're wrong about using force on the islamists. We are not treating someone with a differing opinion inequally. If a bunch of white dudes wanted to blow us up, we'd shoot at them too. Just today that DID happen in fact, in the holocaust museum. What we are fighting is a worldwide group of people trying to live up to the exemplary life of their religion's inventor.
Sigh. If someone is coming to you with the intent to kill you, there's no question about defense. When you go to another country, invade it, and stay as an oppresive force, you are only feeding their reasons to kill you -- and they have FAR more right to kill you on their own soil (where you don't belong.)
If you had the idea in your head that I was a complete dick, and then you came over to my house and killed my dog, beat my wife, and broke all my windows, my opinion would change from dick to supreme f'ing douchebag. Attacking me for my idea doesn't make your point, it makes my point.
And I severely doubt, based on your incredibly flawed rendition of Islam, that you have truly read the Koran. Islam was not founded on killing everyone who isn't your faith any more than Christianity was. For every verse you can quote me directly from the Koran stating as such, I can quote you from the Bible where it says the same thing. In other words, anyone who takes a religious text such as the Koran or the Bible and twists it into such tripe is only doing so to further their own diabolical scheme and is not acting in the spirit nor intent of either religion.
QUOTE (Stocker @ Jun 10 2009, 11:14 PM)
The crusades were a response to several hundred years of muslim aggression BTW way to bring up a bad analogy.
No. Not only wrong, but stupendously wrong. In fact, the Crusades were doing exactly what the you're associating with the radical islamists doing now: eradicating ALL religions that were not Christianity. It wasn't just Muslim, and if you knew any history, you'd already know this. Why are you even arguing such an obvious point?
QUOTE (Stocker @ Jun 10 2009, 11:14 PM)
Obama is a classic example of an academic leftist. He carries around in his gourd all the stereotypical pie-in-the-sky ideas of how things ought to be according to the rich, well-fed socialists in tenured positions in colleges around the country.
That's a lot of hatred for one man, but I'd rather someone think with their brain than act with their gun. Violence isn't the answer to the world's problems, regardless of what the last 40 years of American action has embedded in your brain.
As for "different rights" from different countries? A world standard doesn't matter. We (as the United States) can only control our own actions. Nobody truly forces our hand; I as a person cannot force YOU as a person to smack a hot waitress on the ass, nor can I as a person force you as a person to go fight someone. It's your decision, just as it's the country's decision on the wars they start, perpetuate, and leave. And it's also our decision about how we treat those who do not agree with us, and/or how we treat prisoners of war.
Cliff notes, as stated before:
If the United States wants to claim the moral high ground of freedom and equality for all (and yes, it IS ALL) then we have to stop picking and choosing. Either it is trully freedom and equality for all, or it is for none. Nothing either of you have tossed back invalidates this point.
And if that's what you want our country to be, then I'm sorry for you.
06-11-2009, 08:03 AM
#22
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
The founders of our country warned against foreign entanglements. Current events show us the wisdom in that. WWII showed us sometimes you have to go before EVERYBODY else is taken over by the Bad Guys.
For those who don't know what happened, here is a timeline of islamic war on the rest of the world, from the inception of the "religion" to the first crusade from American Thinker
Re: the "war" on domestic conditions: so, how's that working out for ya? Ended poverty yet? Illiteracy, drug abuse, homelessness? No? Still profitable? Yes? My point makes itself.
Unless, of course, history itself is a right wing blogger. Then anything goes.
For those who don't know what happened, here is a timeline of islamic war on the rest of the world, from the inception of the "religion" to the first crusade from American Thinker
Re: the "war" on domestic conditions: so, how's that working out for ya? Ended poverty yet? Illiteracy, drug abuse, homelessness? No? Still profitable? Yes? My point makes itself.
Unless, of course, history itself is a right wing blogger. Then anything goes.
06-11-2009, 08:40 AM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Los Lunas, New Mexico, USA.
Posts: 34,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 2001 Hyundai Tiburon, 2004 Kia Sorento, 2010 Kia Soul
I gotta disagree with your running conclusion Red.
America doesn't want to be the Moral High Ground, or any of that, we just happen to be because the rest of the world is SO BAD.
Hell, if we actually declared war once in awhile instead of calling everything a war, we would get stuff done again.
Throw a few F16's into a fight against a school with low test scores, either the grades go up, or the school gets better.
Bet you see some higher grades.
LOL
America doesn't want to be the Moral High Ground, or any of that, we just happen to be because the rest of the world is SO BAD.
Hell, if we actually declared war once in awhile instead of calling everything a war, we would get stuff done again.
Throw a few F16's into a fight against a school with low test scores, either the grades go up, or the school gets better.
Bet you see some higher grades.
LOL
06-11-2009, 09:24 AM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Homelessness will never end, neither will poverty. You can't "win" such a thing, it's a continuous cycle. Attacking either problem with bombs or guns would only make it worse (what are you gonna blow up? places of business and houses?)
And "The American Thinker" is notoriously biased, if you get your history lesson of Islam from that website, you are even more mislead and mistaken than I first realized.
As for the world having it "so bad"? They don't know any different, your concept of "bad" is entirely normal way of life for them. I don't want to live in a shanty in the middle of the desert, but that's because I've grown up in an airconditioned house with a job and a car. These folks have grown up for millenia in these conditions, and by their own free will, have chosen to remain in that state.
I don't see the Amish people attacking us because they have it "SO BAD".
And once again, I see the answer is violence -- let's attack low grades with bombs! Yes, let's kill people who don't meed standardized testing scores that some "higher than thou" propoganda-spewing psuedo-intellectuals put together. I know you were joking, but it's a prime example that completely goes against what you're trying to convey.
And America already proclaims itself as the high moral ground -- remember, freedom and equality for all, it's written into our founding documents. So we're already at odds with our own base beliefs, the question is, why aren't we allowed to get BACK to where we're supposed to be?
EDIT: Here is the final answer Regardless of whether America truly wants to be in the moral high ground position, these are the facts:
Our laws do not allow torture.
Our laws do not allow imprisonment without due process (someone above suggested miranda rights only are required if you are to be interrogated -- that is incorrect, miranda rights apply to all who are to be tried for any crime.)
Our laws do not allow us to single out anyone due to race, color, creed or religion. Unfortunately, sexual preference hasn't entered into that agreement yet, but it should be. Nevertheless, that's a different discussion entirely.
We (as a country) made these laws in line with the founding truths of this country. Moral standing doesn't even have to come into play; we are breaking our own rules for our own perceived benefit, and anyone who wants to pride themselves in the founding truths of this nation should not allow (and certainly not FIGHT) for these injustices to continue.
And "The American Thinker" is notoriously biased, if you get your history lesson of Islam from that website, you are even more mislead and mistaken than I first realized.
As for the world having it "so bad"? They don't know any different, your concept of "bad" is entirely normal way of life for them. I don't want to live in a shanty in the middle of the desert, but that's because I've grown up in an airconditioned house with a job and a car. These folks have grown up for millenia in these conditions, and by their own free will, have chosen to remain in that state.
I don't see the Amish people attacking us because they have it "SO BAD".
And once again, I see the answer is violence -- let's attack low grades with bombs! Yes, let's kill people who don't meed standardized testing scores that some "higher than thou" propoganda-spewing psuedo-intellectuals put together. I know you were joking, but it's a prime example that completely goes against what you're trying to convey.
And America already proclaims itself as the high moral ground -- remember, freedom and equality for all, it's written into our founding documents. So we're already at odds with our own base beliefs, the question is, why aren't we allowed to get BACK to where we're supposed to be?
EDIT: Here is the final answer Regardless of whether America truly wants to be in the moral high ground position, these are the facts:
Our laws do not allow torture.
Our laws do not allow imprisonment without due process (someone above suggested miranda rights only are required if you are to be interrogated -- that is incorrect, miranda rights apply to all who are to be tried for any crime.)
Our laws do not allow us to single out anyone due to race, color, creed or religion. Unfortunately, sexual preference hasn't entered into that agreement yet, but it should be. Nevertheless, that's a different discussion entirely.
We (as a country) made these laws in line with the founding truths of this country. Moral standing doesn't even have to come into play; we are breaking our own rules for our own perceived benefit, and anyone who wants to pride themselves in the founding truths of this nation should not allow (and certainly not FIGHT) for these injustices to continue.
06-11-2009, 11:04 AM
#25
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
^ part of the problem.
They don't hate us because of anything related to us except that we're not muslims.
The link was the first one that popped up on Google. You want to talk about notorious bias, how about all the alphabet networks on TV as well
They don't get the same rights as a jaywalker because we're fighting a shooting war. Against people that want to kill us for their religion. We are fighting it over there, which is preferable to fighting it over here. Note that we just lost 1 KIA and one WIA at a recruiting station in this country as part of the SAME war. Fort Dix Six anyone? Hello? Jihad = worldwide.
Okay, I'm jumping out of this thread. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
They don't hate us because of anything related to us except that we're not muslims.
The link was the first one that popped up on Google. You want to talk about notorious bias, how about all the alphabet networks on TV as well
They don't get the same rights as a jaywalker because we're fighting a shooting war. Against people that want to kill us for their religion. We are fighting it over there, which is preferable to fighting it over here. Note that we just lost 1 KIA and one WIA at a recruiting station in this country as part of the SAME war. Fort Dix Six anyone? Hello? Jihad = worldwide.
Okay, I'm jumping out of this thread. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
06-11-2009, 01:08 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ashland, KY
Posts: 4,244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 2001/Hyundai/Tiburon
people are people, terrorist or not. Everyone should gets the same rights, till convicted at least.
The Koran does teach violence. The thing is the radical muslim are really following the koran. The other muslims realize that those teachings of the koran are criminal.
The Koran does teach violence. The thing is the radical muslim are really following the koran. The other muslims realize that those teachings of the koran are criminal.
06-11-2009, 06:02 PM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Benton, LA
Posts: 1,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 2015 Subaru WRX
Reason for the Crusades:
Christian military campaigns against the Muslim rulers in the Middle East from late 11th century until the 13th century.
The Crusades are often presented as a European attack on innocent Muslims in the Middle East. This is entirely wrong. First, there were more Christians living in the Middle East in these times than Muslims. Second, there were Christian states in the Middle East that predated Islam altogether. Third, what caused the Crusadea to happen in the first place was the takeover of Seljuq Turks who interpreted Islam in a most extreme fashion closing Jerusalem to Christian pilgrims, an act which would be parallel to Mecca being closed for Muslim pilgrims (see Hajj).
Therefore Crusades were initially not an attack on Muslims, but a defense against certain Muslims. Unfortunately, the story about the Crusades have ended up in a en ethical ditch seing all European expansion into non-European lands as intrusion that non-Europeans never would have begun in their place. This view has also been promoted by Muslim and even non-Muslim hisorians.
The full truth on Miranda Rights: ( from http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html )
The Constitution reserves many rights for those suspected of crime. One of the fears of the Framers was that the government could act however it wished by simply saying an individual was a suspected criminal. Many of the rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, such as habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, are designed to ensure that those accused of a crime are assured of those rights.
Police were able to take advantage of the fact that not everyone knows their rights by heart. In fact, it is likely that most citizens could name a few of their rights as accused criminals, but not all of them. The police's position was that if the accused, for example, spoke about a crime without knowing that they did not need to, that it was the person's fault for not invoking that right, even if they did not know, or did not remember, that they had that right.
This was the crux of the issue in Miranda v Arizona. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old, mildly retarded woman. He was brought in for questioning, and confessed to the crime. He was not told that he did not have to speak or that he could have a lawyer present. At trial, Miranda's lawyer tried to get the confession thrown out, but the motion was denied. In 1966, the case came in front of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the statements made to the police could not be used as evidence, since Miranda had not been advised of his rights.
Since then, before any pertinent questioning of a suspect is done, the police have been required to recite the Miranda warning. The statement, reproduced below, exists in several forms, but all have the key elements: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. These are also often referred to as the "Miranda rights." When you have been read your rights, you are said to have been "Mirandized."
Note that one need not be Mirandized to be arrested. There is a difference between being arrested and being questioned. Also, basic questions, such as name, address, and Social Security number do not need to be covered by a Miranda warning. The police also need not Mirandize someone who is not a suspect in a crime.
As for Ernesto Miranda, his conviction was thrown out, though he did not become a free man. The police had other evidence that was independent of the confession, and when Miranda was tried a second time, he was convicted again. After release from prison, Miranda was killed in a barroom brawl in 1976.
Islam, taught by Mohammed DOES teach violence...
The Qur'an teaches violence, and declares its God (Allah) requires cruel punishment of non-Muslim "infidels" ( 8: 12; 9: 5: 9; 29: 9: 73; 47: 4).
And slay them wherever ye catch them.. (2:191)
But if they turn away, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. (4:89).
Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not. (2:216)
Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from God: except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. But God cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to God. 3:28
I could go on taking from my copy of the Quran that I have here in my hand that I given to me while I was in Iraq...
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter. Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. This proclivity toward violence - and Muhammad's own martial legacy - has left a trail of blood and tears across world history.
So yes, this sounds a LOT like a group that doesn't want to kill and/or take over anyone who doesn't belive like they do... massive sarcasm for those who can't read, which is obvious there are a few... sad.gif
I just wanted to clear up a few details that have been said one way by one person, and then another way by someone else...
Christian military campaigns against the Muslim rulers in the Middle East from late 11th century until the 13th century.
The Crusades are often presented as a European attack on innocent Muslims in the Middle East. This is entirely wrong. First, there were more Christians living in the Middle East in these times than Muslims. Second, there were Christian states in the Middle East that predated Islam altogether. Third, what caused the Crusadea to happen in the first place was the takeover of Seljuq Turks who interpreted Islam in a most extreme fashion closing Jerusalem to Christian pilgrims, an act which would be parallel to Mecca being closed for Muslim pilgrims (see Hajj).
Therefore Crusades were initially not an attack on Muslims, but a defense against certain Muslims. Unfortunately, the story about the Crusades have ended up in a en ethical ditch seing all European expansion into non-European lands as intrusion that non-Europeans never would have begun in their place. This view has also been promoted by Muslim and even non-Muslim hisorians.
The full truth on Miranda Rights: ( from http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html )
The Constitution reserves many rights for those suspected of crime. One of the fears of the Framers was that the government could act however it wished by simply saying an individual was a suspected criminal. Many of the rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, such as habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, are designed to ensure that those accused of a crime are assured of those rights.
Police were able to take advantage of the fact that not everyone knows their rights by heart. In fact, it is likely that most citizens could name a few of their rights as accused criminals, but not all of them. The police's position was that if the accused, for example, spoke about a crime without knowing that they did not need to, that it was the person's fault for not invoking that right, even if they did not know, or did not remember, that they had that right.
This was the crux of the issue in Miranda v Arizona. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old, mildly retarded woman. He was brought in for questioning, and confessed to the crime. He was not told that he did not have to speak or that he could have a lawyer present. At trial, Miranda's lawyer tried to get the confession thrown out, but the motion was denied. In 1966, the case came in front of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the statements made to the police could not be used as evidence, since Miranda had not been advised of his rights.
Since then, before any pertinent questioning of a suspect is done, the police have been required to recite the Miranda warning. The statement, reproduced below, exists in several forms, but all have the key elements: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. These are also often referred to as the "Miranda rights." When you have been read your rights, you are said to have been "Mirandized."
Note that one need not be Mirandized to be arrested. There is a difference between being arrested and being questioned. Also, basic questions, such as name, address, and Social Security number do not need to be covered by a Miranda warning. The police also need not Mirandize someone who is not a suspect in a crime.
As for Ernesto Miranda, his conviction was thrown out, though he did not become a free man. The police had other evidence that was independent of the confession, and when Miranda was tried a second time, he was convicted again. After release from prison, Miranda was killed in a barroom brawl in 1976.
Islam, taught by Mohammed DOES teach violence...
The Qur'an teaches violence, and declares its God (Allah) requires cruel punishment of non-Muslim "infidels" ( 8: 12; 9: 5: 9; 29: 9: 73; 47: 4).
And slay them wherever ye catch them.. (2:191)
But if they turn away, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. (4:89).
Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not. (2:216)
Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from God: except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. But God cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to God. 3:28
I could go on taking from my copy of the Quran that I have here in my hand that I given to me while I was in Iraq...
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter. Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. This proclivity toward violence - and Muhammad's own martial legacy - has left a trail of blood and tears across world history.
So yes, this sounds a LOT like a group that doesn't want to kill and/or take over anyone who doesn't belive like they do... massive sarcasm for those who can't read, which is obvious there are a few... sad.gif
I just wanted to clear up a few details that have been said one way by one person, and then another way by someone else...
06-12-2009, 08:09 AM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until you can explain to me, in a rational and logical fashion, why we should be entitled to break our own laws because it fits our mood, then we will still disagree.
Doing so makes us nothing more than hipocrites, which the entire world sees. Not just just specific religions, but entire countries. And not just middle eastern ones, either...
Further, there is an entire website dedicated to the insane, violent, and evil things in the christian bible. Including calling to wars over Israel, killing people for prophesizing, selling you daughter as a sex slave? Yeah, great example there.
If you're going to throw Islam under the bus for being founded on evil massochist beliefs, then you'll have to throw Christianity under there too.
Doing so makes us nothing more than hipocrites, which the entire world sees. Not just just specific religions, but entire countries. And not just middle eastern ones, either...
Further, there is an entire website dedicated to the insane, violent, and evil things in the christian bible. Including calling to wars over Israel, killing people for prophesizing, selling you daughter as a sex slave? Yeah, great example there.
If you're going to throw Islam under the bus for being founded on evil massochist beliefs, then you'll have to throw Christianity under there too.
06-12-2009, 10:16 AM
#30
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
Jumping back in just for a quick note:
Red you are showing your ignorance here. A Christian who follows the example of Jesus and obeys his commandments, will be an exemplar of charitable living, humility, and general do-gooder-ness, as well as a strident critic of the religious errors of those around him. A muslim who follows Mohammed's example and obeys his commandments will be a terrorist with a 9 year-old "wife", seeking to destroy neighboring cities for profit. There are examples of people of every stripe, religious people included, that do not follow the guidelines they are supposed to. Drawing generalizations about religions by looking to those who do not follow the tenets of the religion, is silly at best.
Your understanding of the difference between local law for citizens and international law for irregular combatants is apparently similarly lacking.
$0.02
Red you are showing your ignorance here. A Christian who follows the example of Jesus and obeys his commandments, will be an exemplar of charitable living, humility, and general do-gooder-ness, as well as a strident critic of the religious errors of those around him. A muslim who follows Mohammed's example and obeys his commandments will be a terrorist with a 9 year-old "wife", seeking to destroy neighboring cities for profit. There are examples of people of every stripe, religious people included, that do not follow the guidelines they are supposed to. Drawing generalizations about religions by looking to those who do not follow the tenets of the religion, is silly at best.
Your understanding of the difference between local law for citizens and international law for irregular combatants is apparently similarly lacking.
$0.02