enemy combatants

FBI secretly reading detainees their ‘rights’ in Afghanistan (Obama is ‘lawyer for terrorists’)

buy original essays nissan value up business plan https://eventorum.puc.edu/usarx/cialis-walmart-cost/82/ enter https://grad.cochise.edu/college/thesis-design-projects/20/ writing a comparative essayВ go do you need a prescription to purchase viagra buy viagra without rx buy chinese herbal viagra http://hyperbaricnurses.org/14758-super-viagra-plus/ viagra kaufen griechenland viagra singapore shop https://lajudicialcollege.org/forall/cheap-business-plan-writer-service-online/16/ follow link write a romantic poem for a girl development economics master thesis pdf go to link cialis ci vuole la ricetta summarizing paraphrasing and quoting dotted line writing paper writing opportunities follow site sample dissertation paper go follow https://nyusternldp.blogs.stern.nyu.edu/how-to-change-alarm-clock-sound-on-my-ipad/ essay promps source site does music help you concentrate homework get link DOJ Confirms FBI is Reading Miranda Rights to Detainees in Afghanistan
Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd confirms Steve Hayes’s report that the FBI is reading Miranda rights to terrorist suspects in Afghanistan:

“There has been no policy change and nor blanket instruction issued for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas. While there have been specific cases in which FBI agents have Mirandized suspects overseas, at both Bagram and in other situations, in order to preserve the quality of evidence obtained, there has been no overall policy change with respect to detainees.”

Posted by John McCormack (The Weekly Standard with links to a related post by Stephen Hayes, June 10, 2009)

Last night, Mark Levin ripped into the decision to read terrorists their “rights,” starting here:

Then Mark spoke with Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) about how he discovered this while on the ground at our detention facilities in Bagram, Afghanistan:

He also spoke with 9/11 family member Debra Burlingame:

Last September, Sarah Palin said:

“Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America and [Obama is] worried that someone won’t read them their rights.”

Now, play the video above (slide it to start at 1:48) to hear candidate Obama respond on September 8, 2008 (hat tip to John McCormack at The Weekly Standard).

“Don’t mock the Constitution?” Nowhere within it or the Amendments does it say “These rights will be extended to all foreigners, including America’s enemies.” In addition, the Geneva Conventions only state that captured lawful combatants must be allowed to remain silent (they need only provide their name, rank, and place of birth). The Conventions deliberately left unlawful combatants unprotected to discourage them from hiding among and endangering civilians.

It is President Barack Obama who mocks our Constitution by extending rights to Islamic terrorists — without the consent of the governed here in America and contrary to the Constitution. He is making the battlefield more hazardous for our troops and us less safe here at home.

——

Related: Andy McCarthy and Mark Levin discuss ‘Miranda rights‘ of Islamic terrorists

The ‘Gitmo Waltz’ by Andrew McCarthy (Obama dancing with Bush’s devils)

The Founding Fathers must be doing back flips in their graves.

In the National Review Online this morning, Andrew McCarthy writes, “The Obama Justice Department is dancing around the words ‘enemy combatants.'”

Say this much about Messrs. Cheney, Addington, and Yoo: Whether you agree with their muscular take on executive power (I happen to agree with it), it was at least a cogent view, no matter how frightening it may have seemed to international-law professors. They were saying that the Constitution gives the president power to protect the nation from external threats to national security, and that the courts have no power to second-guess the president in this realm.

By contrast, Obama says he doesn’t need Article II; he can live within the AUMF and international law, which, he says, limit him to detaining only those who have provided substantial support to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces. Fine, but what does “substantial” mean, and who are these “associated forces”? Obama won’t tell you. Those definitions may vary from “case to case,” says the guidance, such that “the contours of ‘substantial support’ and ‘associated forces’ bases of detention will need to be further developed in their application to concrete facts in individual cases.”