Tuesday, January 5, 2010
The fundamental truth of Obama’s “law enforcement” policy
Let us open an honest assessment of Obama’s (and the Democrats for that matter) political belief that we give everyone, including capture combatants (lawful & illegal) habeas corpus rights.
We have heard this mantra ever since Guantanamo Bay was opened for business from the left side of the isle.
Per Wikipedia – “A writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, also known as "The Great Writ", is a summons with the force of a court order addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person; if not, the person shall be released from custody. The prisoner, or another person on his behalf (for example, where the prisoner is being held incommunicado), may petition the court or an individual judge for a writ of habeas corpus.
OK, so the Democrats have bestowed these rights onto terrorists who we are now holding and for those we detain in the future and designate as “prisoners”.
The cornerstone of American jurisprudence is that we inform them of their “Miranda rights”! Since we are having an open and honest discussion about this particular right let us all say those infamous words out loud:
“You have the right to remain silent!” - It all starts and stops right here.
Once again, per Wikipedia – “Every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person arrested or placed in a custodial situation. The typical warning states:
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot affortd an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?”
The courts have since ruled that the warning must be "meaningful", so it is usually required that the suspect be asked if he understands his rights. Sometimes, firm answers of "yes" are required. Some departments and jurisdictions require that an officer ask "do you understand?" after every sentence in the warning. An arrestee's silence is not a waiver. Evidence has been ruled inadmissible because of an arrestee's poor knowledge of English and the failure of arresting officers to provide the warning in the arrestee's language.”
OK, time for a visual test here. Imagine, if you will, on a battlefield far, far away (think about the farthest, most remote location away from the US) and the terrorist that we have just captured does not speak a lick of English.
This terrorist is from a remote village where the dialect of his language can very village to village. It is plausable that one villager cannot understand another villages language even when is relatively close in geography to its own let alone the English language.
The legal onus is not on any of the villagers to understand our language it is on the arresting authority to have a translator that understands the specific village dialect. Remember, evidence has been ruled inadmissible because of an arrestee’s poor knowledge of English and the failure of the arresting authority to provide the warning in the arrestee’s language.
The worst part of this philosophy is that those who were scooped up after 9/11 (before Obama) will have the benefit that these rights are retroactive (meaning no one every read them miranda rights).
Can you say “case dismissed”?
"Book em Danno" will never sound the same again.