|
Post by gillianren on May 6, 2010 14:33:38 GMT -4
In my limited understanding of the rights of the accused, interrogations may take place in advance of Miranda warnings. However any information gained in that interrogation may not be used at trial. While it limits prosecutors, the case would only be thrown out if the prosecution introduced the evidence. It may or may not be a good strategy. McCain may have had other things on his mind, the articles are rather vague. If it is possible, it's not a strategy I'd advise--you'd reach the point where you'd want the stuff on the record, but giving the Miranda warning at that point would probably make the person clam up. Nixon referred to the Manson defendants as being guilty during the trial, and it was considered grounds for mistrial. It might have been, had the jury not been sequestered. (The full story is kind of interesting, but not necessary relevant here.) It's considered prejudicial, which is generally a bad thing. I was not trying to put words in your mouth but to put some context around the topic. In my understanding, enemy combatants are not covered under the Geneva Convention, which is a treaty among states on how to treat one anothers soldiers. Non-state authorized combatants are on their own, legally speaking. Which is not to say that we should treat them harshly. The US should in fact treat them as it wishes its citizens to be treated abroad. I would find it troubling if Shahzad, were classified as an enemy combatant. Well, probably true, though I'm not an expert on the law by any stretch. Since there is no government of which the 9/11 bombers, etc., were representatives or could be, that gets a little complicated. At any rate, I do firmly believe that the rule of law should cover everyone. Just because they're violating them doesn't make it right for us to do so--after all, all criminals, no matter what they're doing, are violating the rule of law to a greater or lesser degree. It's kind of the definition. And just as we reserve the right to prosecute non-citizens who violate US law, they should also be covered by US rights.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 6, 2010 17:02:08 GMT -4
We as a nation are economically dependent on a large flow of immigrant labour, in part because immigrants will work for lower pay. Indeed, the immigration restrictions and subsequent creation of "illegal" immigration at all has the side effect of decreasing our food costs greatly, given that they cannot lobby for minimum wage without being deported. There aren't "Okies" anymore as in Grapes of Wrath to do the work. I found this part interesting, since to me it would seem to be a reason for some to support illegal immigration over legal. Should the borders be more open and so less illegals enter, there will be less ability to deny workers a fair wage and so costs will increase. I'd have to ask if it is actually fair for illegals to be almost encouraged by some so that they can be exploited in this way? Now I'm not trying to poke the finger here, I know that all countries including my own have this issue to some degree, and I'd have to suggest that unscruppulous bosses mixed with those that want cheap goods are actually as responsible for illegal immigration as those that bring the illegals in. To me it's almost a form of slavery, of which those that benefit seem quite happy to allow to continue.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 6, 2010 17:58:27 GMT -4
Which is why changing standards would probably help. During World War II, there was the braceros program, which actually brought Mexican workers across the border on purpose to do the work which had been done by people now involved in the war effort--better to be a soldier than a migrant worker, I believe was the philosophy, and better still to work in a factory or what have you. There was also, of course, patriotism tied up in it.
The produce won't pick itself, and a lot of it can't be picked by machine. (Peaches, for example, bruise horribly if mishandled, as both Grapes of Wrath and Terry Pratchett's Reaper Man mention.) However, companies are awfully inclined to increase their profit margin where they can. It's complicated, and it often has unpleasant results. Again, broken system.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on May 7, 2010 2:30:34 GMT -4
As to politicians quotes, the Syrians said if Israel bombed them they will get it back to age of the first human being... one doesn't know to laugh or to cry from this stupid remark... so they can save the arabs from israel and throw it in the sea but they are not doing so because they are waiting for israel to bomb first.. as to how they are preapring to do so, a member on a forum posted a funny video www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQZKj9dbJr8
|
|