4 ms·
The argument isn't that the criminal justice system (in this particular case) is inadequate for conviction but that actionable intelligence might be gleaned by
by gwright 14y ago
The argument isn't that the criminal justice system (in this particular case) is inadequate for conviction but that actionable intelligence might be gleaned by following the rules regarding interrogation designed for warfare that wouldn't otherwise be accessible via regular criminal justice procedures.
- ry0ohki 14y agoCouldn't that apply in many criminal cases? If we didn't have to read a drug dealer his rights, and could use torture we might be able to get actionable intelligence on their cartel, or a child molestors network, etc...
- gwright 14y agoYes. This is a policy decision and one that is pretty murky with lots of differing opinions. The 'war on terror' and the 'war on drugs' are two areas where these policy decisions seem to come up quite a bit. Or maybe a better way of characterizing the problem area is that it is deeply related to how we want to respond to patterns of violence caused by foreign, non-state actors: terrorist groups, drug cartels, organized crime, private militias, etc. (including US citizens that are involved with those foreign non-state actors).
- mpyne 14y agoWhat are you referring to? The Miranda thing or what Senators Graham and McCain are going on about? The Miranda exception is not at all designed for warfare, and as far as I know there is no one within the current Administration even suggesting they might accede to what Graham/McCain suggest doing with regard to treating Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant.