"'Serious mistake' if car bombing suspect was Mirandized"

[unixronin]

So says John McCain of the attempted Times Square carbomber.  Because then we'd have to prosecute him through the criminal justice system and he'll have, like, rights and stuff, instead of treating him as an "enemy combatant".  Because we've just gotten SO MUCH vitally important intelligence out of all the "detainees" we've been storing indefinitely at Guantanamo.

Comments

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That actually sounds like it could work, if it was actually followed and 48 hours didn't gradually turn into six months or five years, and dependent upon the definition of what's considered an act of combat. I would start by saying that any act of terror conducted or attempted against civilians is not an act of combat, it is actual or attempted criminal mass murder and should be tried as such.

[house-pundit.livejournal.com]

You can't try it as such without throwing national security out the window.

You might as well walk Bin Laden into Langley and say, "Here, dude. Look at whatever you want. Can we get you some coffee with that?"

This is because of the protections of facing his accusers in court and having access to all the evidence against him.

[house-pundit.livejournal.com]

The mass murder thing is taken care of in the enemy combatant system I proposed by first, ensuring you hold the guy without giving him access to squat and second, when he comes up for review, he just gets kept.

You make a good point. The tribunal that decides if he is a combatant or not and did something serious or not should be able to specify life detention without release.

Personally, I'd let them shoot him, but not on 51% evidence and it's just not worth it to give him access to any information at all.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

We already have existing law that says suspects on trial on terrorism charges may not be entitled to hear evidence against them if disclosing it in their presence would endanger national security. I can tolerate excluding them from the courtroom while such evidence is presented, but IMHO the judge needs to see it.

On the other hand, if you can't convict someone on terrorism charges WITHOUT revealing evidence that jeopardizes national security, you didn't have that much of a case against him in the first place.