Maddow on GOP Hypocrisy over Miranda Rights

[maryelizabethweston]

The Republican talking point is the name Miranda. Reason is not involved in their argument. It's the same idea as calling hemp marijuana: make it sound foreign, alien to the base of xenophobic morons. It's no accident that every single one of the Republicans accent the name Miranda when they voice their faux outrage. Establishing that "foreign" quality is their objective. For all Rachel's good intentions, she is only helping them make their one and only point by repeating it with them.

[ReliableInsider]

The reason Republican Congressman and Republican Senators are so hypocritical so much of the time is that they don't really believe anything they say.

Their real agenda is doing the bidding of their biggest contributors who own the Republican Party lock, stock, and barrel.

The only reason the RNC pays any attention to the voters at all is so they can get their lobbyists re-elected every two years.

[ReliableInsider]

We all know what the Miranda warning is.

Why does anyone in their right mind think that reading him a Miranda warning would have ANY impact on him whatsoever?

What had an impact on him was that the Obama administration put him in handcuffs and behind bars while the Bush administration decided to allow bin Laden to run free because they were busy with the agenda they came up with in 1997 to undo the decision the Republicans made in 1991to let Saddam Hussein run free.

[ExecutiveTeenager]

Terrorists of this kind should be treated like enemy combatants because they are targeting The United States of American as a whole. The primary goal of these radicals is to kill Americans. They target an entire country, not just certain people. Also, the reason the Bush administration did not treat previous terrorists as enemy combatants, is because they were not caught in the act. They needed to charge them criminally because they did not have solid evidence.

[ReliableInsider]

ExecutiveTeenager,

So you're saying that Richard Reid was not caught in the act and that the Bush administration was unable to find any solid evidence against him?

[ReliableInsider]

It is absurd for Osama bin Laden and Dick Cheney to try to claim that terrorism is a "legitimate act of war".

9-11 was a criminal act!

It was one of worst criminal acts in history.

Eric Holder should also be prosecuting Dick Cheney for *his* criminal acts as de facto President.

It's time to stop prosecuting criminal acts that have taken place in the future and to start prosecuting criminal acts that took place in the recent past.

[dizzymasekela]

Rachel is the best!

[davids2244]

Maddow does not understand the difference between a foreign national versus an American Citizen which Reid is..Hmm kind of left that out

[gossieuk]

you scored 10 irrelevance points, good job!

[btc8128]

Reed was from the U.K., it's a fact

[TheAerialbomb]

I think if you do a little research, you'll find Reid was a British citizen.

However, our law states whether citizen or not, people get the same treatment.

Or do you think that Lee Harvey Oswald or Timothy McVeigh was treated wrong. How about Scott Roeder, the guy that killed George Tiller, clearly a terrorist.

[ReliableInsider]

davids2244,

You're making the same mistake that Newt Gingrich made. He's not.

And why are you and Newt granting special privileges to terrorists in America anyway? What excuse do they have for not knowing how wrong terrorism is?

[ReliableInsider]

The whole idea that an American judge would hear legitimate evidence that someone had engaged in terrorism and murdered innocent civilians and would say, "Eh, no biggie," and let him go is absurd.

American judges are just as appalled by terrorism as anyone else.

[davids2244]

don't think they will but they do have a whole different set of laws and premisable evidence is a big one, surpressing national security to the defedent would be another than a military tribunal

[ReliableInsider]

If that's true, then it sounds as though a conviction achieve through a military tribunal would have much less credibility.

People will assume that a military tribunal is hopelessly biased. I think I'd make that assumption myself. We're at war after all.

If America wants to go back to being an example to the world after all the damage done to our reputation by Bush, our normal justice system is the way to go.

[davids2244]

I can care less honestly what the rest of the world thinks of us, half don't like us already because of the prosperity we have. What I do care about is that I want these guys either dead or behind bars with as little cost and as little threat to the civilian population as possible. We owe the world nothing, if anything they owe us, I know that it is arrogant thinking but if you look at history it is true. War is never going to be pretty, and we need to face this as a fact..

[ReliableInsider]

And if terrorism is going to exist from now on as the Bush administration claimed, then we'd better start teaching our justice system how to handle it.

We need a system for distinguishing between those who are guilty or Nuremberg-level crimes against humanity and those who are completely innocent.

We need a process for putting Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden behind bars forever.

A process that has credibility. 

In the Western world, that's called a trial.

[davids2244]

And the military does a great job in a trail situation.

[ReliableInsider]

My assumption is that our federal judiciary is biased against deranged mass-murdering terrorists, too, but they deal with murderers all the time and they can be professional.

[davids2244]

@ReliableInsider I would agree, but civillian law is different in rules on what can be used in prosecution. Many things can be used in a tribunal compared to civillian. I agree I think our judges are very capable, but I also know as in the blind sheak we are putting them in bigger harms way to serious threats by these peoples supporters, not to include the said population of the city itself. We also do not want a voice to the world in civillian courts for these guys to spout their BS

[Richardgwm]

Cheney is trying to get the terrorists off without punishment.

If these acts of terror are "acts of war" as Cheney claims, the terrorists cannot be tried. Acts of war are not crimes. Those who commit acts of war are guilty of no crime and cannot be punished at the end of the war.

Why is Cheney soft on terrorists?

[davids2244]

but they stay in prison till the war is over with no trail, and according to Geneva a combatant non uniformed is considered a spy and can be executed on the battlefield..

[RealCaptainAmerica]

This was great. Thank you Rachel!

[newmac]

Boy its a good thing Yemen doesn't have any oil or we might invade them...