PDA

View Full Version : Padilla convicted


STAGE 2
01-22-2008, 1:51 PM
MIAMI, Florida (AP) -- Jose Padilla, once accused of plotting with al Qaeda to blow up a radioactive "dirty bomb," was sentenced Tuesday to 17 years and four months on terrorism conspiracy charges.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/22/....ap/index.html


While Padilla should have recieved his day in court, I am relieved that I will no longer have to hear from any of those people who took the position of Padilla as "the wronged american". No longer is this terrorist (and yes he is much of a terrorist today as he was for the last several years despite the protests of several here) going to be a poster boy for criticism of this administration. The only americans snatched in the middle of the night are those that graduated from al quaeda university.

stag1500
01-22-2008, 2:24 PM
The only americans snatched in the middle of the night are those that graduated from al quaeda university.

That's a pretty ignorant satement to make. Elián González was no terrorist when Janet Reno ordered the INS seize him and send him back to Cuba.

Kestryll
01-22-2008, 2:26 PM
Was Elian an American citizen?

MrTuffPaws
01-22-2008, 2:35 PM
Yes.

Davidk
01-22-2008, 2:38 PM
We should have hanged him.

Kestryll
01-22-2008, 2:57 PM
It appears Elian was NOT a U.S. Citizen.
Sen. Mack tried to make him one by order of Congress but the bill was never voted on.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s106-1999

STAGE 2
01-22-2008, 3:07 PM
That's a pretty ignorant satement to make. Elián González was no terrorist when Janet Reno ordered the INS seize him and send him back to Cuba.

Immigration has nothing to do with terrorism and the patriot act in as much as this discussion is concerned.

People were holding up Padilla as the quintessential case for this administrations abuses. While there were no doubt mistakes made with his detention and denial of his right to trial, at the end of the day, he was exactly what the administration said he was... a terrorist.

All the folks who have been whining that american citizens are disappearing left and right because of the governments new powers have always pointed to Padilla as their example, simply because he has been the only example.

While I agree that no american citizen should be denied their rights, I ain't going to lose any sleep over what happened to this guy.

Bottom line, if you don't want to run afoul of the government, don't attend any al quaeda training camps.

5968
01-22-2008, 6:17 PM
For terrorism, his sentence isn't nearly long enough.

mvpatriot
01-22-2008, 6:19 PM
In the good ol days he would have been shot for treason. A life sentence was definetly in order.

Solidmch
01-22-2008, 6:52 PM
So Fed time he will do 80%? So he will get out in 13 years with good behavior. Aready been in for 5 time served out in 8. He will be pissed off more than ever. They should have hanged him.

Elián González was illegal. His father wanted him home and we sent him. Child custody case.

pnkssbtz
01-22-2008, 6:57 PM
So Fed time he will do 80%? So he will get out in 13 years with good behavior. Aready been in for 5 time served out in 8. He will be pissed off more than ever. They should have hanged him.You think he will survive in prison?

MrTuffPaws
01-22-2008, 7:42 PM
If only the feds charged him a held a trial off bat instead of illegally holding him without charges and a trial for years, I wouldn't have cared. But considering that they blatantly violated the constitution rights of a US citizen, it this pisses me off to no end.

MrTuffPaws
01-22-2008, 7:43 PM
You think he will survive in prison?

it doesn't really matter. His incarceration pretty much made him bat **** crazy from what I hear.

JohnJW
01-22-2008, 10:09 PM
it doesn't really matter. His incarceration pretty much made him bat **** crazy from what I hear.

Won't you go crazy if the government labels you as the mastermind of a dirty bomb plot, holds you in military prison for a few years without charging you, then convict you on some conspiracy charges that is completely unrelated to the dirty bombs they claim you were building.

STAGE 2
01-22-2008, 10:50 PM
Won't you go crazy if the government labels you as the mastermind of a dirty bomb plot, holds you in military prison for a few years without charging you, then convict you on some conspiracy charges that is completely unrelated to the dirty bombs they claim you were building.

Not if I was innocent.

JohnJW
01-23-2008, 11:12 AM
Not if I was innocent.

I'm glad to see that you still have absolute trust in our government.

STAGE 2
01-23-2008, 1:06 PM
I'm glad to see that you still have absolute trust in our government.

Its not about absolute trust, its about common sense. I look at things with scrutiny. Others look at things with a predetermined view. Not everything the government does is bad.

This nonsense that the government is taking regular people off the streets is just that, nonsense. The only american citizen this has happened to is a guy who worked with al quaeda, trained with them in a foreign country, and came back here to form a cell. There is a really good argument there that he revoked his citizenship which kind of moots the detention issue.

However in either case, this is the kind of guy we want picked up and locked away (or shot).

JohnJW
01-24-2008, 9:29 AM
Its not about absolute trust, its about common sense. I look at things with scrutiny. Others look at things with a predetermined view. Not everything the government does is bad.

This nonsense that the government is taking regular people off the streets is just that, nonsense. The only american citizen this has happened to is a guy who worked with al quaeda, trained with them in a foreign country, and came back here to form a cell. There is a really good argument there that he revoked his citizenship which kind of moots the detention issue.

However in either case, this is the kind of guy we want picked up and locked away (or shot).


I'm quite surprised that, as a gun owner you have this attitude. What the government ended up convicting him of is very very different from what the government portray him out to be. I ask myself, after illegally imprisoning him for a few years this is all the government got on him? I rather our government release him after a few days if they can't find enough evidence to charge him and have surveillance him 24/7, if he indeed the sort of dirty bomb terrorist our government portray him out to be. Not on the same scale, but kind of remind me of the current AW/OLL mess. Reality turn out to be very different from government propaganda.

For me, the end will never justify the means. With Padilla, we traded away our Constitution for a two bit terrorist. Is it worth it? Let's not forget, our government supported Bin Laden back in the late 80s. Are we going to charge ourself with aiding terrorists? He was probably causing the same type of mayhem to the Soviets.

Ironchef
01-24-2008, 10:35 AM
Damn, still baffling to see Padilla considered as someone who was dangerous, let alone an actual terrorist. Sad, sad stuff our propaganda machine.

This is another example of our propaganda machine. This dude was 100% completely framed on many levels and from many high sources.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/09/23/airforce.detainee/index.html
And yes, this was an American citizen, west point graduate, decorated and exemplary army chaplain...screwed because he didn't like what was happening to detainees at gitmo. Bagged him at the airport as he arrived home for leave, and whisked away somewhere for a while, stripped of rights, lambasted on the news...and oh yeah, completely and totally exonerated and released (but of course that wasn't published much at all).

James Yee story: http://www.samaralectures.com/jyee.html

STAGE 2
01-24-2008, 1:30 PM
I'm quite surprised that, as a gun owner you have this attitude. What the government ended up convicting him of is very very different from what the government portray him out to be.

Because the rules of evidence prevented certian things from coming in doesn't change who or what he is. The fact that he was convicted WITHOUT a majority of his ties to al quaeda coming in should tell you exactly what Padilla was about.


I ask myself, after illegally imprisoning him for a few years this is all the government got on him?

Again, you confuse procedural rules with actual evidence. Furthermore, what additional information could the government obtain while he was in custody? The crimes he committed had already been completed.


I rather our government release him after a few days if they can't find enough evidence to charge him and have surveillance him 24/7, if he indeed the sort of dirty bomb terrorist our government portray him out to be.

The government HAD enough evidence to charge and convict. If they had let him go, he'd be gone.


For me, the end will never justify the means. With Padilla, we traded away our Constitution for a two bit terrorist.

Quite the contrary. The constitution WORKED in this case. The governments position isn't as evil and authoritarian as you make it out to be. There is a very good case to be made that Padilla's actions revoked his citizenship. There is also a very good case to be made for treason.

Thus, there was a conflict between the executive and the individual. This conflict was resolved by the judiciary as it was supposed to be. Padilla recieved his trial and was properly convicted. The ENTIRE time he was in custody, he had access to the courts. This isn't the gulag tale that the media portrays it to be.

STAGE 2
01-24-2008, 1:35 PM
This is another example of our propaganda machine. This dude was 100% completely framed on many levels and from many high sources.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/09/23/airforce.detainee/index.html
And yes, this was an American citizen, west point graduate, decorated and exemplary army chaplain...screwed because he didn't like what was happening to detainees at gitmo. Bagged him at the airport as he arrived home for leave, and whisked away somewhere for a while, stripped of rights, lambasted on the news...and oh yeah, completely and totally exonerated and released (but of course that wasn't published much at all).

James Yee story: http://www.samaralectures.com/jyee.html

Completely different. Part of signing up is agreeing to be held accountable by the UCMJ. As such, the conditions of arrest and detention are different than what applies to a regular citizen.

Ironchef
01-24-2008, 3:04 PM
Completely different. Part of signing up is agreeing to be held accountable by the UCMJ. As such, the conditions of arrest and detention are different than what applies to a regular citizen.

Yeah, if he were held to the standards of detention as prescribed in UCMJ, it'd be ok, but he wasn't. He was also tortured, not given counsel, etc. There was nothing lawful in the way he was detained and treated. It was a punishment, 100%.

STAGE 2
01-24-2008, 6:37 PM
Yeah, if he were held to the standards of detention as prescribed in UCMJ, it'd be ok, but he wasn't. He was also tortured, not given counsel, etc. There was nothing lawful in the way he was detained and treated. It was a punishment, 100%.

Do you have any unbiased evidence supporting this "torture" or is that just another code word being thrown around.

CALI-gula
01-24-2008, 9:11 PM
Japanese Containment/Interment Camps during World War II - American Citizens illegal detained "for their safety"? Many lost their homes, properties, valuables, or were disconnected from loved ones. And it wasn't always just for the Japanese (check it out).

I don't think he is all that he was made out to be, nor do I think Iraq was all full of WMDs as they were made out to be. I'm not one to scream Kent State, Ruby Ridge, or Waco chants, I like and voted for Bush (both times), I do think Oliver North was/IS a great American, but there are many unjust applications to American citizens being done, now more than ever in the past 20 years, and there were definitely some wrongs here.

By the way, shouldn't this thread be in the off-topic section? I don't see any commas in the "2nd Amend. Politics and Laws" captioned header. ;)

.

JohnJW
01-25-2008, 1:24 AM
Because the rules of evidence prevented certian things from coming in doesn't change who or what he is. The fact that he was convicted WITHOUT a majority of his ties to al quaeda coming in should tell you exactly what Padilla was about.

Again, you confuse procedural rules with actual evidence. Furthermore, what additional information could the government obtain while he was in custody? The crimes he committed had already been completed.

Again, the problem I have with this whole case is that our government trampled our Bill of Rights for a fairly weak case and a lot of back paddling,

From wikipedia:
"There is no mention in the indictment of Padilla's alleged plot to use a dirty bomb in the United States. There is also no mention that Padilla ever planned to stage any attacks inside the country. And there is no direct mention of Al-Qaeda. Instead the indictment lays out a case involving five men who helped raise money and recruit volunteers in the 1990s to go overseas to countries including Chechnya, Bosnia, Somalia and Kosovo. Padilla, in fact, appears to play a minor role in the conspiracy. He is accused of going to a jihad training camp in Afghanistan but his lawyers said the indictment offers no evidence he ever engaged in terrorist activity."

The source was cited as from "Democracy Now." I think Democracy Now is a very liberal radio program, but that seems to be consistent with what I've read on the case.


The government HAD enough evidence to charge and convict. If they had let him go, he'd be gone.

Quite the contrary. The constitution WORKED in this case. The governments position isn't as evil and authoritarian as you make it out to be. There is a very good case to be made that Padilla's actions revoked his citizenship. There is also a very good case to be made for treason.

Thus, there was a conflict between the executive and the individual. This conflict was resolved by the judiciary as it was supposed to be. Padilla recieved his trial and was properly convicted. The ENTIRE time he was in custody, he had access to the courts. This isn't the gulag tale that the media portrays it to be.


You're kidding me right. Padilla was in a military prison from June 9,2002 to Nov 22, 2005 before he was indicted by a grand jury. Our Constitution worked? That's like saying the Second Amendment WORKS in California. C'mon, 2nd Amendment can't stand alone. I support both the NRA and the ACLU. Our politicians polarize us and force us to be either be a conservative or a liberal. The funny thing is, I think I am both and we should all be if we are interested in protecting our Constitution.

Ironchef
01-25-2008, 9:37 AM
Do you have any unbiased evidence supporting this "torture" or is that just another code word being thrown around.

The man who was tortured said he was. Having seen it used in Gitmo, it was easy to recognize when it happened to him. Do I really need to give an "unbiased" source? Is Jame's Yee completely lying about his ordeal? he's been touring the nation for a few years giving his complete story, specifying the abuse he suffered, it's in his book.. The burden of proof should not be on me anyway..the "innocent until proven guilty" theme should prevail.

STAGE 2
01-26-2008, 1:51 PM
The man who was tortured said he was. Having seen it used in Gitmo, it was easy to recognize when it happened to him. Do I really need to give an "unbiased" source? Is Jame's Yee completely lying about his ordeal? he's been touring the nation for a few years giving his complete story, specifying the abuse he suffered, it's in his book.. The burden of proof should not be on me anyway..the "innocent until proven guilty" theme should prevail.

By all accounts, there is nothing remotely close to torture going on in gitmo. Amnesty internation, doctors without borders, and the red cross have all (with utter disgust might I add) confirmed this. The only "incident" even close was that koran debacle which turned out to be false.

So, you will excuse me if I'm slightly skeptical about a muslim chaplain alleging torture and abuse when he himself has taken no legal action against the government.

STAGE 2
01-26-2008, 2:04 PM
Again, the problem I have with this whole case is that our government trampled our Bill of Rights for a fairly weak case and a lot of back paddling,

From wikipedia:
"There is no mention in the indictment of Padilla's alleged plot to use a dirty bomb in the United States. There is also no mention that Padilla ever planned to stage any attacks inside the country. And there is no direct mention of Al-Qaeda. Instead the indictment lays out a case involving five men who helped raise money and recruit volunteers in the 1990s to go overseas to countries including Chechnya, Bosnia, Somalia and Kosovo. Padilla, in fact, appears to play a minor role in the conspiracy. He is accused of going to a jihad training camp in Afghanistan but his lawyers said the indictment offers no evidence he ever engaged in terrorist activity."

As a rule of thumb, ignore wikipedia when discussing all things legal. Is about as inaccurate and biased as sources get. This case is no exception.

Though I should note, a minor role in a conspiracy is still participating in a conspiracy. I find it cute that the author tries to mitigate what went on here (though I don't find anyone participating with al quaeda to be minor) but legally its irrelevant.


The source was cited as from "Democracy Now." I think Democracy Now is a very liberal radio program, but that seems to be consistent with what I've read on the case.

See above.



You're kidding me right. Padilla was in a military prison from June 9,2002 to Nov 22, 2005 before he was indicted by a grand jury. Our Constitution worked? That's like saying the Second Amendment WORKS in California. C'mon, 2nd Amendment can't stand alone. I support both the NRA and the ACLU. Our politicians polarize us and force us to be either be a conservative or a liberal. The funny thing is, I think I am both and we should all be if we are interested in protecting our Constitution.

Here's the deal. I expect my government to always follow the constitution. However, because a government is simply an organization of people I understand that because of human fallibility, greed, deceit, and sometimes honest disagreements, sometimes its going to go astray.

However the beauty and brilliance of our constitution is that it takes this into account and offers a pathway for resolving such issues. Thats exactly what happened here.

You see its really simple to say that Padilla was locked away for years without any rights, but thats not what happened in reality. Padilla was picked up May 8th, 2002 on a material witness warrant. By May 22nd...a mere two weeks later, by appointed counsel, he moved to VACATE that warrant, thereby starting the series of events that went up and down to the Supreme Court.

Even when the President directed that he be held as an enemy combatant (june 9th 2002) and he was taken into custody his atty, as his next friend (ex.rel.), filed a Habeaus petition TWO DAYS LATER which petition went up and down the Court system until finally he was tried and convicted.

So the net BS about him not having an attorney is a lie. The net BS about him being held and deprived of his legal rights was a lie. So the impression left that here was some poor soul held incommunicado while nobody did anyhting was a lie. He was represented by counsel from virtually the time he went into custody. At anytime the Court, on the application of his attorney, could have ordered him produced, could have ordered him transferred (which in fact the 2nd Cir did)...

And here is what the Supreme Court said....

"Padilla's argument reduces to a request for a new exception to the immediate custodian rule based upon the "unique facts" of this case. While Padilla's detention is undeniably unique in many respects, it is at bottom a simple challenge to physical custody imposed by the Executive--the traditional core of the Great Writ. There is no indication that there was any attempt to manipulate behind Padilla's transfer--he was taken to the same facility where other al Qaeda members were already being held, and the Government did not attempt to hide from Padilla's lawyer where it had taken him. Infra, at 20-21 and n. 17; post, at 5 (Kennedy, J., concurring). His detention is thus not unique in any way that would provide arguable basis for a departure from the immediate custodian rule. Accordingly, we hold that Commander Marr, not Secretary Rumsfeld, is Padilla's custodian and the proper respondent to his habeas petition."

So there you have it from the horses mouth. The government didn't secret this guy away or prevent him from seeing a lawyer. If they did, there would have never been a case and we would have had no idea who he was.

JohnJW
01-26-2008, 3:01 PM
As a rule of thumb, ignore wikipedia when discussing all things legal. Is about as inaccurate and biased as sources get. This case is no exception.

Though I should note, a minor role in a conspiracy is still participating in a conspiracy. I find it cute that the author tries to mitigate what went on here (though I don't find anyone participating with al quaeda to be minor) but legally its irrelevant.

I actually find wikipedia quite useful. It just just a inaccurate and biased as any other news outlet with the exception that you get to view the source yourself.

Remember that a minor role in a "conspiracy" could be a simple posting on calguns. I don't know if Padilla was out for American blood, or if he was simply a naive person who believes in his religion and want wants to help out through charity, but whatever the case, it was not a dirty bomb plot as originally portrayed by our government as the basis for designating him as a "enemy combatant." That's what make it hard for some of us, who if given the opportunity will gladly put some of our hardware to bear on anyone trying to set off a dirty bomb in our cities, to accept our government's actions in this case.



Here's the deal. I expect my government to always follow the constitution. However, because a government is simply an organization of people I understand that because of human fallibility, greed, deceit, and sometimes honest disagreements, sometimes its going to go astray.

However the beauty and brilliance of our constitution is that it takes this into account and offers a pathway for resolving such issues. Thats exactly what happened here.

That's a rather cheerful assessments of the current administration. I feel that I have less Constitutional protection today than 8 years ago, and I am a registered Republican.



You see its really simple to say that Padilla was locked away for years without any rights, but thats not what happened in reality. Padilla was picked up May 8th, 2002 on a material witness warrant. By May 22nd...a mere two weeks later, by appointed counsel, he moved to VACATE that warrant, thereby starting the series of events that went up and down to the Supreme Court.



He was held in a military prison for 3+ years, most newspapers say he was in solitary confinement, maybe tortured. . . I mean harshly interrogated. This is the reality. Even if at the end they found a cache of radio active materials under his house I will still be more disturbed by the actions of our government more than the fact that someone was plotting to kill us. The fact that at the end he was convicted on a conspiracy charge unrelated to the reason why he was labeled as a "enemy combatant" only make the case worst for our civil liberties.



So there you have it from the horses mouth. The government didn't secret this guy away or prevent him from seeing a lawyer. If they did, there would have never been a case and we would have had no idea who he was.

Fortunately that didn't happen to him, but it did happen to a lot of other innocent individuals under the current administration.

We probably won't agree on this subject but just remember the old saying, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" regardless of which of your least favorite party is in charge.

JohnJW
01-26-2008, 3:08 PM
By all accounts, there is nothing remotely close to torture going on in gitmo. Amnesty internation, doctors without borders, and the red cross have all (with utter disgust might I add) confirmed this. The only "incident" even close was that koran debacle which turned out to be false.

So, you will excuse me if I'm slightly skeptical about a muslim chaplain alleging torture and abuse when he himself has taken no legal action against the government.

A West Point graduated chaplain. If you don't consider water boarding, solitary confinement, indefinite detention, being striped naked handcuffed hooded wearing a diaper on a TransAtlantic flight, as torture. . . well, what I can I say, . . . I hope we can all aspire to your level of physical and psychological confidence.

STAGE 2
01-26-2008, 10:13 PM
A West Point graduated chaplain. If you don't consider water boarding, solitary confinement, indefinite detention, being striped naked handcuffed hooded wearing a diaper on a TransAtlantic flight, as torture. . . well, what I can I say, . . . I hope we can all aspire to your level of physical and psychological confidence.

Again, only he says that. Is there any other source to corroborate this?

rue
01-26-2008, 10:21 PM
Won't you go crazy if the government labels you as the mastermind of a dirty bomb plot, holds you in military prison for a few years without charging you, then convict you on some conspiracy charges that is completely unrelated to the dirty bombs they claim you were building.

oh noo....:rolleyes:

STAGE 2
01-26-2008, 10:41 PM
I actually find wikipedia quite useful. It just just a inaccurate and biased as any other news outlet with the exception that you get to view the source yourself.

Any source that allows ANYONE the ability to edit the information is automatically suspect at best.


Remember that a minor role in a "conspiracy" could be a simple posting on calguns. I don't know if Padilla was out for American blood, or if he was simply a naive person who believes in his religion and want wants to help out through charity, but whatever the case, it was not a dirty bomb plot as originally portrayed by our government as the basis for designating him as a "enemy combatant." That's what make it hard for some of us, who if given the opportunity will gladly put some of our hardware to bear on anyone trying to set off a dirty bomb in our cities, to accept our government's actions in this case.

I don't consider a backpack full of thusands of dollars as well as a cell phone full of al quaeda contacts after taking a trip to the middle east "minor". Of course that is all irrelevant. Either a person is part of a conspiracy or not. You are making the same mistake as the author of that misguided piece in suggesting that people "happen" upon being involved in a conspiracy, or that how involved they are should be a factor in determining their guilt.

Thats not how this works. The elements of conspiracy require, among other things, an agreement between 2 or more people, and an overt act. even if Padilla's overt act was minimal, he agreed to the conspiracy. That means that he condoned and supported the actions of the guy who was doing most of the heavy lifting, or heinous acts. Thats why they are all held equally accountable.


That's a rather cheerful assessments of the current administration. I feel that I have less Constitutional protection today than 8 years ago, and I am a registered Republican.

Well, if thats the case then it shouldn't be very difficult for you to tell me what you are now prevented from doing that you were free to do 8 years ago.



He was held in a military prison for 3+ years, most newspapers say he was in solitary confinement

Whats the big deal about solitary? Last time I checked, no one had a fundamental right not to be held in solitary.

maybe tortured. . . I mean harshly interrogated. This is the reality.

When people use words like "maybe" and "harshly" I tend to tune out. This is because that words like these are used in lieu of facts or hard evidence. If he was "maybe" tortured, then "maybe" I'll be outraged. Short of that I'll reserve judgment until something tangible comes in.



Even if at the end they found a cache of radio active materials under his house I will still be more disturbed by the actions of our government more than the fact that someone was plotting to kill us. The fact that at the end he was convicted on a conspiracy charge unrelated to the reason why he was labeled as a "enemy combatant" only make the case worst for our civil liberties.

First, calling someone an enemy combatant in of itself, does not offend anything in the constitution. If you are suggesting otherwise, then please point me to the relevant section.

Secondly, you keep harping on the fact that he was only convicted on a conspiracy charge as if this is some gem. There are hundreds of reasons why this is the case, and none of them have anything to do with the government being evil. First, there is legal practicality. Its usually far easier to prove up conspiracy than the actual crime at issue. Add to that the fact that the sentence is almost the same and thats why its the preferred charge of prosecutors everywhere. Second, there are national security concerns. No doubt there are ongoing investigations connected with Padillas contacts, and airing out the necessary facts at trial could put such things at risk.

Finally, there is the problem with the media. This case has been beaten to death and been skewed by the press to paint the administration in the worst possible light. If Padilla was found not guilty by a jury because of how convoluted cases like this can be and how unpredictable juries are, the media would have had a field day with it. Rather than let the happen, they stuck with simple and convicted him. As a result, you didn't hear ANYTHING about this case from the usual haters. That more than anything else should tell you something.



Fortunately that didn't happen to him, but it did happen to a lot of other innocent individuals under the current administration.

Names please.

We probably won't agree on this subject but just remember the old saying, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" regardless of which of your least favorite party is in charge.

Exactly. And it was the vigilance of Padillas attorney that allowed the system to work in this case. As the supreme court said, there wasn't anything suspect with how the government handled Padilla. They had a legitimate argument with respect to him and lost. Thats the way the system works.

Ironchef
01-27-2008, 7:31 PM
Again, only he says that. Is there any other source to corroborate this?

I can't believe you need "proof!" lol THe dude has done NOTHING wrong. The burden of proof is not on him. He gains nothing from that small part of his total ordeal. Have you heard him speak? He's not some liberal scum from Berkeley who is out to sabotage the government. He was a good, honorable, decorated exemplary serviceman who while on leave on his way home from Gitmo, he was detained at Miami and whisked away violating pretty much every sacred right he was protecting with his service.

Nice "guilty until proven innocent" attitude there.
By all accounts, there is nothing remotely close to torture going on in gitmo. Amnesty internation, doctors without borders, and the red cross have all (with utter disgust might I add) confirmed this. The only "incident" even close was that koran debacle which turned out to be false.


Got a citation? I've heard the opposite. I also work at a firm who has sprung several gitmo "kidnap" victims from that hole who have proved otherwise. Men and some kids simply kidnapped without a shred of evidence against them, held, denied basic civil rights, tortured, abused, etc...uncharged for years until freed by some pro-bono attorneys sick of the inaction of our government. Amnesty International, doctors without borders, red cross...you seriously think they got to see things as they really are? I'd also love to see your corroborated proof that they said it was torture free.

Blackflag
01-27-2008, 7:49 PM
By all accounts, there is nothing remotely close to torture going on in gitmo. Amnesty internation, doctors without borders, and the red cross have all (with utter disgust might I add) confirmed this. The only "incident" even close was that koran debacle which turned out to be false.
. . .
As the supreme court said, there wasn't anything suspect with how the government handled Padilla.


You clearly aren't very knowledgeable about Padilla or Gitmo. First, multiple groups have cited torture in Gitmo. The FBI went public with a report on it, for ****'s sake.

Second, the Supreme Court sided with Padilla against the government. They didn't say it was "suspect," they flat-out said they were wrong.

STAGE 2
01-27-2008, 7:56 PM
I can't believe you need "proof!" lol THe dude has done NOTHING wrong. The burden of proof is not on him. He gains nothing from that small part of his total ordeal. Have you heard him speak? He's not some liberal scum from Berkeley who is out to sabotage the government. He was a good, honorable, decorated exemplary serviceman who while on leave on his way home from Gitmo, he was detained at Miami and whisked away violating pretty much every sacred right he was protecting with his service.

Nice "guilty until proven innocent" attitude there.

Quite the contrary. This guy is alleging that the government tortured him. The government is the defendant here. A presumption of innocence applies to THEM not him.

In todays world, I don't take anything on simply the word of a single person. If everything that his guy alleges happened, then the government is ripe for a civil suit. The fact that this hasn't happened raises questions. If this happened to me then I'd be pissed and lawyering up.

So again I ask you, do you have anything to corroborate this guys story.


Got a citation? I've heard the opposite. I also work at a firm who has sprung several gitmo "kidnap" victims from that hole who have proved otherwise. Men and some kids simply kidnapped without a shred of evidence against them, held, denied basic civil rights, tortured, abused, etc...uncharged for years until freed by some pro-bono attorneys sick of the inaction of our government. Amnesty International, doctors without borders, red cross...you seriously think they got to see things as they really are? I'd also love to see your corroborated proof that they said it was torture free.

Umm... yeah. Check with each of those organizations I just listed and read their reports. Furthermore, where is there any evidence of US citizens being held in gitmo? People being held there are foreign nationals captured in foreign countries. As such they have no civil rights.

But I am interested in these stories of people being taken in the dead of night. Are they american citizens? Were they arrested in america? If not, then don't bother because the constitution doesn't apply to them.

As far as torture goes, once again, there hasn't been a SINGLE credible instance of torture at gitmo. Maybe you'll be the first.

I'm still waiting for the names of those innocent americans you said are being held there.

STAGE 2
01-27-2008, 7:58 PM
You clearly aren't very knowledgeable about Padilla or Gitmo. First, multiple groups have cited torture in Gitmo. The FBI went public with a report on it, for ****'s sake.

Then citing to these reports shouldn't be a problem.

Second, the Supreme Court sided with Padilla against the government. They didn't say it was "suspect," they flat-out said they were wrong.

They sided with Padilla in that he should have a trial. They disagreed with his lawyers contention that there was some slight of hand, or trickery going on with the conditions of his detention.

Blackflag
01-27-2008, 8:58 PM
Then citing to these reports shouldn't be a problem.



They sided with Padilla in that he should have a trial. They disagreed with his lawyers contention that there was some slight of hand, or trickery going on with the conditions of his detention.

1. Pick up a newspaper and stop asking people to do the work for you.

2. Again, go read the case. It's publicly available if you go look for it. The Court specifically said there was trickery going on when the government was moving him from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (NY to SC, etc.) to try and avoid the court. You're simply fabricating every assertion you make now.

JohnJW
01-28-2008, 12:03 AM
oh noo....:rolleyes:

As gun owners, we are pretty familiar with the standard government/media sensationalism then back peddling. Let's try something closer to home. Government takes your OLL, claiming that you are in possession of an illegal "assault weapon." Takes you guns, threatens you with prison. You cough up a few thousand/tens of thousand in legal fees to defend yourself.

The point is, we can not selectively condone unjust action by our government. Any transgression by our government on anyone's constitutional rights, regardless who that person is, is an assault on all of our civil liberties.

JohnJW
01-28-2008, 1:17 AM
Any source that allows ANYONE the ability to edit the information is automatically suspect at best.

It's a bit ironic that you are attacking the merit of an open forum system, on <gasp> an open forum. By your own logic, all of your posts on calguns is "automatically suspect at best?"

If you think the current administration can do no wrong regarding our civil liberties, then there's nothing I can say to convince you of otherwise. The probability of Padilla being an innocent man wrongly convicted is quite low, however, the probability that his constitutional rights were violated by the "enemy combatant" label followed by the lengthy military detention is very very high.

For your reading enjoyment, maybe you want to look up the following,

Patriot Act - My public library now has a clause in its library card application stating that the government can access your library records without your consent or your knowledge. I never thought one day the government will know more about the books I read than the type of guns I have.

NSA warrantless surveillance

Extraordinary rendition (Khaled Masri, Maher Arar)

Waterboarding, there's a article in Washington Post regarding its use by the CIA and some destroyed interrogation tape, but then you may consider it to be another liberal media propaganda.

"Maybe" you'll be outraged after looking in to the above articles because there is strong evidence and even some admission that in this war on terror, our government ignores the Constitution, tortures, contracts out torturing, and sometimes on innocent victims.

As a reminder, 2A is a part of this thing call the Bill of Rights. Base on your comments,

So, you will excuse me if I'm slightly skeptical about a muslim chaplain alleging torture and abuse when he himself has taken no legal action against the government.
You may want to read the 1A. Muslim chaplain? So what?
Along with 9A. Lack of legal action means what?

Whats the big deal about solitary? Last time I checked, no one had a fundamental right not to be held in solitary.
Try the 8A, followed by 6A, unless 3 years is consider "speedy", then 5A.

There are countries that has simplified Bill of Rights containing only the 2A, but human lives seem not to worth much in those countries.

Ironchef
01-28-2008, 8:17 AM
Quite the contrary. This guy is alleging that the government tortured him. The government is the defendant here. A presumption of innocence applies to THEM not him.

a) What does James Yee have to gain from lying? He was truly taken against his will without due cause, incarcerated, ABUSED, put through hell, made an enemy by the media (and mindless people who believe ALL media), and then quietly released, exhonerated, and then given a commendation for his troubles before being honorably discharged. That pretty much proves his innocence. However, the government, on the other hand, does NOT have the best record of honesty regarding their treatment of prisoners.

In todays world, I don't take anything on simply the word of a single person. If everything that his guy alleges happened, then the government is ripe for a civil suit. The fact that this hasn't happened raises questions. If this happened to me then I'd be pissed and lawyering up.

Apparently you do. Someone (fox noise maybe?) told you uncorroborated "news" about an evil muslim who infiltrated the ranks of the army at gitmo and spied on us, aided the enemy evil doers in afganistan and elsewhere undoubtedly, etc, etc, and like everything else that is reported without being vetted first, is believed. However, the being found INNOCENT and completely exonerated part does not erase the propaganda you were fed. That puts the burden on the government 100%.


So again I ask you, do you have anything to corroborate this guys story.

Would it matter if I did? Probably not. Does it matter that he was proven completely and entirely innocent? That means the charges against him were false, wrong, manufactured, etc. Credibility goes to James Yee, not the government. But again, it doesn't matter if you can't reason thus.



Umm... yeah. Check with each of those organizations I just listed and read their reports. Furthermore, where is there any evidence of US citizens being held in gitmo? People being held there are foreign nationals captured in foreign countries. As such they have no civil rights.

But I am interested in these stories of people being taken in the dead of night. Are they american citizens? Were they arrested in america? If not, then don't bother because the constitution doesn't apply to them.

As far as torture goes, once again, there hasn't been a SINGLE credible instance of torture at gitmo (http://www.google.com/search?q=torture+at+gitmo&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a). Maybe you'll be the first. There's your source...4th one down..one of the sources you said testified that gitmo didn't torture...

I'm still waiting for the names of those innocent americans you said are being held there.

I also don't remember saying Americans were held there. I wouldn't doubt it, but I didn't say there were. I did say that the law firm I work for has several attorneys who have freed gitmo detainees who had their basic civil rights violated and they're also reported torture.

STAGE 2
01-28-2008, 9:51 AM
1. Pick up a newspaper and stop asking people to do the work for you.

Thats not how it goes. If you have an assertion, then bring some bonafides. "Because I said so" doesn't fly. I've given several organizations that have unequivocally stated that the conditions at gitmo are perfectly fine. If you wish to contradict this, then show me some evidence.


2. Again, go read the case. It's publicly available if you go look for it. The Court specifically said there was trickery going on when the government was moving him from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (NY to SC, etc.) to try and avoid the court. You're simply fabricating every assertion you make now.

I'm fabricating nothing. I POSTED the relevant part of the opinion here in which the court stated that there wasn't any trickery going on with his detention. Once again for your edification they said...

There is NO INDICATION that there was ANY attempt to MANIPULATE behind Padilla's transfer--he was taken to the same facility where other al Qaeda members were already being held, and the Government did not attempt to hide from Padilla's lawyer where it had taken him.

You seem to disagree with this, so please post the relevant part of the decision (I'm not looking for something from a dissenting opinion as you and I both know that's irrelevant as it doesn't control). If you aren't going to do that then its you who is fabricating things and drive by posting.

STAGE 2
01-28-2008, 10:09 AM
a) What does James Yee have to gain from lying?

Lots apparently. He released a book and now is on the speaking circuit. Its safe to say that if none of this happened, he wouldn't be doing what he's doing.


He was truly taken against his will without due cause

And how do you know. As I've said before, the UCMJ has far different requirments for arrest and detention than what the constitution requires. Because the charges were ultimately dropped, does not mean that the reason for arrest in the first place was invalid.


incarcerated, ABUSED, put through hell, made an enemy by the media (and mindless people who believe ALL media), and then quietly released, exhonerated, and then given a commendation for his troubles before being honorably discharged. That pretty much proves his innocence. However, the government, on the other hand, does NOT have the best record of honesty regarding their treatment of prisoners.

I'm not questioning his innocence. I'm questioning the "torture" he went through. So far you have refused to provide me with any corroborating evidence.


Apparently you do. Someone (fox noise maybe?) told you uncorroborated "news" about an evil muslim who infiltrated the ranks of the army at gitmo and spied on us, aided the enemy evil doers in afganistan and elsewhere undoubtedly, etc, etc, and like everything else that is reported without being vetted first, is believed. However, the being found INNOCENT and completely exonerated part does not erase the propaganda you were fed. That puts the burden on the government 100%.

Either accused entities have a presumption of innocence or they don't. You don't get to change things up because you don't like the government. Thats not how the system works.


Would it matter if I did? Probably not. Does it matter that he was proven completely and entirely innocent? That means the charges against him were false, wrong, manufactured, etc. Credibility goes to James Yee, not the government. But again, it doesn't matter if you can't reason thus.

Yes it actually would. And no it legally is irrelevant that he was proven innocent. You argument that because he is innocent, it must mean that he was mistreated by the government, is legally defunct as well as a massive logical fallacy.

You see, there's this thing called the smell test, and thus far many things here don't line up. If this guy was as badly abused as he alleges, and was deprived of his rights, then he would have a slam dunk case lined up. The fact that he hasn't done ANYTHING bothers me. Then theres the issue of someone, ANYONE corroborating his story. If this guy was being abused, someone must have seen something. There would have to be some physical evidence on his body.

But rather than go after the people that wronged him, he decided to write a book and lecture. He knows the government isn't going to do anything about this, and he's made far more money doing this than from any lawsuit he would win.


There's your source...4th one down..one of the sources you said testified that gitmo didn't torture...

Now we have something. Of course there is the problem of verifying what is said. There is also the problem of amnesty international actually visiting gitmo and stating that there were no abuses going on. While this report constitutes a piece of evidence, it is unknown how reliable the source is, and it is certianly not conclusive. As a result, the weight of current evidence still sits in favor of my position.



I also don't remember saying Americans were held there. I wouldn't doubt it, but I didn't say there were. I did say that the law firm I work for has several attorneys who have freed gitmo detainees who had their basic civil rights violated and they're also reported torture.

Then I don't care. The constitution doesn't apply to these folks, therefore there are no laws being broken by their detention.

Ironchef
01-28-2008, 10:49 AM
zzzzz... k, you win dude.

STAGE 2
01-28-2008, 1:39 PM
zzzzz... k, you win dude.

It has nothing to do with winning, it has to do with supporting your argument.

All of your arguments are complete fallacies. You use this army chaplain as evidence that Padilla was wronged, and you refuse to provide any support that this chaplain was actual tortured. Even if you could prove that this chaplain was tortured, that has absolutely nothing to do with Padilla. We don't convict people based on what they are "likely" to do.

Conversely, I've given you the timeline of Padillas actions and showed you where the supreme court stated that there was no misconduct on the government's part in regards to his detention.

If all you're going to do is sit there and shout "because" then I don't know why you posted in the first place.

Ironchef
01-28-2008, 1:55 PM
No, you're clearly arguing just to argue. I don't need to prove anything, I wasn't using this James Yee case as evidence that Padilla was wronged, and your ignorance of the obvious torture that is conducted on detainees is baffling. If you don't believe me or James Yee (someone you don't know jack about), then that's your problem. If you need your citations, do the work yourself like someone else told you to do.

Also, I think you're mixing up other posts, I've not argued about padilla with you.

STAGE 2
01-28-2008, 2:20 PM
No, you're clearly arguing just to argue. I don't need to prove anything

Well, you do if you want your assertions to be taken seriously.

If you don't believe me or James Yee (someone you don't know jack about), then that's your problem.

Believe you about what? You've never been to gitmo. All you have is hearsay. As far as Yee is concerned, all I asked for was a single piece of evidence corroborating what he said. If that topples your entire postion, then its probably not one you should have put forth in the first place.


If you need your citations, do the work yourself like someone else told you to do.

Such is the battle cry of the lazy and often wrong. I've already posted facts. I'm not going to root around for what you have an obligation to provide.


Also, I think you're mixing up other posts, I've not argued about padilla with you.

Sure you did. You said that he was a victim of the government propaganda machine, implying that he was either partially or totally innocent.

Ironchef
01-28-2008, 2:43 PM
So every assertion someone makes here (things that are common and not common knowledge found easily on the Internet) needs to cite something regardless if someone argues against it?

Did I say I went to gitmo? Do I need to go to gitmo to make the point that James Yee had been dealt with illegally? I didn't say he was in Gitmo.

I doubt there's a witness or someone who was with James in his isolated cell that has come forth to testify of his torture. But does anyone have that, and is there suspicion of torture still? I do know attorneys who have proof their clients were tortured, though protected and unworthy of your arguments, I would never cite that. I believe Janice Karpinski's testimony where she reported that her replacement (replaced because she wouldn't torture at Abu Graib) who came from Gitmo was so good at torturing at gitmo that it was needed at Abu Graib..he even brought his own dogs..dogs seen in the infamous pictures we've all seen. I believe the dozens of articles I've read from various sources, I'm obviously too lazy to support them for you because honestly, it would not matter..you'd never shut yer yap.

What's most boring here is that you are changing context and shifting from the things that matter and proving nothing (yet you say you've posted facts? Facts for what, that James Yee wasn't tortured?).

So again, you win.

STAGE 2
01-28-2008, 3:26 PM
So every assertion someone makes here (things that are common and not common knowledge found easily on the Internet) needs to cite something regardless if someone argues against it?

More or less, yeah. If you are going to argue a point, then it behooves you to support it with something more than "because I said so".

Did I say I went to gitmo? Do I need to go to gitmo to make the point that James Yee had been dealt with illegally?

You keep saying that he was dealt with illegally? Because someone is arrested and eventually found to be innocent doesn't mean that their arrest and detention was illegal. There is a different standard for an arrest than there is for a guilty verdict. Thats why charges are dropped and people are found innocent.

I do know attorneys who have proof their clients were tortured, though protected and unworthy of your arguments, I would never cite that.

"I have proof, but I can't show it to you". There is another word for that. BS.


I believe Janice Karpinski's testimony where she reported that her replacement (replaced because she wouldn't torture at Abu Graib) who came from Gitmo was so good at torturing at gitmo that it was needed at Abu Graib..he even brought his own dogs..dogs seen in the infamous pictures we've all seen.

I'm beginning to see a pattern here. You take the word of a single, disgraced officer against the weight of several committee findings and the testimony of several other officers. You seem to be fond of hearsay and conjecture as that isthe base on which your positions stand.


I believe the dozens of articles I've read from various sources, I'm obviously too lazy to support them for you because honestly, it would not matter..you'd never shut yer yap.

Why should I? I'm supposed to let you rattle on without offering any proof whatsoever? The fact that you are so put off by others asking you for some substance is far more telling than any facts that could ever be offered.


What's most boring here is that you are changing context and shifting from the things that matter and proving nothing (yet you say you've posted facts? Facts for what, that James Yee wasn't tortured?).

If its so boring, why did you bother to post in the first place?

Blackflag
01-28-2008, 4:10 PM
Thats not how it goes. If you have an assertion, then bring some bonafides. "Because I said so" doesn't fly. I've given several organizations that have unequivocally stated that the conditions at gitmo are perfectly fine. If you wish to contradict this, then show me some evidence.




You seem to disagree with this, so please post the relevant part of the decision (I'm not looking for something from a dissenting opinion as you and I both know that's irrelevant as it doesn't control). If you aren't going to do that then its you who is fabricating things and drive by posting.

Just to clarify for you - you don't win arguments by being belligerent and obnoxious...you just annoy people.

Regarding reports of Gitmo, you're simply too lazy to type "fbi and guantanamo" into a search engine...fine. Here's the first thing it brings up:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/08/guantanamo.abuse/

"FBI reports Guantanamo abuse"

As for the court opinion - I really don't have time to reread the opinion for you.

Again, being too lazy to do the research yourself doesn't mean you win the argument - it just means you're lazy. It's also ignorant to say that statements in the dissents don't matter. The fact is: any admonishment by the court does not matter. Only the legal conclusion matters.

Therefore, it doesn't matter if one justice admonishes the executive branch or nine do. It has the same effect.

But I don't have time to disprove your strawman argument about whether the court admonished the administration. That's simply not the courts job, and it doesn't matter if they do. But the fact is - they did.

They did by simply holding against the executive branch.

They also did in the majority opinions. They also did in the dissents. Even if you're too lazy to read the opinions themselves, you can pull up any number of news articles on the internet that gives quotes.

But don't ask me to read for you. I don't have time to be your reading coach. That's just a cheap strawman. :)

STAGE 2
01-28-2008, 6:50 PM
Just to clarify for you - you don't win arguments by being belligerent and obnoxious...you just annoy people.

Then why bother to post.



Regarding reports of Gitmo, you're simply too lazy to type "fbi and guantanamo" into a search engine...fine. Here's the first thing it brings up:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/08/guantanamo.abuse/

"FBI reports Guantanamo abuse"

And if you read your own article, you'll see that reported "abuse" includes "extreme isolation" among other things. You'll excuse me if I refuse to consider isolation torture or abuse. Furthermore, the memo includes a lengthy discussion about the jurisdiction between the FBI and military regarding interrogation techniques. This is a turf war. As such I find it laughable that you and others who argue about how dishonest the government can be about things uses the FBI (the same dishonest government) as an authoritative source.



As for the court opinion - I really don't have time to reread the opinion for you.

Translation: It doesn't actually say what I was alleging.


But I don't have time to disprove your strawman argument about whether the court admonished the administration. That's simply not the courts job, and it doesn't matter if they do. But the fact is - they did.

They did by simply holding against the executive branch.

They also did in the majority opinions. They also did in the dissents. Even if you're too lazy to read the opinions themselves, you can pull up any number of news articles on the internet that gives quotes.

So what you are trying to tell me is that even though the court took the time in the majority opinion to SPECIFICALLY make the point that the government wasn't being deceptive with Padilla, because they ruled against the administration (on a completely separate issue) this statement is somehow irrelevant.

And rather than cite to the passage which you allege contradicts something the majority wrote (which makes no sense) you tell me to look at an article rather than the opinion itself.

The only thing I can say is that the arguments you have put forth here are not only dishonest, but sloppy as well.

Blackflag
01-28-2008, 7:10 PM
1. I told you there was an FBI report. You said "what report." I direct you to the report, and all you can say is that you disagree with the FBI? Are you for real?? You can't be serious.

2.
In light of the previous changes in his custody status and the fact that nearly four years have passed since he first was detained, Padilla, it must be acknowledged, has a continuing concern that his status might be altered again.

Padilla v. Hanft, 547 U.S. 1062, 1063 (2006).

Incommunicado detention for months on end is such a procedure. Whether the information so procured is more or less reliable than that acquired by more extreme forms of torture is of no consequence. For if this Nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny.

Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 465 (2004).


At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society. Even more important than the method of selecting the people's rulers and their successors is the character of the constraints imposed on the Executive by the rule of law. Unconstrained executive detention for the purpose of investigating and preventing subversive activity is the hallmark of the Star Chamber. Access to counsel for the purpose of protecting the citizen from official mistakes and mistreatment is the hallmark of due process.

Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 465 (U.S. 2004).

[W]e should not permit the Government to obtain a tactical advantage as a consequence of an ex parte proceeding. The departure from the time-honored practice of giving one's adversary fair notice of an intent to present an important motion to the court justifies treating the habeas application as the functional equivalent of one filed two days earlier. See Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U.S. 223, 1 Wall. 223, 233, 17 L. Ed. 531 (1864) ("Common justice requires that no man shall be condemned in his person or property without notice and an opportunity to make his defence"). "The very nature of the writ demands that it be administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to insure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected." Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 291, 22 L. Ed. 2d 281, 89 S. Ct. 1082 (1969). But even if we treat respondent's habeas petition as having been filed in the Southern District after the Government removed him to South Carolina, there is ample precedent for affording special treatment to this exceptional case, both by recognizing Secretary Rumsfeld as the proper respondent and by treating the Southern District as the most appropriate venue.

Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 459-460 (2004).

Is it embarassing to have somebody do your work for you? I'm tired of pointing out common knowledge to you, and I dislike dealing with people too brainwashed to deal with facts. Have a nice day.

otalps
01-28-2008, 7:45 PM
At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society. Even more important than the method of selecting the people's rulers and their successors is the character of the constraints imposed on the Executive by the rule of law. Unconstrained executive detention for the purpose of investigating and preventing subversive activity is the hallmark of the Star Chamber. Access to counsel for the purpose of protecting the citizen from official mistakes and mistreatment is the hallmark of due process.

Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 465 (U.S. 2004).



Not to get involved in your argument but this was written by the dissenting justice Stevens. It's kind of funny coming from the same guy that wrote the majority opinion in the Kelo case.

Blackflag
01-28-2008, 8:10 PM
Actually, it was written by four justices...but interesting point nonetheless. The Kelo decision makes me cringe. :chris:

STAGE 2
01-28-2008, 8:22 PM
Is it embarassing to have somebody do your work for you? I'm tired of pointing out common knowledge to you, and I dislike dealing with people too brainwashed to deal with facts. Have a nice day.

What is embarrassing is that you keep trying to pass off incorrect information. Those quotes you posted were from the DISSENT. The opinion of the court, the part that is binding and authoritative, states that there was no government deception.

Furthermore, each of these statements that you posted are speaking in generalities, and not about Padilla specifically. No one is going to argue that holding someone for months without access to counsel is fine. HOWEVER THATS NOT WHAT HAPPENED HERE. The facts lay this out, and the majority opinion specifically says this.

Anything else you want to want to lie about?

JohnJW
01-29-2008, 9:47 AM
No one is going to argue that holding someone for months without access to counsel is fine. HOWEVER THATS NOT WHAT HAPPENED HERE. The facts lay this out, and the majority opinion specifically says this.


What happened was that Padilla was held in a military prison under a false pretense (planning to detonate a dirty bomb in the US) for more than 3 years. During his imprisonment, he was solitary confinement. Prolong solitary confinement is form of psychological torture. He alleges physical torture and given what has surfaced regarding our government's treatment of "enemy combatants," his allegation is quite plausible. Regardless of his alleged acts, his lengthy military imprisonment prior to his indictment is a serious erosion on our civil liberties.

Let me translate this to 2A language that we can relate to. Government throws you in jail for OLL possession, citing that as we all know, semi automatic weapons is the weapon of choice for mass child murders. You spend the next 3 years fighting to clear your name at your own expense. News vans parked in front of your house 24/7, your neighbors shuns you, your boss fires you, and your family leaves you. At the end, the government acknowledges you never intended to commit mass child murders and though you are free to go, base on your posting in calguns that could be interpreted as a potential threat, your OLLs has to stay.

This case reminds me of the imprisonment of 120,000 Japanese Americans during WWII fueled by mass hysteria and racial prejudice. Unfortunately for those 120,000 Americans, the courts typically demur to the executive on matter of national security. Back in 1944 Supreme Court upheld the legality of concentration camps. Now we know that back then, even FBI director Hoover do not believe there was a national security threat from the Japanese Americans.

C'mon, time to wake up. GW Bush is not the white knight we had originally hope for and supported back in 2000. Maybe you are in the camp that believes the Constitution is not a suicide pact, liberty can be taken away to preserve life. Some of us strongly disagrees. We've been brainwashed by our liberal K-12 history teachers romanticizing the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Paul Revere, and Patrick Henry. For us there is no life without liberty.

STAGE 2
01-29-2008, 10:32 AM
What happened was that Padilla was held in a military prison under a false pretense (planning to detonate a dirty bomb in the US) for more than 3 years.

Why was it a false pretense? A jury never acquitted Padilla of this. Prosecutors decided to try him for being an al quaeda supporter and an attempted murderer. This doesn't mean that Padilla never planned to detonate a dirty bomb. Quite the contrary, since he was a member of an al quaeda cell I'm willing to bet that he probably did plan something of the sort. Making a pragmatic choice because of national security or making the case easier to win at trial doesn't acquit a person of other things they may have done.


During his imprisonment, he was solitary confinement. Prolong solitary confinement is form of psychological torture.

No it isnt.


He alleges physical torture and given what has surfaced regarding our government's treatment of "enemy combatants," his allegation is quite plausible. Regardless of his alleged acts, his lengthy military imprisonment prior to his indictment is a serious erosion on our civil liberties.

A violation of someone's civil rights does NOT absolve them of their crimes. The remedy for something like this is exactly what happened here. Padilla had his trial and the judge took into consideration his time in detention when handing out his sentence.


Let me translate this to 2A language that we can relate to. Government throws you in jail for OLL possession, citing that as we all know, semi automatic weapons is the weapon of choice for mass child murders. You spend the next 3 years fighting to clear your name at your own expense. News vans parked in front of your house 24/7, your neighbors shuns you, your boss fires you, and your family leaves you. At the end, the government acknowledges you never intended to commit mass child murders and though you are free to go, base on your posting in calguns that could be interpreted as a potential threat, your OLLs has to stay.

The analogy is irrelevant. Padilla was 1) someone with a long criminal record to begin with and 2) WAS A MEMBER OF AN AL QUAEDA CELL.

This guy was a terrorist. Period. He went to their training camp. I don't know why you guys keep acting as if he was an innocent party. Because he was planning murders and carrying out orders from al quaeda instead of planning a radioactive bomb he is somehow a saint. Thats utterly ridiculous.


This case reminds me of the imprisonment of 120,000 Japanese Americans during WWII fueled by mass hysteria and racial prejudice. Unfortunately for those 120,000 Americans, the courts typically demur to the executive on matter of national security. Back in 1944 Supreme Court upheld the legality of concentration camps. Now we know that back then, even FBI director Hoover do not believe there was a national security threat from the Japanese Americans.

And and again, those Japanese were guilty of nothing but being Japanese. Padilla was a member of al quaeda. Another irrelevant comparison.


C'mon, time to wake up. GW Bush is not the white knight we had originally hope for and supported back in 2000. Maybe you are in the camp that believes the Constitution is not a suicide pact, liberty can be taken away to preserve life. Some of us strongly disagrees. We've been brainwashed by our liberal K-12 history teachers romanticizing the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Paul Revere, and Patrick Henry. For us there is no life without liberty.

Whether the constitution is a suicide pact has nothing to do with the fact that at the end of the day, a terrorist was convicted. You talk of brainwashing and romanticism, and yet ironically all you have brought up is several examples of the government violating the liberties of innocent people. Thats not what happened here.

Its really fashionable to hate the government. Some of this is no doubt deserved. However when some people get to the point where they cant see the positive in a terrorist being brought to justice, I begin to wonder who is more dangerous, the terrorists, or those that are so blinded by hate and mistrust that everything the government does is wrong.

JohnJW
01-29-2008, 1:18 PM
A violation of someone's civil rights does NOT absolve them of their crimes. The remedy for something like this is exactly what happened here. Padilla had his trial and the judge took into consideration his time in detention when handing out his sentence.


Does convicting someone of a crime absolve the government's violation of our civil rights?

You are equating demands for the government to adhere to the Bill of Rights with Padilla's innocence. They are not the same. In case you forget, our Bill of Rights was meant to protect us from the government, not the likes of Padilla.

Japanese Americans in WWII serve as a reminder that given enough public hysteria and prejudice, even our courts will caved to an over zealous executive branch claiming national security interests.



Whether the constitution is a suicide pact has nothing to do with the fact that at the end of the day, a terrorist was convicted.


It does, people who are willing to trade liberty for security will gladly turn a blind eye to government civil right abuses in the name of national security.



Its really fashionable to hate the government. Some of this is no doubt deserved. However when some people get to the point where they cant see the positive in a terrorist being brought to justice, I begin to wonder who is more dangerous, the terrorists, or those that are so blinded by hate and mistrust that everything the government does is wrong.

Please spare us this argument, we've heard it before from the likes of Feinstein, Reno, and the Clintons. They also wonder why people can't see the positive in getting the favorite weapons of child killers off the streets. . . . They don't understand that Bill of Rights do not come a la carte.

You simply do not believe 3 years and 7 month of solitary confinement in a military prison without being charged is torture and is an acceptable norm. In your mind as long if the government can get a conviction at the end, the means to that end is justifiable. I wonder what's you view on Ruby Ridge? and Waco?

JohnJW
01-29-2008, 1:42 PM
Why was it a false pretense? A jury never acquitted Padilla of this. Prosecutors decided to try him for being an al quaeda supporter and an attempted murderer. This doesn't mean that Padilla never planned to detonate a dirty bomb. Quite the contrary, since he was a member of an al quaeda cell I'm willing to bet that he probably did plan something of the sort. Making a pragmatic choice because of national security or making the case easier to win at trial doesn't acquit a person of other things they may have done.

Do you understand the implication of what you just wrote? Guilty until acquitted? And (borrowing from the "equipped to be a prostitute" fable) you better think twice about sexual fantasies, by your own pragmatic standard you can be convicted of rape.

For someone who has been quite factually demanding, all this talk about "willing to bet," "probably did plan," and "something of sort," is making me wonder if you are holding the rest of us to a higher standard? How did you make the leap from "being an al quaeda supporter" to "was a member of an al quaeda cell" in two sentences?

STAGE 2
01-29-2008, 3:19 PM
Does convicting someone of a crime absolve the government's violation of our civil rights?

No, thats why his case went to the supreme court and why his sentence was shortened.


You are equating demands for the government to adhere to the Bill of Rights with Padilla's innocence. They are not the same. In case you forget, our Bill of Rights was meant to protect us from the government, not the likes of Padilla.

I am equating nothing. I am saying that Padilla was not the innocent american that many held him up to be. He is a terrorist.


Japanese Americans in WWII serve as a reminder that given enough public hysteria and prejudice, even our courts will caved to an over zealous executive branch claiming national security interests.

Irrelevant.



It does, people who are willing to trade liberty for security will gladly turn a blind eye to government civil right abuses in the name of national security.

And what exactly was traded here? There was a dispute between the executive branch and Padilla. This disupte was resolved in Padillas favor. If you think that is turning a blind eye then there isn't anything else I can say.




Please spare us this argument, we've heard it before from the likes of Feinstein, Reno, and the Clintons. They also wonder why people can't see the positive in getting the favorite weapons of child killers off the streets. . . . They don't understand that Bill of Rights do not come a la carte.

You simply do not believe 3 years and 7 month of solitary confinement in a military prison without being charged is torture and is an acceptable norm. In your mind as long if the government can get a conviction at the end, the means to that end is justifiable. I wonder what's you view on Ruby Ridge? and Waco?

Spare me the rhetoric. Nowhere have I said that "the ends justify the means". In fact I began this thread saying, "while Padilla should have recieved his day in court...". He was a US citizen and as such, should have had a trial. In fact, I wish they would have fast tracked his trial and thrown him in jail long ago.

That said, if these are the kind of people that the government is fumbling around with then I'm not going to lose alot of sleep at night. I simply have no sympathy for al quaeda.


Do you understand the implication of what you just wrote? Guilty until acquitted? And (borrowing from the "equipped to be a prostitute" fable) you better think twice about sexual fantasies, by your own pragmatic standard you can be convicted of rape.

For someone who has been quite factually demanding, all this talk about "willing to bet," "probably did plan," and "something of sort," is making me wonder if you are holding the rest of us to a higher standard? How did you make the leap from "being an al quaeda supporter" to "was a member of an al quaeda cell" in two sentences?

There is no implication whatsoever. A presumption of innocence applies in a court of law, not on a gun board. Padilla was presumed to be innocent of any and all charges he faced. That doesn't prohibit me from using a dose of common sense. OJ was found innocent, but that doesn't mean that I, or any other american with a brain stopped thinking he killed his wife. The same applies here.

Because the government chose to convict Padilla of conspiracy to engage in terrorism (which by golly could include plotting to set off a bomb) doesn't mean that Padilla didn't commit any other crimes.

As far as him being part of an al quaeda cell, thats exactly what he was convicted for. From the washington post...

Padilla was arrested in 2002 for allegedly plotting a radiological "dirty bomb" attack, but prosecutors chose not to pursue those allegations in court here. But after a three-month trial, they had convinced the jury that Padilla, 36, participated in a South Florida-based al-Qaeda support cell that in the '90s began to send money and people to wage holy war in Bosnia, Chechnya, Kosovo and Somalia.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081601009.html

So yes, he was part of a cell, and yes the prosecutors made the decision not to go forward with the dirty bomb charges. Of course this is understandable due to the fact that the sentences are about the same, conspiracy is much easier to prove, and if a conviction wasn't obtained the media would have had a field day as Padilla had become their darling.

JohnJW
01-29-2008, 5:44 PM
There is no implication whatsoever. A presumption of innocence applies in a court of law, not on a gun board. Padilla was presumed to be innocent of any and all charges he faced. That doesn't prohibit me from using a dose of common sense. OJ was found innocent, but that doesn't mean that I, or any other american with a brain stopped thinking he killed his wife. The same applies here.


The above pretty much sums up your argument. If convenient you will use the court of law, if not you will use your pragmatic common sense. That may work if you are consistent in your position and means that you were just as trusting of the Clinton administration as you are of the current administration. Yet, the same court system you think so highly for convicting Padillia is also the same system you do no have faith in, as you cited with the OJ case.

For you information, every 4 years we elect a new president and there is no guarantee that the ones you like will win or act the way you think he/she will act. So, better play it safe and point to that piece of yellowing and semi faded piece of paper call the Bill of Rights and tell whoever is the President that's the kind of government you want and expect, nothing more and nothing less.

If you truly believe you can suspend our Constitution as you see fit, first on the issue of lengthy detention without trial then on a gun board, there's no need for further discussion because we are operating on very different sets of reality.

Blackflag
01-29-2008, 6:07 PM
If convenient you will use the court of law, if not you will use your pragmatic common sense.

He's logically inconsistent, and you're wasting your breath...one of the brainwashed masses who won't even listen to facts.

STAGE 2
01-30-2008, 12:10 PM
The above pretty much sums up your argument. If convenient you will use the court of law, if not you will use your pragmatic common sense. That may work if you are consistent in your position and means that you were just as trusting of the Clinton administration as you are of the current administration. Yet, the same court system you think so highly for convicting Padillia is also the same system you do no have faith in, as you cited with the OJ case.

Trusting isn't the proper word, but I don't believe that any more innocent americans were being picked up and thrown in gulags during Bill's tenure than today.

Furthermore, you misplace my faith. It is not the court system that I have faith in, it is common sense. Common sense tells me that OJ is guilty as is Padilla. However one was convicted and one wasn't.



For you information, every 4 years we elect a new president and there is no guarantee that the ones you like will win or act the way you think he/she will act. So, better play it safe and point to that piece of yellowing and semi faded piece of paper call the Bill of Rights and tell whoever is the President that's the kind of government you want and expect, nothing more and nothing less.

If you truly believe you can suspend our Constitution as you see fit, first on the issue of lengthy detention without trial then on a gun board, there's no need for further discussion because we are operating on very different sets of reality.

I agree with your last sentence completely. You seem to be operating in the reality where I said I agree with Padilla's lengthy detention or that I'm perfectly fine with suspending the constitution. Nowhere have I said that. You keep repeating this as if to think that if you say it enough, maybe you'll eventually attribute to me, but that simply isn't going to happen.

Here's a serious question for you. What do you think should have happened to Padilla? Should he have been let free? Should we have only slapped him on the wrist? What is proper in your eyes.


He's logically inconsistent, and you're wasting your breath...one of the brainwashed masses who won't even listen to facts.

Facts. I love those. The facts are that Padilla was a member of an al quaeda cell. The facts are that he was trained in an al quaeda camp overseas. The facts are that he was charged and convicted of conspiracy to commit terrorism.

Padilla was not some innocent american who was subject to governmental abuses. He was a terrorist who should have been expedited through the court system.

You argue that because Padilla wasn't charged with planning to build a dirty bomb that he's somehow vindicated. Thats like saying that someone who was arrested for rape and murder, and only gets charged for rape is vindicated. But I'm the logically inconsistent one.

Blackflag
01-30-2008, 4:56 PM
You argue that because Padilla wasn't charged with planning to build a dirty bomb that he's somehow vindicated. Thats like saying that someone who was arrested for rape and murder, and only gets charged for rape is vindicated. But I'm the logically inconsistent one.

Do I argue that? Where?

Congratulations...everybody in this thread has realized you're a waste of time. :)

STAGE 2
01-30-2008, 7:41 PM
Congratulations...everybody in this thread has realized you're a waste of time. :)

Then again that begs the question of why in the world you bothered to repond in the first place.

Blackflag
01-30-2008, 9:12 PM
You missed the question. Did I argue what you said or not? Show me where.

STAGE 2
01-30-2008, 10:22 PM
You miss the point, if this thread is wasting your time then you shouldn't keep posting.

JohnJW
01-31-2008, 1:13 AM
Furthermore, you misplace my faith. It is not the court system that I have faith in, it is common sense. Common sense tells me that OJ is guilty as is Padilla. However one was convicted and one wasn't.

Here's a serious question for you. What do you think should have happened to Padilla? Should he have been let free? Should we have only slapped him on the wrist? What is proper in your eyes.



So at the end you are saying your are the judge. It's okay, we're all our own judges. However, what works on an individual level will not work in a society because not everyone has the same common sense. That's why we have our Constitution and more importantly the Bill of Rights.

Due to the suspicious nature of Padilla's arrival with a bag full of money and questionable past, our government has every right to detain him. We either have enough evidence to charge him or if not, release him. That's the American way. We don't place people in solitary confinement for 3 years and 7 month without charge to make up for our government's lack of investigative skill. Given the severity of the initials charges against Padilla and the resources of our government, if we can't find anything to charge him or have the ability for a post release surveillance it's government incompetence.

JohnJW
01-31-2008, 1:21 AM
You argue that because Padilla wasn't charged with planning to build a dirty bomb that he's somehow vindicated. Thats like saying that someone who was arrested for rape and murder, and only gets charged for rape is vindicated. But I'm the logically inconsistent one.

If you are logically consistent you will have to believe that all those people who had their OLL confiscated are guilty of illegal AW possession. Do you believe that?

STAGE 2
01-31-2008, 10:46 AM
If you are logically consistent you will have to believe that all those people who had their OLL confiscated are guilty of illegal AW possession. Do you believe that?

Thats not analogous. It would be like if someone had their OLL confiscated and was arrested on suspicion of having an assault weapon as well as selling dope, and then was only taken to trial on the dope charge.

Its reasonable to question whether someone is innocent when they are facing a single crime. When things start to pile up then that reasonableness starts to disppear. Padilla was surrounded by so many facts that it was a virtual impossibility that he somehow innocently stumbled onto al quaeda.


So at the end you are saying your are the judge. It's okay, we're all our own judges. However, what works on an individual level will not work in a society because not everyone has the same common sense. That's why we have our Constitution and more importantly the Bill of Rights.

And I don't disagree with that. The gangbanger who is arrested at 3 am driving a mercedes with a broken window and has a roll of 100's in his pocket has a presumption of innocence as well. But you should have a fairly good idea of where he is going to end up.

Due to the suspicious nature of Padilla's arrival with a bag full of money and questionable past, our government has every right to detain him. We either have enough evidence to charge him or if not, release him. That's the American way. We don't place people in solitary confinement for 3 years and 7 month without charge to make up for our government's lack of investigative skill. Given the severity of the initials charges against Padilla and the resources of our government, if we can't find anything to charge him or have the ability for a post release surveillance it's government incompetence.

But you didn't answer my question. The government had the ability to charge him since day one. They were detaining him for interrogation and information. While their motives were understandable, he still should have gone to trial.

In light of this violation of his civil rights, what would you have done? Do you let a member of al quaeda go free?

JohnJW
01-31-2008, 12:00 PM
Thats not analogous. It would be like if someone had their OLL confiscated and was arrested on suspicion of having an assault weapon as well as selling dope, and then was only taken to trial on the dope charge.

So, is the guy guilty of possessing an "assault weapon" because he was convicted of the drug charges?


But you didn't answer my question. The government had the ability to charge him since day one. They were detaining him for interrogation and information. While their motives were understandable, he still should have gone to trial.

In light of this violation of his civil rights, what would you have done? Do you let a member of al quaeda go free?

Why not just charge him since day one, rather than wait 3 years and 7 month of imprisonment without charge?

If his conviction was the result of government misconduct, ie confession from torture, then yes, he is free to go. If not, ie duration of his detention has no effect on the evidence against him, he stays. However, his legal status does not change the fact that our government violated our civil rights. Given that the perpetrator is our own elected government, the only real punishment is forcing the government to admit a wrong was committed and institute new polices and regulations to lessen the possibility of future transgression and always keep our eyes open.

STAGE 2
01-31-2008, 1:29 PM
So, is the guy guilty of possessing an "assault weapon" because he was convicted of the drug charges?

No, he isn't guilty of anything until convicted of it. However if he's selling dope, that tends to suggest that he's not the upstanding citizen that civil rights groups claimed that he was (as people did with Padilla).

In that case it should give a reasonable person pause to stop and wonder if in fact he was in possession of an AW.



Why not just charge him since day one, rather than wait 3 years and 7 month of imprisonment without charge?

I don't know. However my guess was that they wanted to keep him for information. They didn't do anything different to Padilla than they did with any other al quaeda member they caught. The only problem is that Padilla happened to be a US citizen, which usually isn't the case.


If his conviction was the result of government misconduct, ie confession from torture, then yes, he is free to go.

Any evidence they government obtained during his detention was excluded at his trial, so this was not the case.

If not, ie duration of his detention has no effect on the evidence against him, he stays. However, his legal status does not change the fact that our government violated our civil rights. Given that the perpetrator is our own elected government, the only real punishment is forcing the government to admit a wrong was committed and institute new polices and regulations to lessen the possibility of future transgression and always keep our eyes open.

1) That really doesn't answer the question of what you would do with Padilla.

2) Thats exactly what happened here. The courts ruling is one of the reasons that we have the MCA. Because of this and the Padilla case, US citizens working for al quaeda or any other terror cell are going to have their day in court. The system fixed itself to prevent future wrongs. That is beyond question.

JohnJW
01-31-2008, 10:52 PM
No, he isn't guilty of anything until convicted of it. However if he's selling dope, that tends to suggest that he's not the upstanding citizen that civil rights groups claimed that he was (as people did with Padilla).

In that case it should give a reasonable person pause to stop and wonder if in fact he was in possession of an AW.

Wow, page 8. So we have reestablished the concept of innocent until proven guilty. On a side note, there are probably some OLL owning upstanding citizen dope dealers here in CA, also known as CA medical marijuana licensed MDs/Pharmacists.



1) That really doesn't answer the question of what you would do with Padilla.


I think I have already answered. Or do you mean what would I do personally? Well, if I think he was setting off a radio active bomb I will personally empty the entire magazine on him, maybe even reload a few time. If it turns he was just a gardener capping his trash can, then I go to jail. And, if the gardener is of a different ethnic group, I may get charged with a hate crime for reloading.



2) Thats exactly what happened here. The courts ruling is one of the reasons that we have the MCA. Because of this and the Padilla case, US citizens working for al quaeda or any other terror cell are going to have their day in court. The system fixed itself to prevent future wrongs. That is beyond question.

So, you are saying the detention was unconstitutional, ie system broken, but now that Padillia had his day in court, the system is fixed.

Isn't this why we are having a disagreement on? The government was wrong in detaining Padillia for 3 years and 7 month without charging him.

Sam Hainn
01-31-2008, 10:55 PM
I keep seeing the title of this thread pop up on top & at first glance I mentally see 'Perata convicted.'

Wishful thinking I guess. :(

MikeWilliamson
02-01-2008, 5:31 AM
For terrorism, his sentence isn't nearly long enough.

Or else way too long. Five seconds and a rope.

But wouldn't you rather have a good Democrat administration like FDRs? They didn't imprison ANY Americans, except for 110,000 Japanese Americans (plus a few Chinese, Thais and Filipinos who looked Jap).

STAGE 2
02-01-2008, 1:31 PM
Wow, page 8. So we have reestablished the concept of innocent until proven guilty. On a side note, there are probably some OLL owning upstanding citizen dope dealers here in CA, also known as CA medical marijuana licensed MDs/Pharmacists.

I don't know why you keep harping on the presumption of innocence. I am free to have any views I want. The presumption of innocence simply means that a defendant does not have to prove his innocence. Rather its the state that has to prove his guilt. Calguns isn't a court of law or a state actor. Therefore, a presumption of innocence is irrelevant.



So, you are saying the detention was unconstitutional, ie system broken, but now that Padillia had his day in court, the system is fixed.

Isn't this why we are having a disagreement on? The government was wrong in detaining Padillia for 3 years and 7 month without charging him.

The detention was not unconstitutional, preventing Padilla from having his trial was a violation of his civil rights. This individual case was fixed because Padilla had his trial. The system was fixed because the supreme court closed the issue on what happens to american citizens who are also al quaeda terrorists with their decision. This also prompted legislation which further distinguishes what happens to americans working with al quaeda.

So yes, Padilla's situation was remedied, and the system fixed itself by preventing any future wrongs of this type.

What I dont understand is that I said this on page one.

JohnJW
02-01-2008, 8:25 PM
I don't know why you keep harping on the presumption of innocence. I am free to have any views I want. The presumption of innocence simply means that a defendant does not have to prove his innocence. Rather its the state that has to prove his guilt. Calguns isn't a court of law or a state actor. Therefore, a presumption of innocence is irrelevant.

Okay . . . . I thought we were talking about our justice system. . .as it turn out it was all in your head. . . You are free to believe in anything you want.




The detention was not unconstitutional, preventing Padilla from having his trial was a violation of his civil rights.

Um, detention was the reason why he can't have his day in court, thus a violation of his civil rights, thus unconstitutional.

I hope we don't have to take it page 9 to untangle your logic, we may give people the false hope that Parata was convicted . .after all his house was raided by the FBI. . . .

STAGE 2
02-02-2008, 2:22 PM
Um, detention was the reason why he can't have his day in court, thus a violation of his civil rights, thus unconstitutional.


The government was perfectly in their rights to detain Padilla. Detaining him without allowing him to go to trial was the violation. If the detention was unconstitutional, then they couldn't have picked him up in the first place.

His scotus case wasn't over whether the government could detain him, but whether he was due a trial, and by whom.