Friday, June 12, 2009

Miranda Rights to Foreign Detainees: The First Step to a New World Order

According to a post on The Blog of the Weekly Standard, the "Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee."

That's right. Overseas FBI agents are being required to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured in the theater of war. The first right is of course the right to remain silent. Now how the hell are you supposed to protect your country from terrorists when the first thing you tell a suspected enemy combatant is that he has a right to keep his mouth shut?

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was a Supreme Court decision and was a corollary to Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), another Supreme Court decision. In Miranda, the Court created seemingly out of whole cloth the right to remain silent. It is no where in the U.S. Constitution. And in Griswold, the Court created the right to privacy. Again, there is no such right in our written Constitution. In both cases, the majority created a brand spanking new constitutional right by arguing that such right derived from "penumbras" and "emanations" from our Bill of Rights. Such logic is obviously a very slippery slope. But forget the merit of such rights, and whether they actually exist. That's really a discussion for another day. The Court has recognized them. They're here to stay.

Once you declare that such detainees (usually enemy combatants) are entitled to our constitutional protections, one of the implications is that now the enemy combatants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is surpassingly absurd not only because it adds another provision to the rules of engagement (which already severely hamstring our military), but more importantly because the necessary premise of war is that both sides are guilty of attempted and premeditated homicide! The whole point of war is to achieve victory by death and destruction of human life. There's absolutely no reason to go through a trial process to determine whether the enemy combatant is guilty.

And herein lies the fundamental problem. The system by which we adjudicate our own citizens must necessarily be different from the system by which we adjudicate foreign detainees and enemy combatants. This is because, as previously mentioned, the premise upon which an individual is detained is completely different. When a United States citizen is detained, because our Constitution applies to that individual, he enjoys the presumption of innocence. A foreign detainee does not and should not. The premise of his detention if war.

Clearly, this is another step toward "internationalization", which ineluctably means a reduction in our national sovereignty. Once we begin extending our sacrosanct Constitutional protections to foreigners, the exclusivity and sovereignty of our Constitution must necessarily go along with it piece by piece. We'll soon be welcoming the New World Order.

American Confucius


SouthernHeart said...

So A.C. Are you ready to concede that the commies have us surrounded? LOL I fully admit that I am a full blown conspiracy nut, (as you may have guessed)but the USA is hanging by a thread and as your post points out we are marching towards a one world government. Constitutional rights belong to the people of the USA only, not to illegal aliens or enemy combatants. Between the NAFTA highway ( you know about that right?) and the ID chip ( digital angel\verichip) we are alot further along than the first step. When our border guards are put in prison (Ramos and compean)and the drug smuggler is givin a free pass to come and go as he pleases, there is something wrong. When our military is sent to war and then charged with crimes because innocent people die during war, there is something wrong. Our government (Obama and Bush) have sold us down the river into slavery. We are now in so much debt that our dollar will no longer be the world currency, which means we will become a third world nation over night once the dollar is devalued. America as we have known it is about done. The patriot movement (of which I am proudly a part) is trying to stop the distruction of our constitution and our nation but sadly most people are still unconcerened and think our so called leaders are doing their best for America. God Bless,

American Confucius said...

SouthernHeart: You packed in a lot here. I share your lamentations about the issues you raise, less a few. I certainly agree that our Constitutional rights are, and should always be, reserved for U.S. citizens, as a matter of both constitutional integrity and public policy.

The NAFTA superhighway, however, is a myth. It's an idea that grassroots Ron Paulians began to peddle several years ago and, yes, the conspiracy theorists took it and ran with it. Here's the problem with these theories (which are surprisingly gaining traction more than ever, particularly on the right): the theorists become so stuck on the conclusion that they'll jump as far as is necessary logically to link up their conjecture to their conclusion. This is not rational.

And I use hyperbole all the time, but "Our government has sold us down the river to slavery" seems to me a bit much. I don't think any one of us can credibly suggest we are slaves or have been sold into slavery. True slavery exists today and we shouldn't diminish its brutality by using it in such a casual manner. But I get your point though.

Lastly, my point about how we're moving toward a New World Order was just that and nothing more. By extending our Constitutional rights to enemy combatants (and illegal aliens), we necessarily attenuate our national sovereignty. Attenuation of our national sovereignty in turn paves the way to capitulation to a New World Order. But do I think this is a forgone conclusion? Of course not, because people like you and me, and millions of others won't let it happen without a fight. The brilliance of Montesquieu's tripartite government and our founding father's ideas of a republican form of government (coupled with of course a country of freedom-loving individuals) serve as a natural barrier against a true one world government. That's not to say it's always possible, and if you're a Revelationist, it's certain to happen with the Antichrist. But that's a discussion for another day.

American Confucius said...

But as a Believer myself, I do find Revelations compelling. Let me know if you want to write a guest post about the connection (or lack thereof) with what's going on today and what is foretold in Revelations.

SouthernHeart said...

Dear A.C.,
I am honored that you would be willing to allow me a guest spot on your blog. I would actually love to do that but it would take some time (if that is alright with you). It is one thing to spew out my own personal rantings on your site but another thing entirely to preach Gods word. I would not want to mislead anyone especally about the book of revelation. God warns us that teachers of His word are held to a higher standard.
As for the NAFTA highway I suggest you go to youtube and watch a few reports from CNN and Lou Dobbs. Yes there are nutjobs on there too but I assure you it is not a myth. It has been put on hold because the people are fighting it.
The slavery issue I refer to is the fact that our money is worthless,( our dollar is worth 2 cents compared to the dollar in 1913 when the fed and the income tax were created) our Constitution is being shredded,( even the republican party disregards the peoples rights under the Constitution)George W. Bush called it a G-D piece of paper. The parties are two heads of the same snake. We have the illusion of a free nation but little freedom actually exists. That is what the tea party movement is all about, taking back our country and Constitution. God Bless

American Confucius said...

SouthernHeart: So a friend of mine who is a militant separatist out in Texas, and who has lived there for many years, and who is much more sympathetic to libertarianism and Ron Paul than a major party tells me that people are really talking about a large interstate called I-30. I confirmed this with a cursory Google search as well. Apparently, there were plans to expand the interstate but was scrapped very early on. But the idea stuck around because it was a great talking point for anti-goverment forces and libertarians against foreign meddling and free trade (or corporate welfare). Furthermore, I don't consider Lou Dobbs or CNN a credible source of fact. I get most of my facts from blogs that have proven to me over the years to be reliable sources of information. I'm not saying you're wrong, since, we're really both speculating here. I'm telling you what I think - that its a myth. In the end, you may be right, but, for now, it requires a too large of a logical and factual leap for me.

And lastly, take your time on the post, but I suspect you'll have some very interesting things to say. We look forward to it. I will reserve the right to edit it however. But, I will give you the last opportunity to decide whether you want it published or not.

Thanks for your readership.