Richard S. wrote:
ErikLaurence wrote:If you have enough evidence to convict prior to arrest then Miranda is unnecessary upon capture.
Correct but I believe his point is that Holder is setting up a precedent to try these individuals here. In the future where the evidence may not be so clear cut it could jeopardize their prosecution and/or military interrogation.
In other words you're putting military interrogators in a position to give these prisoners all the rights of a US citizen or jeopardize their prosecution.
Lindsay Graham is right about one thing here. This is all new law.
The larger issue here is you're calling this a war. People captured on the battlefield in a war are POWs You don't get to try POWs. You get to detain them until the end of hostilities and then you have to let them go. We can't prosecute them under the Geneva conventions for war crimes because frankly strictly speaking we've been violating the Geneva conventions.
The Bush administration chose to invent a whole new set of laws and a new venue.
The Obama administration believes they can be convicted in the existing framework of federal law.
The previous administration had years to try to get their ducks in a row and try these people in their new venue. They failed to do so. Inventing a whole new set of laws and a new venue is not simple stuff. Especially in the absence of a constitutional mandate to so.