NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

That sucks :([/b][/quote]
oh well...we found a few replacements, not to worry!
;_)))

Quotes are getting too long...

Yeah, to one who considers the guy a common criminal, those might apply; BUT he is not a common criminal. He is an enemy spy/combatant; and as such is dealt with in a different system.

As for Mousawi (sp?), unfortunately, he was placed into the civilian system. Once in that system, he is subject to things like grand juries, etc. Did you know that information obtained by a grand jury is absolutely inviolate? You can go to prison for revealing it.

:salute:

If you truly are a Libertarian, how would you be dealing with a situation such as this. If you don't have an answer, then your criticism should be considered as destructive, not constructive. I know, you don't believe that anyone other than yourself should presume to judge your statements, right? Maybe you are closer to Liberal than you think... :biglaugh:

The Constitution doesn't differentiate between a "common criminal" and a spy. It's very clear that ALL Americans are granted these rights.

The term "Enemy Combatant" doesn't appear in the Constitution or even in the Patriot Act.

These arguments are getting old.

Here's the bottom line.

a) I believe the way this situation was handled was un-Constitutional.

B) A district court also felt the Gov't was violating Padilla's rights.

c) The Gov't appealed that decision.

d) A 3 panel court in New York recently agreed to hear the appeal and will likely rule in the next few days.

I hope that they don't end up having to release this guy because of a little technicality like.... violating his rights for a year and a half.

The Constitution doesn't differentiate between a "common criminal" and a spy. It's very clear that ALL Americans are granted these rights.

The term "Enemy Combatant" doesn't appear in the Constitution or even in the Patriot Act.

These arguments are getting old.

Here's the bottom line.

a) I believe the way this situation was handled was un-Constitutional.

B) A district court also felt the Gov't was violating Padilla's rights.

c) The Gov't appealed that decision.

d) A 3 panel court in New York recently agreed to hear the appeal and will likely rule in the next few days.

I hope that they don't end up having to release this guy because of a little technicality like.... violating his rights for a year and a half.[/b][/quote]
Just let me violate his 'rights' once...Please? :uzi:

I would be more understanding if he were shot and killed during his arrest than held for a year and a half without counsel! ;)

KC,

Maybe an auction?

You could raise funds and help him out..

10% of your 35 posts were used to mock me! ;) I feel so special :P

10% of your 35 posts were used to mock me! ;) I feel so special :P[/b][/quote]
guys, guys, please stop trashing each other over Brad';s ass
;-)))

I would be more understanding if he were shot and killed during his arrest than held for a year and a half without counsel! ;)[/b][/quote]
I guess you'll just have to call me cold, hard, and callous; because I see him as a spy who is entitled to absolutely no consideration whatsoever...and with that, I shall return to editing/optimizing/babysitting (my old lady is down with the flu and I'm taking care of her and the granddaughter).

fair enough.

Not many US citizens would like to see the Constitution get trampled on. However, if taking a piss on the original document stops this guy from somehow causing a dirty bomb to go off in Times Square, I'm all for it....

Paranoia works both ways. For you people that are so afraid the govt is "lying" about why they are keeping him, how about being paranoid that if he has contact with the outside world he can set into motion a chain of events that cause a dirty bomb to go off? Maybe he has a secret cell just waiting for his command! Booga booga booga!

A country has a right to protect itself from attack, just like a person. In some cases, the threat may be extreme enough to deny due process. If someone is aiming a gun at you and you are reasonably certain he's going to fire.....do you shoot him first or worry about his "rights"? I agree with KC. They should have just shot him.

Let's make it personal....

The govt discovers Padilla is plotting to kill Carrie and her family with a bomb. They show Carrie some evidence of what he was planning, but there is no trial by jury so his peers can decide if Carries' life is REALLY in danger. How concerned is Carrie going to be if the govt holds this guy FOREVER without due process?

My bet = ZERO

If Carrie REALLY cares and is going to insist the guy who was plotting to kill her and her family be given a fair trial so that MAYBE he can get out or have someone else do his work for him....she's a better citizen than me!
I'd say "Thanks, Mr. Bush! Any other people you find plotting to kill me....lock those fuckers up forever, too! Or better yet....shoot them in the head...."

It's easy to wax philosophical in abstract. If this guy was caught planning to kill YOUR kids, I'm betting the music changes....

Ok ,DJ. Lets :)

You are arrested in the next few hours.

What do you think should be done?

Arrested for what? That is the crux of the matter...

If I'm arrested for terrorism and they have evidence that I am planning to detonate a dirty bomb.....I'm not gonna be surprised if the attitude is "FUCK YOU".....

If I'm caught planning to kill YOUR kids, Nick, logically, I am not surprised to find you have no sense of humor about it and your attitude is "DIE MOTHERFUCKER, DIE"...

No jury, no trial, just *poof* off the planet.....

If you're trying to say I'm arrested in the next few hours and am totally innocent of the charges and the govt is making it all up because they hate me due to my Mexican descent...

I say, "puhleeze..."

Arrested for what? That is the crux of the matter...

If I'm arrested for terrorism and they have evidence that I am planning to detonate a dirty bomb.....I'm not gonna be surprised if the attitude is "FUCK YOU".....

If I'm caught planning to kill YOUR kids, Nick, logically, I am not surprised to find you have no sense of humor about it and your attitude is "DIE MOTHERFUCKER, DIE"...

No jury, no trial, just *poof* off the planet.....

If you're trying to say I'm arrested in the next few hours and am totally innocent of the charges and the govt is making it all up because they hate me due to my Mexican descent...

I say, "puhleeze..."[/b][/quote]
Did I mention...

"Trust me, I'm from the Government!"

The government is too busy screwing over ordinary citizens to worry about framing a terrorist... :bdance: :bwave: :bdance: :bwave:

Absolutely , they wouldn't arresst an innocent man.

Its never happened.

Happens all the time....and they go to trial...some are even innocent...and some are even innocent and found guilty by their peers...

Irrelevant...

From what I've heard (no first hand experience) jails are full of innocent men

Ask anyone in jail they'll tell you - either that or their lawyer fucked 'em





The above post is made with acknowledgment to Stephen King and JR's sig line - Red can tell you all about it

I'll print this post out and have it mailed to BOTH of us every week when we are locked up for our participation in this "Obscene" industry.

Hmmm... Been taking a few minutes to reacquaint myself with this case...

It seems to me KC, that you may have left out some pertinent facts....

The first and most important being that a judge has already decided that he should be able to consult a lawyer.

The feds are appealing that decision.

So, this is not a case of the guy just being held and nobody hearing a wrd from him.

He was arrested, then turned over to military control back in May 2002. By December there had been the first court decision on his petition to be able to see legal consel.

One important not in this is that he was not arrested as a criminal, but rather as a material witness. Therefore, at the time of arrest he did not have the rights of someone being charged with a crime. He wasn't being charged, he was being held as a material witness. Two totally different scenarios.

anyway, onward and upward... Between December 2002 and November of this year, there have been at least 3 different court decisions issued. Each of them affirming his right to legal counsel. The Feds have appealed each of these decisions in turn.

The Feds (and states) have as much right to use the appellate process to their advantage as the Padilla does.

In all probability, he will receive his right to counsel eventually after the Feds have worn out their appeals.

But, he is not necessarilly being denied his constitutional rights.. He is involved in the constitutional process at this point.

http://www.chargepadilla.org/news.html



Last edited by sarettah at Dec 1 2003, 03:21 PM

He's a US Citizen. He still has not been in front of a Judge and he has not seen a lawyer.

The legal process that's currently pending was started when the ACLU filed a legal brief on his behalf. I wonder if he even knows the ACLU stepped up for him. Probably not.



Last edited by KC at Dec 1 2003, 03:27 PM

He has also not been charged....

He has a right to a lawyer once he has been charged...

Hell, he has not even had Miranda read to him yet in most probability because that happens when charged....

The holding of Material Witnesses by the feds was recently upheld )november 7) by the second district court of appeals.

In the best Rusasian voice from Rounders:
"Give the man his Xbox!"
;-)))

and BTW, I change my position and DO agree with KC. :salute: :purpdance:

I agree with KC.....that's a semantics argument. He has not been given his rights as a US citizen.

"Pay Heem... "

"Pay dis man hes money."

I'll print this post out and have it mailed to BOTH of us every week when we are locked up for our participation in this "Obscene" industry.[/b][/quote]
:okthumb:
Thanks but I already know it from the book and movie

:headwall: :headwall:

That Democratic Party registration card you found in your pants pockets that morning was real after all...eh ?








:yowsa:

no, but it was either that or agreeing that the arguments on the boards are useless...
I took the lesser of 2 evils
;-)))

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/17/...ain583988.shtml


Litmus Test For Presidential Power
NEW YORK, Nov. 18, 2003

(AP) A panel of federal judges waded into the question of whether the president has the power alone to declare a U.S. citizen an enemy combatant, an issue the Bush administration considers vital in its war on terror.

Three judges from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals suggested Monday that President Bush needs Congressional authorization to indefinitely hold 33-year-old Jose Padilla, accused in a dirty bomb plot and designated an enemy combatant.

Giving such power exclusively to the executive branch with only limited review by the courts, said Judge Barrington D. Parker Jr., would be "a sea change in the constitutional life of this country and ... unprecedented in civilized society."

The three-judge panel is hearing an appeal of a lower-court ruling establishing that Padilla is entitled to see his lawyers and to challenge his designation as an enemy combatant. He has not seen a lawyer in 17 months.

Padilla is accused of plotting to detonate a "dirty bomb," which uses conventional explosives to disperse radioactive materials. The former Chicago gang member was arrested in May 2002 and within days was moved to a naval brig in Charleston, S.C.

In a two-hour hearing just blocks away from the World Trade Center site, Judge Rosemary S. Pooler said the president must go to Congress because it has the power to let the president make a U.S. citizen captured on American soil an enemy combatant.

lololol........

I could have told you that :)

Jen gets me on it all the time if I debate with folks irl or on the boards...

lol..She's like, "why waste your time, there is nothing you can do thats gonna change anything anyway...go make some money"...

:yowsa:


I married a wise woman

hmmm...will she think less of me because I changed my view due to the board argument?
;-)))

I am glad my lady doesn't send me out to make money
;-)))

Nah, that would be impossible...............








:yowsa:

Nah, that would be impossible...............








:yowsa:[/b][/quote]
hahahahahhahaha,
;-)))))

good one!
;-))))

Yeah, but I'll probably pay for it.............



won't I ?






:yowsa:

Yeah, but I'll probably pay for it.............



won't I ?






:yowsa:[/b][/quote]
maybe...if Gonzo put it in Pearls
;-)))

Update: President cannot detain U.S. citizen as enemy combatant

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/18/padilla....case/index.html

NEW YORK (CNN) --In a setback to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the president does not have the power to detain an American citizen seized on U.S. soil as an enemy combatant.

In a 65-page decision, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 that the U.S. government must release Jose Padilla from military custody within 30 days.

If appropriate, Padilla also can be held as a material witness in connection with grand jury proceedings, the court said.

"The government can transfer Padilla to appropriate civilian authorities who can bring criminal charges against him," the order said.

Padilla has been held in a South Carolina naval brig for the past year and a half.

"It's reassuring that constitutional protections that we are all entitled to as citizens were confirmed. And we look forward to meeting our client," said attorney Donna Newman.

The U.S. government could ask for a stay of the order or ask the full panel of the appeals court to hear the case.

In November, the appeals court panel cast doubt Monday on whether the Bush administration had the authority to designate Padilla an "enemy combatant" and detain him indefinitely without criminal charges. (Full story)

Some legal analysts have said the Padilla case may eventually head to the Supreme Court. The government has maintained that Bush's military moves in the war on terrorism were not subject to judicial review.

Padilla, 33, accused of being an al Qaeda operative, has been in federal custody since he arrived in Chicago, Illinois, in May 2002 on a flight from Pakistan. He was initially arrested as a material witness for the grand jury probe into the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

A former gang member, Padilla is accused of plotting to detonate a "dirty bomb," which uses conventional explosives to disperse radioactive materials. The government said he had proposed the bomb plot to Abu Zubaydah, then al Qaeda's top terrorism coordinator. Zubaydah was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002.

The government maintains Padilla received explosives training in al Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan and plotted with the group to bomb hotels and gas stations, and to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" -- a conventional explosive laced with radioactive material -- inside the United States.

Defense attorneys maintain Padilla traveled to Chicago to visit his son.

The government never levied criminal charges against Padilla before President Bush declared in June 2002 that he represented a "grave danger to the national security" of the nation, reclassifying him as an enemy combatant, and transferring him to military custody, where he has remained incommunicado.

"As this court sits only a short distance from where the World Trade Center stood, we are as keenly aware as anyone of the threat al Qaeda poses to our country and of the responsibilities the president and law enforcement officials bear for protecting the nation," the court said in its majority opinion.

"But presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum, and this case involves not whether those responsibilities should be aggressively pursued, but whether the president is obligated, in the circumstances presented here, to share them with Congress," it added.

In a dissenting opinion, District Judge Richard C. Wesley said the president as commander in chief "has the inherent authority to thwart acts of belligerency at home or abroad that would do harm to United States citizens."

Marvin Smilon, a spokesman for interim U.S. Attorney David Kelley, said he could not comment, The Associated Press reported. In Washington, Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said the agency was reviewing the decision.

Chris Dunn, a staff attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union, called the ruling "historic," according to The Associated Press.

"It's a repudiation of the Bush administration's attempt to close the federal courts to those accused of terrorism," he said. The group had submitted a legal brief supporting Padilla.

Two other people have been designated enemy combatants since the 2001 terrorist attacks: Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar who has been accused of being an al Qaeda sleeper agent, and Esam Hamdi, a Louisiana native captured during the fighting in Afghanistan.

In its ruling Thursday, the court said it was not addressing the detention of any U.S. citizens seized within a zone of combat in Afghanistan, the AP reported.





Last edited by KC at Dec 18 2003, 05:35 PM

Will the Government appeal this to the US Supreme Court?

Will it be another 18 months before they agree to hear the case?