They aren't newly minted US Citizens, they merely fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. and with that automatically comes the rights afforded by the Constitution. If you have a problem with this, take it up with the framers of the Constitution.
We only have to Mirandize them if we are interrogating them to gain evidence to be used against them in a criminal prosecution. Many people misunderstand the Miranda warning laws because their knowledge of law comes from serialized T.V. There would be nothing illegal or improper about interrogating a detainee about information they may have in relation to other terrorists, plots, etc. and only Mirandizing them once we switch to the subject of their personal role and culpability in criminal terrorism.
Given the broad scope of the "material aid to terrorism" charge, we can utilize an abundance of evidence beyond a confession to successfully prosecute someone for terrorism. If they're captured on a battlefield engaged against U.S. troops or have documented financial or material ties to terrorism, that alone is sufficient, a confession unnecessary, and in that case would never need to Mirandize them at all. The Miranda warning applies only to self-incriminating evidence gathered during interrogation.
This is a complete non sequitir. They're not American citizens just because the Constitution applies to them. Capturing someone in a foreign country engaged in hostility against us is absolutely the right and role of the military.
Our war was against the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan, both ended swiftly. We are now essentially an occupying force policing the nation - attempting to maintain order, capture or kill terrorists, establish government. This is by no means a traditional "war" any longer.
Not by the left. The left by definition is opposed to offensive foreign wars. What is true, disheartening, pathetic and has been revealed since Obama took office and is evident in this thread, is that many partisan democrats were only paying lip service to opposing the war in order to bash Bush. If you opposed a policy under Bush you now support under Obama, you're a dishonest hypocrite, plain and simple.
The left has by no means been silent on the wars, and every major anti-war organization active during the Bush era remains active today (I know because I'm a part of many of them). Protests continue, strong opposition remains. You're right about the press though, because the picture painted by the corporate media of Obama is that he's not a hawk despite his policies, anti-war demonstrators and advocates don't get half the press coverage they did under Bush.
They are still active and engaged, but while they were marginalized for most of the Bush years and only gained some attention once his popularity declined across the board, they are almost totally marginalized now.
Also, the insincere democrats who pretended to be anti-war have left the movement, so their numbers are smaller but more dedicated.
Last edited:
