Padilla to stay in jail with no charges

[RealGun]

Bush pushes it through with hardly a whimper...

from anyone, because of the sense that new powers were needed to prevent another 9/11 and the pressure for it to appear that government was doing something. It was all in the timing. I think we know that the PA had been fleshed out a long time ago, well before Bush's time.

 

[TallPine]

Sort of casts a new light on the "don't fight it on the street, fight in in the courts" adage ....

 

[M-Rex]

Quote:
Padilla trained at Al Qaeda camps and planned to blow up apartment buildings in the US. As far as I'm concerned he denounced his US citizenship and does not deserve the air he's breathing.

and you believe this because the government told you so, eh? The same govt that is too scared to give him his day in court.

Replace "Padilla" with one of your fellow THRers and see how you feel. It aint a stretch from Padilla trained at Al Qaeda camps and planned to blow up apartment buildings in the US. to Standing Wolf/Preacherman/Oleg/whoever owns 3 assault rifles and 2000 rounds of ammo. Nobody needs 3 assault rifles and 2000 rounds of ammo...unless he's starting a WAR! So, he must have been about to start a war on American soil!"

That is one of the most moronic arguements I've seen in quite a long time. First and foremost, owning three 'assault rifles' and 2000 rounds of ammunition is not illegal.

Training with terrorist organizations and plotting to destroy American buildings with a suitcase sized nuclear weapon is.

Padilla is a terrorist and enemy combatant. Please...stop the libertarian wacko 'guv-mint' conspiracy theories.

 

[Iain]

Padilla is a terrorist and enemy combatant.

Several of us appear to have missed the trial and conviction M-Rex.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Look at M-Rex's sig line. The accusation is enough for him. It's not like anyone is ever accused of a crime they didn't commit, so why the big deal about "charges" and "trials" and the constitution and all that?

The administration, in all its wisdom, has declared that Jose Padilla is 100%, CIA-Certified Evil Wahabbi Terrorist Nuke Weilding Scum. That's enough. [/sarcasm]

 

[Fletchette]

Isn't this the same 'guv-mint' that held a Los Alamos nuclear scientist for many months without charge, then finally charged him with 57 felony counts of spying, only to have no evidence when the trial did occur?

 

[spartacus2002]

That is one of the most moronic arguements I've seen in quite a long time. First and foremost, owning three 'assault rifles' and 2000 rounds of ammunition is not illegal.

Not yet, at least. However, I refer you to the NOLA gun-confiscation threads. TPTB down there are skipping straight past the "well, nobody can use more than one rifle at a time, so nobody NEEDS more than one rifle, so we will confiscate the extra rifles" argument implemented in Iraq, and they are going straight to the "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" option.

Padilla is a terrorist and enemy combatant. Please...stop the libertarian wacko 'guv-mint' conspiracy theories.

Go read the news and watch the videos of the NOLA gun confiscations and get back to me about why your good 'guv-mint' theories are still valid.

 

[M-Rex]

Several of us appear to have missed the trial and conviction M-Rex.

Quite right. There hasn't been one yet. He is being held pending a trial, as an enemy combatant, for training with a terrorist organization, and plotting to kill Americans. And the problem is?

Look at M-Rex's sig line. The accusation is enough for him.

You obviously failed to grasp the subtle meaning of my signature line. In which case, no amount of explanation will be sufficient to correct your ignorance.

As I have said in other posts, I too am outraged at the entire fiasco unfolding in New Orleans. As with any large buraucracy or organization, there are bound to be bad seeds. These bad seeds need to be excised and dealt with before they bear fruit.

However, New Orleans is non sequitur in regards to the Padilla case.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

However, New Orleans is non sequitur in regards to the Padilla case.

Irrelevent.

When I was in the 5th grade, my teacher taught me that we were different from our "enemy" of the time (this was the cold war, after all) in that we didn't require internal passports for internal travel, and we had a number of "rights" listed in the constitution that couldn't be taken away. Most of all, our government didn't make people disappear in the middle of the night, and no-one could be imprisoned without due process and the opportunity to defend themselves and confront witnesses against them.

Now, it's been a couple of decades, but until recently I still believed her.

Of late, I have my doubts.

 

[M-Rex]

When I was in the 5th grade, my teacher taught me that we were different from our "enemy" of the time (this was the cold war, after all) in that we didn't require internal passports for internal travel, and we had a number of "rights" listed in the constitution that couldn't be taken away. Most of all, our government didn't make people disappear in the middle of the night, and no-one could be imprisoned without due process and the opportunity to defend themselves and confront witnesses against them.

You make an excellent point. I too remember similar speeches, right about the same grade.

However, Padilla traveled to a country marginally allied with the U.S. with the express purpose to train with known enemy combatants of the U.S. He then returned home and made plans to kill U.S. citizens. He was rightfully declared an 'enemy combatant' and will be dealt with accordingly. Additionally, he has appeared in court. The court upheld his declaration as an enemy combatant. In fact, Padilla's case had already been debated once by the Supreme Court prior to moving to the 4th U.S. District Court of Appeals.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Lemme rephrase that a bit, in a way I don't think you'll disagree with:

• The justice department says Padilla traveled to a country marginally allied with the U.S., allegedly for the express purpose to train with known enemy combatants of the U.S.
• They state that he then returned home and made plans to kill U.S. citizens.
• Rather than bring charges, the Justice Department declared an 'enemy combatant' so he could be dealt with. Eventually. Once they figure out what to do with him.
• When his family eventually found out what had happened to him (as it was "secret" originally), they appointed a lawyer. He got a judge to agree that due process needed to be followed, or Padilla needed to be released immediately.
• The justice department appealed (not releasing the guy in the mean-time), and found a judge who agreed that his rights could be ignored because of the "enemy combatant" label.

Now, you've got a situation where judges are nominated the (fairly statist) executive branch, are confirmed by the (equally statist) legislature, and then supposedly serve as a check on abuse by the government. In this case, we have a situation that clearly seems to be a violation of this guy's rights, but the judicial branch has decided not to do anything about it -- there is no more legal recourse for this guy.

And we have the position that the feds can arrest anyone as long as they assert that he is involved with terrorism and is therefore an "enemy combatant" and incarcerate him forever. After all, enemy combatants have no rights.

Watch out. You're fixing to give those in power huge discretion over who gets arrested and held without trial. I understand you have more faith in the system than most of us because you're probably a good cop and the majority of scrotes you arrest are probably guilty, but this is frightening.

I've watched governmental corruption close-up, in an area where the stakes were much less than what we're seeing on the federal stage (the largest issue in question was a $2 billion development, but damn it soured my belief in the goodness of politicians. I've even watched an FBI goon lie about a convesation he and I had -- he was my 1st Sgt in the 'guard, and I lost rank over it in a paperwork "punishment" for something I never did. No joke).

This will be abused. And for the most part we'll never hear about it, but when we do it'll be OK because they're all terrorists, and you'll never require the proof that's been required since our Republic was founded.

 

[M-Rex]

Grudgingly, I must agree. You make excellent points. Point to you, sir.

This will be abused. And for the most part we'll never hear about it, but when we do it'll be OK because they're all terrorists, and you'll never require the proof that's been required since our Republic was founded.

I was a good cop. However, I too saw the same types of governmental corruption, albeit on a smaller scale, so I understand where you're coming from. I even have a 'documented verbal counseling' letter for writing a pro-firearm letter to our local newspaper.

Considering your post above, I think I may have to adjust my paradigm a bit.

 

[zerosignal]

Frankly, the entire argument that Padilla is an "enemy combatant" is complete and utter crap. The man is an American citizen, and will be entitled to the rights that the Constitutions grants us all until he is convicted of treason.

It doesnt matter that some of you agree with the governments "claim" that he trained with Al Queda. The reason that our constitution guarantees a trial-by-jury in an expediant manner to all citizens is because our forefathers learned the lesson we are all being taught RIGHT NOW.

No matter what the accusations against a person, until a trial has happened, they are considered to have no basis in fact. Our government has become so obsessed with "safety" after 9/11 that they can and will arrest and hold any person suspected of terrorist activities.

I'm constantly reminded when i hear these pathetic "safety" arguments of Benjamin Franklins' famous quote: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

I would do our country good to listen to the hearts and minds of our founding fathers, because even though the Constitution is limited in scope and wording, we can get a very good interpretation of their intentions by listening to what they had to say outside the document itself.

I wouldn't let a person who had murdered my family go to jail without a trial, and i will not condone letting our government do the same to a fellow citizen.

 

[Iain]

Wow. Even for THR this is rare, much praise for Derek and M-Rex.

 

[M-Rex]

See? Contrary to popular belief, we really don't eat our young.

 

[Fletchette]

Wow. Even for THR this is rare, much praise for Derek and M-Rex.

Actually, civilized debate (rather than adolescent flaming) is pretty common on THR. It is one of the reasons I joined.

 

[Orthonym]

Umm, I thought POWs (if that's what he is)

Get treated better, in some ways, than convicted criminals. Like, "We know you were trying to kill us, but all's fair in love and war, and if you try to escape, that's your duty and we'll shoot you, but we won't bring criminal charges of escape."

I mean, really, he has better status than a usual U.S. convict prisoner. We're not assuming (legally) that he's a depraved evil individual, just that he is making war against the U.S. and got caught doing so.

I wonder if anybody would have the nerve to prosecute him for treason.

I think he's prolly *much* more guilty than Jeff Davis, whose charge was dismissed.

 

[Iain]

What I was actually referring to was someone being willing to admit that another poster has a point, and back away from a pretty upfront statement (Padilla is a terrorist) with good grace. Even on THR, where manners are commonplace, that is rare.

 

[thorn726]

so i dont get it. we just blame this on "Big govt" ?
we convict padilla by media , assume bush is correct in detaining him without trial?

dont we usually want a faster trial against suspects, especially when we know they are guilty?
seems like a few people are thoroughly conviced this Padilla is an actual terrorist, and i tend to agree, but only because i only know what is told of him on tv. there's no excuse for not charging him that makes any sense.

i have a REAL hard time caring about anyone's 1st thru 4th amendment rights if we are just gonna throw the fifth and sixth out the window.
it is sad that anyone concerned with the 2nd thinks this is acceptable.

and of course we'll all look the other way and pretend Mr Bush isn't the one ordering this detention, he has nothing to do with it.