ErikLaurence wrote: mikeandgerry wrote:
It is admissible in court against others. It is just not admissible in court against the person who gave the testimony.
Let's say you and I were planning a crime, I get caught and do not get mirandized. I spill the whole story to the authorities. They can use my information to convict YOU, they just can't use it to convict ME. Miranda is about SELF incrimination. It only taints the information insofar as it pertains to prosecuting the person who gave it
Yes, Erik, I understand Miranda
, thank you.
Not if you stand by this you don't
mikeandgerry wrote: All of the incriminating interogation data collected over the years from the Gitmo detainees will be useless in court. Many of the detainees will go free.
Sorry Erik, I should have used the term "self-incriminating" which is what I intended. Please accept my most humble apology.
Nonetheless, I understand Miranda
. You don't understand the problem. Try to focus next time on the issue, OK?
Here it is one more time for you, Mr. Nitpicker-in-chief:
What the left doesn't understand is that none of these men should go free and none of these men deserve Miranda or any other rights afforded people in this country. They were caught on the battlefield. They were in military detention as enemy combatants. They should be held until Al qaeda is no longer a threat. In other words....until the war with them is over.
POW's don't get Miranda. The Harvard morons in the Obama administration are trying to trivialize the prosecution of Al-qaeda for political purposes. They want to consider the combants criminals and give them the same rights as citizens. It's only purpose is to counter the Bush administration.
Playing politics with national security like the left wingers are doing now is the crime.
What subject do you want to change to now, Erik? Spelling, punctuation, grammar?