• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Padilla finally charged

I can't remember: did the UK refer to itself as being "at war" with the IRA?

(edited to add: didn't we try internment of IRA suspects as well? Didn't work too well as I recall)
 
Last edited:
No idea. Although if the UK did, it would presumably have been a civil war, and who knows what extant laws there are for that...?
 
Good point. I see Padilla is a US citizen. Does that mean the US is having another civil war? ;)
 
CBL4 said:
When Padilla was arrested, Ashcroft said he was:
http://www.reason.com/links/links112305.shtml
When Padilla was arrested, Ashcroft said he was:

"a known terrorist who was exploring a plan to build and explode a radiological dispersion device, or 'dirty bomb,' in the United States"
Click to expand...

I had wondered a lot about that charge. If someone has the plans for a dirty bomb but not the means to build a dirty bomb, can you charge him with anything more than conspiracy?
 
fishbob said:
Explain to me how what was done to Padilla is any different than the federal crime of kidnapping?
Click to expand...

I can't because you cannot see any difference between war/terrorism and common criminality.

He is an enemy combatant. Call it traitor if you wish. I don't think your way to fight such people will work, and I'm prepared to see different rules for doing so.

I don't like Bush, for example, any more than you do, but I don't make my arguments from a political agenda perspective, or naive belief that nothing has changed as in the stupid argument that "if we have to change anything the terrorists have won". (I don't know if you said that, specifically, but it sounds that way to me).
 
Upchurch said:
Do you?

I'm an alum of the Law & Order School of Law and Law Enforcement and they always, always have to come up with something they can charge the suspect with or they have to let him go.
Click to expand...

Right. Just as our soldiers have to get a court order every time they think they have an enemy combatant in sight and need to shoot. You too seem to think as this is just common criminality.
 
3point14 said:
I know nothing of this, but are you guys seriously telling me that this guy was held for 3 years without charge???? No evidence was required to be produced, he had access to legal advice, surely?

And what safeguards are in place to ensure that this level of state power isn't abused?

Boy you guys must have immense faith in your government!!

It's vital that justice be done, but isn't it equally vital that justice is seen to be done?

It's bad enough here, but 3 years? Ohboy.
Click to expand...

You know nothing of this:jaw-dropp???

Do you even know who the president of the US is?
 
Matabiri said:
Please forgive me if this has been covered elsewhere, but could you remind me who the US is at war with?
Click to expand...

al Qaeda and the Taliban per the Authorization for the Use of Military Force - often refered to as the AUMF.

Matabiri said:
That is, what uniform would Padilla have been wearing in your example?
Click to expand...

The hypothetical uniform of al Qaeda though there is the added problems of them being a non-state actor and not abiding the laws and customs of war.
 
Cylinder said:
al Qaeda and the Taliban per the Authorization for the Use of Military Force - often refered to as the AUMF.
Click to expand...
Oof - it really is whomever Bush decides he doesn't like:
IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Click to expand...
Doesn't that strike you as a slightly bad bit of law?
 
You know nothing of this???

Do you even know who the president of the US is?
Click to expand...

I have a vague idea who he is. I have a more profound idea of what he is. I'm profoundly grateful that I had absolutely nothing to do with either of his elections, the dubious one, or the downright outragous one. In this country, and in the rest of europe, I think he's thought of as being a dangerous man, only interested in tax cuts for his rich buddies, making sure the oil keeps flowing, and taking a whole heap of time off when others are working to fund his lifestyle. Do I have the right fella?
 
3point14 said:
I have a vague idea who he is. I have a more profound idea of what he is. I'm profoundly grateful that I had absolutely nothing to do with either of his elections, the dubious one, or the downright outragous one. In this country, and in the rest of europe, I think he's thought of as being a dangerous man, only interested in tax cuts for his rich buddies, making sure the oil keeps flowing, and taking a whole heap of time off when others are working to fund his lifestyle. Do I have the right fella?
Click to expand...

Your profundity is obvious, not to mention trivial. Tell us, if you had nothing to do with his election(s), did you have anything to do with any elections, ever?
 
Yeah, I was involved in the election of one very dodgy Tony Blair.

Although I feel compelled to add, I didn't vote for him.

(although due to the way British democracy works, very, very few people voted for him at all, but that's another matter)
 
fishbob said:
What reason is there to hold Padilla as an enemy combatant rather than to treat him as a criminal?
Click to expand...

For the same reason any other combatant (legal or otherwise) is detained for the course of the conflict - to prevent the person from rejoining enemy forces and carry out actions to futher attacks against the United States and her allies. This issue is distinct from the question of criminal charges.

fishbob said:
Here is another problem. In the sources you posted, there are assertion, allegations, and arguments of legal points, but there is no actual presentation of evidence.
Click to expand...

The facts the underlie the detention of Jose Padillia can be found in the Mobbs Declaration. In short,

While in Afghanistan in 2001, Padilla met with senior Usama Bin Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah. Padilla and an associate approached Zubaydah with their proposal to conduct terrprjst operations within the United States. Zubaydah directed Padilla and his associate t.o travel to Pakistan for training from AI Qaeda operatives in wiring explosives Padilla and his associate conducted research in the construction Padilla and his associate conducted research in the construction of a "uranium-enhanced" explosive device. In particular, they engaged in research-on this topic at one of the AI Qaeda safehouses In Lahore, Pakistan.
Padilla's discussions with Zubaydah specifically included the plan of Padilla and his associate to build and detonate a "'radiological disper$al device~ (also known as a ~dlrty bomb") within the United States, possibly in Washington, DC. The plan included- stealing radioactive material for the bomb within the United States, The "dirty bomb" plan of Padilla and his associate allegedly was still in the initial planning stages, and there was no specific time set for the operation to occur.
Click to expand...
 
Mark said:
I suspect it was an attempt to establish firm legal precedent that it is OK for the US government to detain anyone, indefinitely, with no charges being brought.
Click to expand...

As pointed out before, the "firm legal precedent" has been established since before the founding of this country and stretching out over the history of most every major conflict to which the United States has been a party. I suggest reading the Hamdi and Quirin opinions if you're interested in the history.
 
3point14 said:
Yeah, I was involved in the election of one very dodgy Tony Blair.

Although I feel compelled to add, I didn't vote for him.

(although due to the way British democracy works, very, very few people voted for him at all, but that's another matter)
Click to expand...

Oh, well. I jumped to a biased assumption that you were from the US. Perhaps you could be so kind as to add your location since the accent is hard to pick up sometimes?

I suppose you have your own terrorist names that I don't know either.
 
Elind said:
I can't because you cannot see any difference between war/terrorism and common criminality.
Click to expand...

Just curious: Where to Timothy McVeigh, the KKK and people who bomb abortion clinics fit into your picture?

Are you in favour of detaining suspected KKK members indefinitely on the basis of allegations they met with important KKK figures and planned to attend a training camp?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom