Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt
The Bible is pretty clear on where it stands in regards to homosexuality and sex outside of marriage, though it would seem there is no shortage of Christian religious leaders willing to throw a stiff one in little Johnny.
|
Bible's pretty clear on having multiple wives, stoning to death non virgin wives and people who eat shell fish too. Don't see the church getting up in arms over these things either.
People read religious texts and take what they want and rationalize away what they don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt
Back to the OP: Despite my personal feelings towards Bin Laden, I don't see any harm in reminding him of his right to remain silent in the unlikely event of his capture. Then again, I don't see what good it would do. Whether he talks freely or not, he's still fucked.
|
Concur.
---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
FWIW, I think roachboy hit the nub of the matter: it's a matter of definitions. If he's picked up in a law enforcement context (paradigm: police arrest him in the territory of the US), then of course he gets read his rights. I can't imagine any scenario under which that wouldn't be true. OTOH, if he is picked up in a military context (paradigm: raid by US forces overseas capture him in a firefight), then the concept of Miranda should be not applicable. The current conflict is a bit of a challenge definitionally because the "enemy" isn't a state with an army, so it's not a perfect fit with what we usually think of as a military sitaution. The legal structures we have don't account for nonstate militaries very well.
|
That makes a lot of sense too, you should be a lawyer or something.