Is Bin laden entitled to be read his Miranda rights?
 

Holder: No need to read Miranda rights to bin Laden if captured – Afghanistan Crossroads - CNN.com Blogs

Attorney General Holder has stated that OBL would not be necessary read his Miranda Rights if he were taken alive.

do you agree with AG Holders' views?

I was under the impression that every man had the right to be read his Miranda Rights regardless of whether they'd confessed to any crime or not. It seems that OBL's guilt and implication in 911 is pretty clear, but if the Obama adminstration takes shortcuts like these, what makes it better than the Bush adminstration?

It seems his argument is that anything he says wouldn't matter so who cares if it's not admissable. He's probably right but... uh... why not just read him the Miranda warnings anyway? It's not like those 30 seconds are that big a hassle.

For it to matter one must first assume they will capture Bin Laden alive. I put the odds of that happening somewhere around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000:1.

its a possibility though, and thus the adminstration must make plans and provisions in case this scenario does occur.

I doubt he'd be taken alive, and im sure he'd be armed at all times in case he's in a tight spot. based on previous news articles, his henchmen have been instructed to kill him before the americans can get their hands on him. However, that goes against islamic principles of murder/suicide, so im not so sure on the accuracy of those reports.

Can you imagine what would happen if they catch him and the adminstration didnt know what to do next? After 9 years on the run, the adminstration knows exactly what they'd do with him. I just find it hard to see why they couldnt utter a few words. It's not like the final verdict will change if they do read him his rights

You overestimate the leadership's dedication to religious principles ;)

I suppose he needs no Miranda warnings if they don't intend to interrogate him.

So is basically everything else he and his ilk have done, I don't think that figures much in their decision making process.

Personally I don't think he qualifies for being mirandized because he's not being arrested as a civilian but rather as a war criminal. Iirc mirandizing people is only for when a civilian goes through the civilian justice system.

i think you're wrong. it factors into EVERY decision he makes. If you asked him the question, he'll tell you that everything he's done has been in accordance with islamic principles. every fatwa he's given is in accordance with islamic beliefs and tenants. He's justified the killing of innocent people based on his own warped ideals, but he'll give you a reason and fatwa to justify it.

Islam is quite clear on suicide. It not only denies you paradise and the virgins of paradise, but it inflicts shame on your family. So if he kills himself he doesnt go to heaven, and if his henchmen kill him they dont go to heaven because they cant justify killing him under islamic principles.

Oh lordy. If the circus that was the trial and execution of Saddam Hussein taught us ANYTHING it should have been that we need to do these things by the book.

A couple of questions come to mind:
1) Are the Miranda Rights a basic human right, or are these rights limited to citizens of the United States?
2) how many tax-dollars would be needed to train everyone in the active military to appropriately recite the Miranda rights?
3) What if he was captured by one of the allies of the US? Would they be required to read the same rights?
4) apply question 2 to foreign armies working with the US military.

I have no idea what the answers are to these questions, but I figure someone here will.

The OP source materials points out a report implying they are to be tried in civilian courts, not in military commissions.

I suppose this raises the question: is Al Qaeda a military/political/national entity, or is it a civilian entity?

If he is arrested on US soil then I'd say he has to be read his Miranda rights. If he is captured on the battle field then he needs to be handled according to the Geneva conventions requirements for prisoners of war.

ok, define battlefield.

if he's at home in his cave having biryani with chicken and he gets raided, is this considered a battlefield?

there are islamic principles of murder/suicide? really? :orly:

yeah...funnily enough there are many laws concerning murder/suicide.

it's quite extensive. i could go into the nitty gritty details if you wish, but the laws are extrapolated from the Quran and hadith. Islamic jurispudence has been evolving for 1400 years.

The Supreme Court did not rule that if military forces detain someone, they are required to inform them of Miranda Rights. The ruling in it's specifics applied to people inside the US and with police officers specially trained in that scenario.

That being said, if he stands trial in the US he should be read his rights.

it's interesting as a jurisdiction question really, yes? and i suppose as a lingering problem brought about by the lack of clear definition of whether a "war on terror" or ghosts is really a military or police matter.
if a cop arrested bin laden say while he was bowling in cleveland for o i dunno something stupid of course he would be treated as anyone else who was arrested for something stupid while bowling.
if he was caught by a military operation, i suppose that would complicate things.

personally i would not be surprised if there's been no live bin laden for some time, but i don't know that so maybe there is one.
but if there is one, i doubt very seriously that he would not meet with some horrible fate well before the miranda question was raised.
because i think the last possible thing the united states needs or wants is a trial for osama bin laden. way too much in the way of embarrassing potentials. not worth the risk to the national security theater state.

RB, you've got to remember that OBL probably doesnt want his rights read either. He'd rather go out in a blaze of glory.

Followers would remember his legacy, stories would be told of his heroics, he'll meet his creator and get his reward for his martydom and sacrifice... you think he'd rather be holed up in a cell awaiting his fate while politicians squabbled over Miranda rights, why and where the trial would be held and everything else in between?

Yeah I don't see OBL being taken alive. His version of the teaching of Qur'an don't exactly mesh from what I understand. He does what many extremists from many religions do, they take the teachings and twist them to their own means. The religious right does it in the US.

If his own men don't take him out he likely would himself.

As for teaching military member to read a card with the Maranda rights on it, I'm pretty sure that's easily done. If you can learn the 10 general orders in boot you can be taught to read a card that states-

But, if the situation arises, really I'd prefer they just shoot him in the head and bury his body in a an unmarked grave. No sense making him a martyr. He's really not worth any more effort then that... just my personal opinion.

Anywhere within a country that the US is at war with or has the permission to use their military in that country.

where does that leave the western version of justice if you kill him without a trial...not much better than the terrorists themselves.

I thought we were on a higher moral standard when it came to these Justice.

i thought i'd post a speech Obama gave to the Iranian people on the occasion of the Iranian New Year less than a month ago..

i do hope it upholds this promise it made, but i wont hold my breath

---------- Post added at 03:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 AM ----------

is that the US military definition? or is that your definition?

I dunno, I think a part of me believes that if a situation arises where bin Laden were potentially captured that maybe they would permit it if it were unavoidable. Wouldn't it be a kind of powerful martyrdom to be executed by the "infidel" Americans?

The Americans would execute him, right?

I don't disagree with you. My comment comes from a more emotional state then a rational one. I put OBL on a scale reserved for few, like Hitler.

Honestly, as I have stated on here before, I'm no advocate of the death penalty. IMO, killing people is wrong. With people like OBL I find it hard to stick to that principle. The dude seems to be pure evil.

So if all this is true what's up with suicide bombers or people who fly large jet liners filled with innocent people into skyscrapers etc.? If it's so against Islamic principles it seems there would be a lot less of these types of Islamic wacko suicidal types.

And since you appear to be some sort of professional expert on Islam just a few more questions. If every single one of these fine male suicidal wackos get a whole bunch of virgins when they get to heaven what does Allah give the female suicidal wackos? Do they get men that will last all night, an unlimited supply of electricity for their toys or diamonds as big as houses or ???? And after the men have sex with the specified number of virgins and none of them are virgins any longer what's next?

I still think there is more than meets the eye with the whole OBL dude and everything that's been attributed to him.

Meh, I'm usually a supporter of the death penalty... but for that dude I say put him in any state prison and let the prisoners make his life a living hell.

According to a few Imams they are either reunited with their dead husbands (most become SB's only after a husbands death), or they live in eternity with their husbands who are guaranteed to stay loyal to them.

Yeah... not really fair is it?

In regards to your other posts... the Haditha gets.... complicated. We could debate for days on the specifics of many quotes, but that's another thread all together.

I think you need to go read post #8 before responding with a condescending attitude. Im usually quite tolerant and very accepting of people who genuinely want to learn something about the religion i practice. everybody here is well aware of this, and ive always been accomodating of peoples requests, queries and questions. In fact, ive always welcomed it in the spirit of good will. But If all you have is what you/ve shown above, you can forget it, go find out on your own. In fact your post is irrelevant to the whole thread and answers no questions and poses no issues relevant to the topic at hand..in fact it borders on trolling. Please stick to the topic or get out of this thread.

---------- Post added at 02:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:04 AM ----------

depends on the jurists that you're talking about, but yes there are differing opinions amongst the schools of thought. some state that they get the equivelant as their male counterparts, others say they get their husbands in the afterlife. since the topic is open for interpretation, you'll find a different range of opinions. Just a note that 'hoor el ein' as they are referred to in the Quran are not assigned a particular sex. So a 'Hoori' is not necessarily female hence the different interpretation.

You sure are trying to parse words here a lot. Just look at the gist of what I am saying. I'm not a legal expert and I'm not writing my posts in legalese.

not being analytic at all. the reason i ask is if he's caught in south waziristan since he's thought to be there, would your definition of 'battlefield' hold up since pakistan is not a country the US is fighting in the War on Terror.

the pakistanis have been quite unhappy everytime the americans go in there to sweep things up. so if they didnt have proper authorisation to go in there when they catch him, how is he treated?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Concur.

---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------


That makes a lot of sense too, you should be a lawyer or something.

I was genuinely curious and I apologize if it came across as condescending because it wasn't meant to be.

Thanks Seaver for answering at least a couple of my questions.

Perhaps I'm narrowing the question too much, but I think you guys are missing something. Basically Holder has said, "We do not need anything he might reveal during interrogation to convict him." Think about that - they're going to theoretically convict him on other evidence. The police don't HAVE to Mirandize you when they arrest you if they're not going to question you with the intent of using any corroboration in court.

This all boils down to what evidence they're going to use in court. As I read it, Holder is implying that they have a completely airtight case against bin Laden and simply await his presence in a courtroom. The DoJ feels that the evidence-gathering stage is over.

That makes sense, though I never arrested anyone without reading them their rights. But that's probably an agency policy and not law.

The right to not self-incriminate is only part of the Miranda warnings. If he's going to be tried in US courts, he also has the right to be notified about his rights to legal counsel.

Seriously. If we ever do arrest the guy, it is our crowning moment to demonstrate the power of a nation of law over a rabble of lawlessness. His arrest, detention, trial, and punishment HAS to be 100% by the book, or we lose ANY sort of moral high ground in the war on terror.

The US Military wasn't in the ruling for the Miranda Rights. If the military arrest him and don't read the rights they're still 100% by the book.

As I said... read the rights for the PR purpose but if it's not done I certainly won't have a problem with it.

If he's read his rights before the first non-military interrogation, I'd say that passes the smell test. But that's me.

This is a tough question, here's all my knee-jerks:

If we are arresting him in order to "bring him to justice" in a court system, I suppose it is necessary to jump through the hoop.

It's my personal belief that OBL believes that he is at war with the US. In that case, it seems we should treat him under the rules of war. I don't believe they require Miranda.

As far as Geneva, I have read it a couple of times and my impression is that it only applies to people who identify with a country, fly the flag of that country, and wear a uniform. One would have a difficult time saying a loosely banded, multi-national, geographically disbursed band of thugs meets that standard.

It's admirable that we strive to extend our standards and rights to all people, but I believe one receives US Constitutional rights only when one is on US soil.

Miranda would only protect the person after arrest anyway. Everything they did or said prior would still be admissible.

Honestly, I'd prefer he perish during a military operation. I can't foresee any improvement of the US in the world view coming from the absolute circus an OBL trial would become. If the previous terror trials are any example of what's to come, the OBL trial would more or less be the most expensive Jerry Springer episode ever made.

In the spirit of compromise, couldn't we just read OBL his Carmen Miranda rights?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3602/...f1358bed_o.jpg