What's happening with those poor devils at Camp Xray ???

roger wrote:

That's my take too, blatham. Screw Padilla. Protect me from losing all rights because some creep fabricates a story, some security system decides I look too much like someone else, or an airline decides I fit some particular profile.

Ditto.

(Don't wonder, roger: I've sent THIS to some airlines, in case, they didn't abdate your profile there :wink: .)

0 Replies

Boortz says: (And I agree with him)

Jose Padilla is another matter. Was he being trained in an Al Qaeda training camp? Probably so. Did he come back to this country to work on detonating a "dirty" nuclear device? Maybe he did. None of these facts erase the fact that Padilla is a U.S. citizen and he was taken into custody on American soil. Capture him while he's actually overseas carrying out an action against American interests and you may have a different situation. Our laws are capable of handling the situation. You arrest Padilla, then arraign him, try him, convict him ... and then execute him if the obsessive compulsive compassion crowd doesn't get in your way.

The very foundation of our country is the rule of law. If this foundation crumbles then the very structure of our nation is at risk. I know I've made this point before, but this is as good a time as any to repeat it. In our society there is only one entity that can use force to accomplish its goals, and that entity is government. If you want something you have to either talk someone into giving that thing to you, or you have to go out there and work to earn the funds necessary to purchase that item. If the government wants something it will use force to take it, or use force to acquire the funds necessary to buy it. The government's power to take extends to your life and your liberty. Your protection lies in the rule of law. Before the government can exercise its monopoly on the use of force it must follow explicit rules established in accordance with specific constitutional principles. These rules are there to protect the life, liberty and property of American citizens, not to protect government.

In the case of Jose Padilla these basic rules were being ignored. Padilla was not being afforded his constitutional right to an attorney, the right to face his accuser and his right to access to our courts. If the United States cannot make its case against Padilla without casting aside our basic constitutional protections than Padilla should go free.

To put it more bluntly ... a country that can seize an American citizen from the streets and lock him away without charges, without access to lawyers, and without access to our courts and basic due process is not a country that is worth defending.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Boortz says: (And I agree with him)

[... ... ...]To put it more bluntly ... a country that can seize an American citizen from the streets and lock him away without charges, without access to lawyers, and without access to our courts and basic due process is not a country that is worth defending.

So, how should we understand your otherwise reponses on other threads? :wink:

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

So, how should we understand your otherwise reponses on other threads? :wink:

My own understanding is that McGentrix sees due process as a privilege for Americans, as opposed to a universal right of all humans, American or not.

0 Replies

Exactly. Pidilla is NOT in Guantanamo and THAT is what the thread is about.

0 Replies

Inttooyahlatlat, also known as Chief Joseph, said

Quote:

"We ask that the same law shall work alike on all men. If an Indian breaks the law, punish him by the law. If white man breaks the law, punish him also. let me be a free man--free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to talk and think and act for myself."

I guess that is a problem coming from the "savages" this idea that all men should be treated equally under the law and quarenteed the same due process.
'

0 Replies

But whose law Dys? Who decides which laws we should follow? Islamic Law? Most of the detainees are Islamic, so shouldn't Islamic law be applied to them? Or is it US law? Because they are being detained by the US. Or should their home countries laws be applied to them?

Padilla is an American who was detained in America and therefore should be eligible for protection under US law. The same does not apply to those being detained in Gitmo.

0 Replies

well McG I guess I was thinking mostly of Padilla but after reading your post I would go on to say that "everyman" confronted with US designs on his life/liberty/pursuit of happiness should be entitled to both the benefits and constraints of US law. We "have the body" so now let us demonstate that we also have the civilization of law simply because it is the right thing to do.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

But whose law Dys?

The law of wherever they're being detained. Depending on the legal status of Guantanamo Bay, it could either be Cuban or American law. I guess it's the law of the US. But if I'm wrong, if the US lets the prisoners sue them in a Cuban court, and if the US military at Guantanamo Bay obey that court's ruling, that's fine with me as far as this discussion is concerned.

Of course, if the status is in question, one can always turn them over to the UN court for war crimes in Den Haag. This court exists for good reasons you know.

0 Replies

Thank you, Walter. Thank you ever so much for bringing me to official attention.

0 Replies

OK.

Let's really look at this guy, and this case.

Padilla.

He was poised to skate. Say the gov is correct about him, and he would have blown up 'gas stations and/or hotels' when released. Say he does have valuable info on locations and names of al-quaida operatives with plans to murder more innocent people. There are multiple reports saying the same thing about Padilla. Should he have been released, or held longer, while inquiries were made? If he committed bombings while released, who would you blame? What would you do?

0 Replies

Padilla is the stuff scum makes fun of. He is the lowest of lows and I hope the remainder of his life is filled with dread and fear. But, he is still eligible to be protected by the constituition. Just like Manson, McVeigh, and Hinkley. I hope the idiot rots in his own personal hell for all eternity.

0 Replies

Blathum said: and yes, this is a seque,

Quote:

They will circle the wagons, they will shrink themselves so that whoever is in charge looks as big and wise as daddy, and they'll start shooting anything that moves when told to do so - when told that evil lurks all about.

which got me to thinking (damn, I hate it when that happens) anyways the "circle the wagons" myth of the old west was so often used as an excuse for whatever travesty the white men wished to use to advance it's cause when in truth the great westward expansion of 1840-1860 the common expression of "marauding Indian bands are spreading murder and mayhem among terror-stricken settlers." In actuality a total of 362 pioneers (and 426 native americans) died in all recorded battles between the two groups.

0 Replies

It's okay, roger, was a pleasure.
Laughing

Sofia

So you really think, these "says" are reason enough to keep an American citizen without regarding your constitution?
And should this apply ro anyone, when 'government' says, she/he wanted to blow up a gas station, has plans to murder etc?

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Let's really look at this guy, and this case.

I'd like to, but I have no way of looking at this case. All we have is a vague reference to 'multiple intelligence sources', the merit of which is unknowable to us. That's exactly the problem: The American government is trying to prevent the institutions best qualified for looking at cases -- the courts -- from doing exactly that.

Sofia wrote:

There are multiple reports saying the same thing about Padilla.

Sure, but there are also multiple reports saying that aliens have sexually abducted them in their sleep. The number of reports is worthless without a way of assessing their credibility.

Sofia wrote:

Should he have been released, or held longer, while inquiries were made?

Held for whatever time US criminal laws specifies for such cases, then released.

Sofia wrote:

If he committed bombings while released, who would you blame? What would you do?

I would blame the common wisdom that **** happens, and I would do nothing. The possibility of these things is the price we pay for living in a free country, and I'm willing to pay it.

(Edited for embarrassing typos)

0 Replies

McG--
I'm pretty sure most of us are anti-Padilla, but it is so easy (to me) to champion the right to trial/proper release--I want to do it, too--but, I'm stopped by the responsibility for what some inflamed terrorists may do with that freedom/release.

Again, I would like someone to tell me who would they blame if a released Padilla blew people up. The same one they're blaming for holding him...?

Previously, I would have been arguing his right to talk to his lawyer...but lawyers have been mouthpieces to terror orgs... The rights of citizens is a very high priority....but pales a bit next to the right of innocent people not to be blown up.

edited to clarify 'freedom'.

0 Replies

The "STATEMENT OF MARK CORALLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS,
ON THE PADILLA DECISION" [Department of Justice] says

Quote:

The Department of Justice will seek a stay and further judicial review of the 2-1 decision issued by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals today in the Padilla case. In times of war, the President must have the authority to act when an individual associated with our nation's enemies enters our country to endanger American lives.

link

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
So, how should we understand your otherwise reponses on other threads? :wink:

My own understanding is that McGentrix sees due process as a privilege for Americans, as opposed to a universal right of all humans, American or not.

The US constitution begins "We the People of the United States,", not "We the People of the World or People being detained by the United States"

Not due process, but the constitution. It protects the citizenry of the US, not the world.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

It's okay, roger, was a pleasure.

Sofia

So you really think, these "says" are reason enough to keep an American citizen without regarding your constitution?
And should this apply ro anyone, when 'government' says, she/he wanted to blow up a gas station, has plans to murder etc?

Hell yes, if they're true.
I certainly don't disregard the need to prove these things, but I also don't disregard the need to protect sensitive sources. I don't want our sources' identities to be uncovered and risked.

I don't think many of you have given realistic thought to the 'other side' of this issue. Its as if you don't give a **** about the people who could have died in Padilla's planned attacks. Its as if the human beings doing the work of the US in dangerous locales/situations are negligible. I think these things deserve more introspection.

And, Thomas, though I appreciate you answering, and can see why you arrive at most of your conclusions, I don't believe you would just throw up you hands if a released Padilla had killed people. You and everyone else would be saying how inept Bush and Homeland Security was--not to see that coming.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Not due process, but the constitution. It protects the citizenry of the US, not the world.

As best I can tell from a superficial skimming over the Bill of rights, it protects either "persons" or "the people", not "the people who also happen to be citizens of the USA". To construct an extreme example, if Congress passed a law saying that any American can shoot any foreigner whenever he feels like it, I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would sack this law as unconstitutional. Of course I'm willing to learn if you have evidence to the contrary

0 Replies

What's happening with those poor devils at Camp Xray ???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know