Three Way News

Your Source. For everything. Really.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Miranda rights for terrorists

Duncan Hunter (R-CA) is an idiot:

"We won't lower our standards. We will always treat detainees humanely, but we also cannot be naive, either," [Hunter] said. His broadside came a day after the Bush administration said such detainees are protected by the Geneva Conventions.
... "It may not be practical on the battlefield to read the enemy the Miranda warnings," Mr. Hunter said.

All we need to do is engrave Miranda warnings on all our ordnance. That should satisfy the jack-booted, black-robed, terrorist-loving Supreme Court. And if not, we can always hang them...the justices I mean. Clearly them.

Seriously, I don't know how to best respond to such a patently ridiculous argument. I suspect the best approach to explain carefully and firmly that courts have already considered such important matters and that, as a matter of law, no one is entitled to receive a Miranda warning until the person is taken into custody. Police in the U.S. aren't entitled to shout Miranda warnings during a gun battle. Why would foreign fighters be entitled to such lunatic protections?

2 Comments:

What does Miranda have to do with the Geneva Convention?

By Anonymous, at 8:25 AM

TP asked me something similar in an email. What Hunter is suggesting makes absolutely no sense, that was the point I was trying to make.

I don't know what the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires vis-a-vis notice of rights. But I guarantee it doesn't require giving a Miranda style warnign to someone pointing an AK-47 at you.

By Hammer, at 8:31 AM