Did the terrorist at Gitmo have the right to remain silent
When you look at what the Supreme Court has done for enemy combatants you have to ask will they also apply Miranda rights to them too. In other words before we asked them about more terrorist attacks did we have to tell them they did not have to answer? This is not just an academic question.
It is my belief that we did not and should not give terrorist Fifth Amendment rights, but if the Court says we must, then under one of their other egrigous rules, all of the terrorist will have to be released because all of the evidence we have gotten from them is inadmissable. If that is the case then the five justices responsible for this decision have turned the Constitution into a suicide pact for the benefit of people who want to over throw it.
How do they expect to avoid this conclusion when they claim judicial jurisdiction of enemy combatants during a war? I do not think they can and remain logically consistent. About the only hope for avoiding this results is if they continue to defy logic in their future decisions in these cases.
Perhaps they just wanted to see the administration and the Congress jump though hoops to reach the same place they would have been without this decision, but that judicial ego trip will be very costly to our war effort and to common sense and respect for the judiciary. If they do intend to give full constitutional rights to enemy terrorist we need to find out now so we can amend the suicide pact most rikki-tick.
See also this editorial at Nationa Review Online.
It is my belief that we did not and should not give terrorist Fifth Amendment rights, but if the Court says we must, then under one of their other egrigous rules, all of the terrorist will have to be released because all of the evidence we have gotten from them is inadmissable. If that is the case then the five justices responsible for this decision have turned the Constitution into a suicide pact for the benefit of people who want to over throw it.
How do they expect to avoid this conclusion when they claim judicial jurisdiction of enemy combatants during a war? I do not think they can and remain logically consistent. About the only hope for avoiding this results is if they continue to defy logic in their future decisions in these cases.
Perhaps they just wanted to see the administration and the Congress jump though hoops to reach the same place they would have been without this decision, but that judicial ego trip will be very costly to our war effort and to common sense and respect for the judiciary. If they do intend to give full constitutional rights to enemy terrorist we need to find out now so we can amend the suicide pact most rikki-tick.
See also this editorial at Nationa Review Online.
The Supreme Court’s decision to impose by judicial fiat a treaty that no politically accountable official would dare propose — a one-sided compact wherein the United States gives elevated due process to al Qaeda’s terrorists while they continue slaughtering civilians and torturing their captives to death — is an abomination.Read it all.
...
Comments
Post a Comment