Miranda Rights for Terrorists?!?!

[Guardian]

Please, forward this email to help inform our beloved United States Military men and women, their families, and the good citizens of America of the treatment they are receiving from the, so-called, "Commander in Chief". The following post is a preview of things to come. Obama is trying to see that our military service men and women be required to give Miranda Rights to captured enemy combatants on the battlefield.

Enemy combatant : *someone who, without uniform, comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property. They are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war, subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

All people are ensured human rights, and there are even rights specifically for enemy combatants through the Geneva Convention, but United States citizen rights are for United States citizens. Requiring the US Military to give Miranda Rights on the battlefield, Obama is further endangering our soldiers and military personnel, because by doing do so, the soldiers on the battlefield will have to meet the following requirements for Miranda Rights to apply:
*The Miranda rule applies to the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings that is the product of custodial police interrogation.[4] Therefore, for Miranda to apply six factors must be present: (1) evidence must have been gathered (2) the evidence must be testimonial[5] (3) the evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody[6] (4) the evidence must have been the product of interrogation [7](5) the interrogation must have been conducted by state-agents[8] and (6) the evidence must be offered by the state during a criminal prosecution. [9] (* information obtained from wikipedia.org )

** Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He fears the Obama administration could adopt a policy that could seriously hinder soldiers on the battlefield.

"It creates an absurd situation because then we're facing the prospect of people being arrested on the battlefield and read their Miranda rights. And then people who are fighting wars -- soldiers -- will have to decide whether or not they can take action against the enemy or whether they will have to let them go because they won't be able to prove their case against him in a civilian court," he explains. "So it creates a ridiculous situation that will ultimately lead to military defeat."


(**article quoted from onenewsnow.com)


According to Obama, United States citizen's rights and freedoms apply to all NON-citizens...including terrorists/ enemy combatants. Obama's agenda and endangernment of US soldiers must be stopped! Please, forward this message and help raise awareness.

Guardian

[JOSEPH F. YATES]

OUR SOLDIERS THAT DIED ON NORMANDY BEACH AND IWO JIMA WOULD HAVE ROLLED OVER IN THEIR GRAVES. WHY ALL THESE MEN DIED TO TURN THIS OVER TO AN ORGANIZATION OF CORRUPT LIBERAL PUKE THAT DON`T EVEN EXCUSE THEMSELVES FOR DOLING OUR CHILDRENS `FUTURE TO WHO KNOWS WHO. IT`S ACTUALLY MORE DANGEROUS HER THAN ON THE BATTLEFIELDS.

[GARY POLING]

We should have our congress pass a law that says NO PERSON SHALL HOLD ANY OFFICE OR JOB IN THE USA GOVERNMENT UNLESS THEY HAVE SERVED HONRABLY IN A BRANCH OF THE USA MILIITARY FOR AT LEAST FOUR YEARS.. G. Poling

[Michael D. Giles]

Well, this is just silly. The President is an EXECUTIVE; he oversees many departments. You believe to hold a job in government, he must have served (honorably, a distinction George W. Bush would not have met) in the Military? By that logic, since POTUS is in charge of the Dept. of Agriculture, he must have been a farmer for 4 years? He's in charge of the DOT, so he must have been a truck driver for the same amount of time?
Secondly, Congress CAN NOT simply "pass a law" changing the requirements for President. It is in the CONSTITUTION. It would require a Constitutional Amendment. If they could pass such a law, are you aware of how dangerous that would be? Remember, the House & Senate are currently held by a Democratic majority. How would you feel if they, for example, passed a law saying to be POTUS you must be "a left-handed, half-black, registered Democrat from Hawaii?"

We have a military that is commanded by civilians. It has always been that way; our first prez had to resign as General of the Armies BEFORE he could serve as CIC.

Oh, BTW, one of the worst presidents we've ever had, Jimmy Carter, served honorably for more than 4 years. Do you want him back?

[Chastity]

So, in other words, you only want someone who "knows how to fight" to be able to run for office in this country? Aside from the sexual discrimination issues this suggestion would lead to (I am sure you are aware that gays and lesbians are not "knowingly" allowed to serve), you are asserting that only individuals who know how to fight and have been involved in violent situations are fit to run a democratic and free society? Seems slightly off kilter, don't you think? Where do the policy analysis skills come in? And what about a strong understanding of law, economics and foreign affairs...let alone anger management skills, which are likely hard to come by in longstanding military personnel. It is much easier to wage war than it is to declare peace.

[Guardian]

Chastity... We are NOT a democratic society. Despite what you might have been taught in your liberal public schools where indoctrination is the name of the political game, the United States is a Republic. There are only 2 kinds of government in the world. They are an "oligarchy" which includes all of the known forms such as monarchy (because even a king or queen has their court), fascism, socialism, communism, nazism, and now the one our country currently faces... progressive or liberalism. The other form of government is a republic and that is what makes America so special and sets us a part from the rest of the world. We are governed by the rule of law, not by our "leaders".

Our forefathers knew what was ahead for our country... " Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide. " John Adams

All democracies, from the beginning of time, have lead to an oligarchy, a handful of people ruling over many. The key word there is "ruling". The people will no longer have a say. The people will have voted away their very right to vote in a democracy. That is why our founding fathers created a republic and tried to safeguard us against those forms of government that lead to an oligarchy. But history appears to be repeating itself. We are now seeing the same things happening in our country as they did in Rome. The Roman Republic by voting themselves bread and circuses (entitlement programs and handouts) lost their republic and became an oligarchy ruled by Ceasar and his senate. These are historical facts.

I, for one, do not want my fate determined by the "majority" (democratic). And I'm not sure why anyone else would either, including gays / lesbians, etc. Those people cannot get married because of democratic rule. The majority voted no.

I prefer to live by the rule of law (a republic) and make my own choices, not have them decided for me by a majority.

Hope I helped clear some misconceptions up for you about our republic. Feel free to stop by anytime.

All my best~ Guardian