Jose Padilla Will Be Freed

[Ladewig]

A man who travelled to Pakistan and came back to give hundreds of people radiation burns and long-term cancer problems is going to have a trial, during what should be an all-out war. This is not war, this is stupid. I only wish the NSA or CIA or whatever men-in-black agency controls secret commandos is travelling the world and killing these guys secretly with no beaurocratic discretion whatsoever. If such government-funded killers exist, they are not doing their job.

Enemies (ie, anyone who wants me dead and tries to make it happen) should not have trials. They should be captured or killed with impunity.

Yes, it appears to have been his intent to kill and wound people in the manner you describe. He did not, however, have access to radioactive material. Therefore his crime can be no more dangerous than someone who walks around with a note saying, "step 1: acquire a nuclear warhead, step 2: detonate it over NYC." A horrible goal, yes, but an acheivable one? Hardly. Reason to execute the person? No.

 

[Zero]

Last time I checked(ok, last time I watched Law and Order), Americans were innocent until proven guilty, could not be held indefinitely unless evidence of a crime was presented, and that politicians cannot strip us of our rights out of expediency or political posturing.

I heard somewhere that Padilla was originally arrested and then released because of lack of evidence. The move to have him classified as an enemy combatant was an end-run around the strict requirements of our courts. In other words, they didn't have enough evidence to hold him, so they changed the rules.

 

[The Fool]

As for the Guantanamo detainees getting lawyers, fat chance. The 9th Circuit will get slapped down on that one by the SCOTUS. Those guys weren't in Afghanistan looking to learn how to arrange flowers. They were there to train to kill Americans and other westerners. They got caught, they lost. Screw 'em.

Unfortunately it is uninformed people like you that allow this sort of thing to happen....I'll say it again, one of the Australian citizens you kidnapped and are holding in a concentration camp was not and never has been in Afghanistan....please read up a bit on who your political prisoners are.

and screw you too...ok.

 

[WildCat]

Unfortunately it is uninformed people like you that allow this sort of thing to happen....I'll say it again, one of the Australian citizens you kidnapped and are holding in a concentration camp was not and never has been in Afghanistan....please read up a bit on who your political prisoners are.

and screw you too...ok.

Well why don't you inform us as to who this fine, upstanding son of Australia is and what he was doing when he was "kidnapped"?

 

[WildCat]

Not the point. If they can do it for scum, they can do it for any of us.

You're right, of course, on all of your points Shanek. A sufficiently thick-skinned lawyer will defend him. I just won't.

As far as who will make him a hero, maybe the same folks who think that cop-killer Mumia is a hero would embrace Padilla. Not very far-fetched.

 

[NightG1]

Unfortunately it is uninformed people like you that allow this sort of thing to happen....I'll say it again, one of the Australian citizens you kidnapped and are holding in a concentration camp was not and never has been in Afghanistan....please read up a bit on who your political prisoners are.

and screw you too...ok.

Fool: are you referring to David Hicks?

 

[WildCat]

Fool: are you referring to David Hicks?

Couldn't possibly be him.

Hicks, an Australian who was captured in northern Afghanistan as a suspected Taliban fighter

The Fool's boy wasn't in Afghanistan. He was just plucked up and taken to Gitmo for no reason at all. Right Fool?

Edited to quote more from that story:

He then moved to Afghanistan in 2001 and trained with Osama bin Laden's network, the Australian government said. The Northern Alliance captured him in December 2001 and handed Hicks over to the U.S. military. He was one of the first detainees transferred to Guantanamo Bay.

Couldn't possibly be Hicks Fool was referring to. Seems the Australian gov't wants Hicks in order to try him themselves. Fool's boy is innocent of any crimes.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well why don't you inform us as to who this fine, upstanding son of Australia is and what he was doing when he was "kidnapped"?

I thought it was up to the US to prove his guilt, not for him to prove his innocence.

 

[WildCat]

I thought it was up to the US to prove his guilt, not for him to prove his innocence.

Nope, no one in Gitmo is being held for being a criminal in the traditional sense. The US isn't fighting foreign terrorists that way (as a crime for the courts to decide) any more.

If he is charged as a criminal it will only be as a favor to the Australian gov't, and not because he has to.

 

[a_unique_person]

Better hope your conversations in a cafe aren't overheard and misinterpreted. Whatever you do, don't talk about bringing something down. You might get pulled over by the entire state police force.

 

[shanek]

Nope, no one in Gitmo is being held for being a criminal in the traditional sense. The US isn't fighting foreign terrorists that way (as a crime for the courts to decide) any more.

I see. So, where in the Constitution is this system they are using described and granted to the Federal government?

 

[WildCat]

I see. So, where in the Constitution is this system they are using described and granted to the Federal government?

Just what part of the Constitution covers foreigners who are illegal combatants (as defined in the Geneva Convention) in a war in a foreign land?

Edited to say that illegal German combatants in WWII would have been shot on the spot, and many were. Are you outraged over that also?

 

[Zero]

Just what part of the Constitution covers foreigners who are illegal combatants (as defined in the Geneva Convention) in a war in a foreign land?

Edited to say that illegal German combatants in WWII would have been shot on the spot, and many were. Are you outraged over that also?

Here we go again with the 'it could be worse' argument again...why did you post that? What relevance does it have?

 

[shanek]

Just what part of the Constitution covers foreigners who are illegal combatants (as defined in the Geneva Convention) in a war in a foreign land?

As far as I can see, the only parts that apply are the ones dealing with due process, the right against self-incrimination, cruel and unusual punishment, etc. If there's nothing in the Constitution saying the Federal government can do something, they can't do it. 10th Amendment.

Edited to say that illegal German combatants in WWII would have been shot on the spot, and many were. Are you outraged over that also?

Yes.

 

[WildCat]

Here we go again with the 'it could be worse' argument again...why did you post that? What relevance does it have?

To show that this was a long-established time-honored practice. That's why it's relevant.

 

[WildCat]

As far as I can see, the only parts that apply are the ones dealing with due process, the right against self-incrimination, cruel and unusual punishment, etc. If there's nothing in the Constitution saying the Federal government can do something, they can't do it. 10th Amendment.



Yes.

Sorry Shanek. The Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign soil, especially at time of war.

 

[WildCat]

If there's nothing in the Constitution saying the Federal government can do something, they can't do it. 10th Amendment.

The 10th Amendment grants rights to the states that aren't specifically designated to the Federal gov't. Are you saying that, say, the state of Georgia could hold prisoners in Gitmo but not the Feds?

 

[Jocko]

The 10th Amendment grants rights to the states that aren't specifically designated to the Federal gov't. Are you saying that, say, the state of Georgia could hold prisoners in Gitmo but not the Feds?

Believe me, if they could, they would. And that would just be the start.

 

[shanek]

Sorry Shanek. The Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign soil, especially at time of war.

Ah. And where does the Constitution say that?

 

[shanek]

The 10th Amendment grants rights to the states that aren't specifically designated to the Federal gov't.

Well, I guess you missed that whole "to the people" phrase. (Note: "The people" in the Constitution is NOT restricted to citizens.)