• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Stupid

Texan

Well-known member
Obama gives terrorists 'right to remain silent'
FBI ordered to read Miranda warning to U.S. enemies
Posted: June 10, 2009
8:40 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


The Obama Administration has ordered the FBI and CIA to inform terrorists overseas that they "have the right to remain silent" before probing them for information to save American lives.

According to Weekly Standard report by Stephen F. Hayes, a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee has revealed that "the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan."



http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100731
 

Mike

Well-known member
Giving potential war criminals the same Constitutional rights as is afforded U.S. citizens, even though they have never stepped on U.S. soil is assinine to the highest degree.

We are being diminished to be the laughing stock of the world.

I spose next when a U.S. soldier comes across the enemy on the battlefield, he must read the rights to him before he shoots?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
POLICE work/action- requires the following of the rules of law- such as Miranda- that has been the rule of law since Eisenhower appointee Chief Justice Earl Warrens court handed down the decision 43 years ago....

Rand Study: 'War on Terror' Not Working

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:59 AM

WASHINGTON — The United States should shift strategy against Al-Qaeda from the current heavy reliance on military force to more effective use of police and intelligence work, a study released Tuesday concluded.

The study by the RAND Corporation, a think tank that often does work for the US military, also urged the United States to drop the "war on terror" label.

"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism," said Seth Jones, lead author of the study.

The US military has pressed in recent weeks for more troops to combat an intensifying Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan, but the RAND study recommends only "a light military footprint or none at all."

The study examined how terrorist groups since 1968 have ended, and found that only seven percent were defeated militarily.

Most were neutralized either through political settlements (43 percent), or through the use of police and intelligence forces (40 percent) to disrupt and capture or kill leaders.

"Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory," the report said.

"This has significant implications for dealing with Al-Qaeda and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-September 11 counterterrorism strategy," it said.

It argued that a US strategy centered primarily on the use of military force has not worked, pointing to al-Qaeda's resurgence along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border nearly seven years after the September 11 attacks.

Policing and intelligence "should be the backbone of US efforts," it said. Police and intelligence agencies were better suited for penetrating terrorist groups and tracking down terrorist leaders, it said.

"Second, military force, though not necessarily US soldiers, may be a necessary instrument when al-Qaeda is involved in an insurgency," it said.

"Local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate than the United States has, and they have a better understanding of the operating environment, even if they need to develop the capacity to deal with insurgent groups over the long run," it said.

While the US military can play a critical role in building up the capacity of local forces, it should "generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment," the study said.

— AFP
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/war_on_terror/2008/07/30/117517.html
 

jigs

Well-known member
I disagree OT, terrorist need no rights, just an express lane to allah....and I would be more than happy to punch that ticket
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
POLICE work/action- requires the following of the rules of law- such as Miranda- that has been the rule of law since Eisenhower appointee Chief Justice Earl Warrens court handed down the decision 43 years ago....

Rand Study: 'War on Terror' Not Working

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:59 AM

WASHINGTON — The United States should shift strategy against Al-Qaeda from the current heavy reliance on military force to more effective use of police and intelligence work, a study released Tuesday concluded.

The study by the RAND Corporation, a think tank that often does work for the US military, also urged the United States to drop the "war on terror" label.

"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism," said Seth Jones, lead author of the study.

The US military has pressed in recent weeks for more troops to combat an intensifying Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan, but the RAND study recommends only "a light military footprint or none at all."

The study examined how terrorist groups since 1968 have ended, and found that only seven percent were defeated militarily.

Most were neutralized either through political settlements (43 percent), or through the use of police and intelligence forces (40 percent) to disrupt and capture or kill leaders.

"Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory," the report said.

"This has significant implications for dealing with Al-Qaeda and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-September 11 counterterrorism strategy," it said.

It argued that a US strategy centered primarily on the use of military force has not worked, pointing to al-Qaeda's resurgence along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border nearly seven years after the September 11 attacks.

Policing and intelligence "should be the backbone of US efforts," it said. Police and intelligence agencies were better suited for penetrating terrorist groups and tracking down terrorist leaders, it said.

"Second, military force, though not necessarily US soldiers, may be a necessary instrument when al-Qaeda is involved in an insurgency," it said.

"Local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate than the United States has, and they have a better understanding of the operating environment, even if they need to develop the capacity to deal with insurgent groups over the long run," it said.

While the US military can play a critical role in building up the capacity of local forces, it should "generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment," the study said.

— AFP
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/war_on_terror/2008/07/30/117517.html

what you are now saying we should do has already failed once,,..

it didn't wor so well with Zacarias Moussaoui

Some agents worried that his flight training had violent intentions, so the Minnesota bureau tried to get permission (sending over 70 emails in a week) to search his laptop, but they were turned down.[16] FBI agent Coleen Rowley made an explicit request for permission to search Moussaoui's personal rooms. This request was first denied by her superior, Deputy General Counsel Marion "Spike" Bowman, and later rejected based upon FISA regulations (amended after 9/11 by the USA Patriot Act). Several further search attempts similarly failed.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
POLICE work/action- requires the following of the rules of law- such as Miranda- that has been the rule of law since Eisenhower appointee Chief Justice Earl Warrens court handed down the decision 43 years ago....

Rand Study: 'War on Terror' Not Working

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:59 AM

WASHINGTON — The United States should shift strategy against Al-Qaeda from the current heavy reliance on military force to more effective use of police and intelligence work, a study released Tuesday concluded.

The study by the RAND Corporation, a think tank that often does work for the US military, also urged the United States to drop the "war on terror" label.

"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism," said Seth Jones, lead author of the study.

The US military has pressed in recent weeks for more troops to combat an intensifying Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan, but the RAND study recommends only "a light military footprint or none at all."

The study examined how terrorist groups since 1968 have ended, and found that only seven percent were defeated militarily.

Most were neutralized either through political settlements (43 percent), or through the use of police and intelligence forces (40 percent) to disrupt and capture or kill leaders.

"Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory," the report said.

"This has significant implications for dealing with Al-Qaeda and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-September 11 counterterrorism strategy," it said.

It argued that a US strategy centered primarily on the use of military force has not worked, pointing to al-Qaeda's resurgence along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border nearly seven years after the September 11 attacks.

Policing and intelligence "should be the backbone of US efforts," it said. Police and intelligence agencies were better suited for penetrating terrorist groups and tracking down terrorist leaders, it said.

"Second, military force, though not necessarily US soldiers, may be a necessary instrument when al-Qaeda is involved in an insurgency," it said.

"Local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate than the United States has, and they have a better understanding of the operating environment, even if they need to develop the capacity to deal with insurgent groups over the long run," it said.

While the US military can play a critical role in building up the capacity of local forces, it should "generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment," the study said.

— AFP
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/war_on_terror/2008/07/30/117517.html

what you are now saying we should do has already failed once,,..

it didn't wor so well with Zacarias Moussaoui

Some agents worried that his flight training had violent intentions, so the Minnesota bureau tried to get permission (sending over 70 emails in a week) to search his laptop, but they were turned down.[16] FBI agent Coleen Rowley made an explicit request for permission to search Moussaoui's personal rooms. This request was first denied by her superior, Deputy General Counsel Marion "Spike" Bowman, and later rejected based upon FISA regulations (amended after 9/11 by the USA Patriot Act). Several further search attempts similarly failed.

Then why have a rule of law- or a Constitution if the police/military/administration/Judges are going to be allowed to pick and choose who they should follow it on- and who not...... :???:

So Steve- if some Agents get worried about your "suspicious" actions- should they be allowed to search your house, curtilage, and computer files without a warrant :???:

I'll bet you scream bloody murder.... :???:

And Abraham drew near and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.

“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
~William Blackstone

Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
Louis D. Brandeis

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.

Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Peace and justice are two sides of the same coin.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
POLICE work/action- requires the following of the rules of law- such as Miranda- that has been the rule of law since Eisenhower appointee Chief Justice Earl Warrens court handed down the decision 43 years ago....

what you are now saying we should do has already failed once,,..

it didn't wor so well with Zacarias Moussaoui

Some agents worried that his flight training had violent intentions, so the Minnesota bureau tried to get permission (sending over 70 emails in a week) to search his laptop, but they were turned down.[16] FBI agent Coleen Rowley made an explicit request for permission to search Moussaoui's personal rooms. This request was first denied by her superior, Deputy General Counsel Marion "Spike" Bowman, and later rejected based upon FISA regulations (amended after 9/11 by the USA Patriot Act). Several further search attempts similarly failed.

Then why have a rule of law- or a Constitution if the police/military/administration/Judges are going to be allowed to pick and choose who they should follow it on- and who not...... :???:

So Steve- if some Agents get worried about your "suspicious" actions- should they be allowed to search your house, curtilage, and computer files without a warrant :???:

I'll bet you scream bloody murder.... :???:

And Abraham drew near and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.

“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
~William Blackstone

Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
Louis D. Brandeis

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.

Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Peace and justice are two sides of the same coin.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
The Constitution and the 'rule of law' it represents pertains to USA CITIZENS...not citizens of the world.

...the RAND study recommends only "a light military footprint or none at all."
Worthless report!!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."

You post this while constantly defending Obama for breaking the law......
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
I think by my last post I must be kinda agreeing with Texan. :? Ekk!

What happened to the days of thinking he was off his rocker???? :D
 

Texan

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
I think by my last post I must be kinda agreeing with Texan. :? Ekk!

What happened to the days of thinking he was off his rocker???? :D
It's not gonna work, CattleArmy. I know how you operate. :x While you appear to be trying to cozy up to ME....



















....I know as soon as my back is turned you'll be trying to nail my old lady. :lol:
 

Cal

Well-known member
Maybe someone on the left can explain how this doesn't put US soldiers lives at risk, while elevating the status of terrorists and enemy combatants.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The group thats been advising the US military on strategy since WWII is calling for the same direction....


Rand Study: 'War on Terror' Not Working

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:59 AM

WASHINGTON — The United States should shift strategy against Al-Qaeda from the current heavy reliance on military force to more effective use of police and intelligence work, a study released Tuesday concluded.

The study by the RAND Corporation, a think tank that often does work for the US military, also urged the United States to drop the "war on terror" label.

"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism," said Seth Jones, lead author of the study.

The US military has pressed in recent weeks for more troops to combat an intensifying Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan, but the RAND study recommends only "a light military footprint or none at all."

The study examined how terrorist groups since 1968 have ended, and found that only seven percent were defeated militarily.

Most were neutralized either through political settlements (43 percent), or through the use of police and intelligence forces (40 percent) to disrupt and capture or kill leaders.

"Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory," the report said.

"This has significant implications for dealing with Al-Qaeda and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-September 11 counterterrorism strategy," it said.

It argued that a US strategy centered primarily on the use of military force has not worked, pointing to al-Qaeda's resurgence along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border nearly seven years after the September 11 attacks.

Policing and intelligence "should be the backbone of US efforts," it said. Police and intelligence agencies were better suited for penetrating terrorist groups and tracking down terrorist leaders, it said.

"Second, military force, though not necessarily US soldiers, may be a necessary instrument when al-Qaeda is involved in an insurgency," it said.

"Local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate than the United States has, and they have a better understanding of the operating environment, even if they need to develop the capacity to deal with insurgent groups over the long run," it said.

While the US military can play a critical role in building up the capacity of local forces, it should "generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment," the study said.

— AFP
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/war_on_terror/2008/07/30/117517.html
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
Texan said:
CattleArmy said:
I think by my last post I must be kinda agreeing with Texan. :? Ekk!

What happened to the days of thinking he was off his rocker???? :D
It's not gonna work, CattleArmy. I know how you operate. :x While you appear to be trying to cozy up to ME....



















....I know as soon as my back is turned you'll be trying to nail my old lady. :lol:

Worried or Jealous? :) :???:
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
Texan said:
CattleArmy said:
I think by my last post I must be kinda agreeing with Texan. :? Ekk!

What happened to the days of thinking he was off his rocker???? :D
It's not gonna work, CattleArmy. I know how you operate. :x While you appear to be trying to cozy up to ME....



















....I know as soon as my back is turned you'll be trying to nail my old lady. :lol:

Worried or Jealous? :) :???:
Excited.... :wink:
 
Top