Padilla convicted...

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Cue the apologists that will insist on his innocence...

I won't insist on innocence but to me imprisoning an American citizen for 3.5 years with out access to a lawyer or being charged with a crime makes a mockery of due process.

I agree completely, that was the real tragedy here. I don't care that they eventually found him guilty, its that they ignored the Constitution while doing so

We should clamor to repeal the Patriot Act. Unfortunately we don?t have a political party in support of upholding the constitution against the federal government.

I'm surprised you would say such a thing. Isn't the Patriot Act one of our best "tools" to fight off the Islamist Hordes?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Are you people insane? The Padilla case has never been about whether or not he was guilty or innocent.

Do you know what happened in this case? The President took a US citizen, declared him an enemy combatant, and held him without access to courts, lawyers, or the legal system for YEARS. This is against everything the US stands for!

I want someone to come forward and defend this clear, obvious breach of the President's constitutional powers and his duty to the citizens of this country.

This entire business was a disgrace.

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

I won't insist on innocence but to me imprisoning an American citizen for 3.5 years with out access to a lawyer or being charged with a crime makes a mockery of due process.

"Padilla, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi face life in prison because they were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas. All three were also convicted of two terrorism material support counts that carry potential 15-year sentences each."

I believe Padilla is in simple terms a traitor, and actually deserves to be executed. Our due process has actually spared his life. That's hardly a mockery of justice. Concern for Padillla is a mockery of common sense.

Well there you have it. Because Bush and Heartsurgeon "feel" the guy is a traitor, he is.

Simple as that. No Constitution necessary.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Termagant

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Cue the apologists that will insist on his innocence...

I won't insist on innocence but to me imprisoning an American citizen for 3.5 years with out access to a lawyer or being charged with a crime makes a mockery of due process.

I agree completely, that was the real tragedy here. I don't care that they eventually found him guilty, its that they ignored the Constitution while doing so

We should clamor to repeal the Patriot Act. Unfortunately we don?t have a political party in support of upholding the constitution against the federal government.

I'm surprised you would say such a thing. Isn't the Patriot Act one of our best "tools" to fight off the Islamist Hordes?

too funny

 

[heartsurgeon]

Well there you have it. Because Bush and Heartsurgeon "feel" the guy is a traitor, he is.

Concern for Padillla is a mockery of common sense.

Q.E.D.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Well there you have it. Because Bush and Heartsurgeon "feel" the guy is a traitor, he is.

Concern for Padillla is a mockery of common sense.

Q.E.D.

No, but thanks for playing!

 

[Pabster]

The left mourns Padilla, while his accomplices continue to kill us and plot our demise. This guy was a bad apple and no amount of wrangling over what rights he did (or didn't) have will change that.

It never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster
The left mourns Padilla, while his accomplices continue to kill us and plot our demise. This guy was a bad apple and no amount of wrangling over what rights he did (or didn't) have will change that.

It never ceases to amaze me.

That's just because you're stupid. Of course Padilla was a bad guy, but the thing is, you can't have different rights for the bad guys. No matter what Jack Bauer may lead you to believe, we all have the same rights...and if the government can arrest, detain and lock up the bad guys without a trial, they can do the same to you. And the hell of it is, there is no real argument AGAINST extending legal protection to even the very worst bad guys. Sure, it pisses the righties off (but then again, what doesn't?), but I've never heard a good argument as to why we can't possibly fight terrorism AND protect liberty all at the same time.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Pabster
The left mourns Padilla, while his accomplices continue to kill us and plot our demise. This guy was a bad apple and no amount of wrangling over what rights he did (or didn't) have will change that.

It never ceases to amaze me.

No, I think they're angry over the loss of his civil rights. I don't think you'll find too many people that won't agree that he's a piece of sh!t. But we have these things called laws that are supposed to be followed so that just in case he actually isn't a piece of sh!t his rights will be protected.

Can you give me any reason why this trial couldn't have been done when he was initially taken into custody? Why was there a need to circumvent the law?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
and if the government can arrest, detain and lock up the bad guys without a trial, they can do the same to you.

Can you please elaborate on any U.S. Citizens who have been locked up without a trial? I keep hearing about this BS but there hasn't been a single name put out...besides Padilla, and he did get his trial. I have to laugh when people argue about it taking 3 years...so what? People wait to be executed for 25 years in this country too. Justice can be slow. And perhaps I missed something vis-a-vi Padilla -- didn't he have an attorney and a trial?

And the hell of it is, there is no real argument AGAINST extending legal protection to even the very worst bad guys. Sure, it pisses the righties off (but then again, what doesn't?), but I've never heard a good argument as to why we can't possibly fight terrorism AND protect liberty all at the same time.

There is a hell of an argument against extending "legal protection" to those who are not rightfully due it.

If we don't fight terrorism and protect the institution, what good is your liberty?

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Can you give me any reason why this trial couldn't have been done when he was initially taken into custody? Why was there a need to circumvent the law?

Since when does one receive a trial on the spot? Many people wait years in this country to get their day in court. And as I said previously, Padilla got his damn trial. So what's the issue here?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Pabster
The left mourns Padilla, while his accomplices continue to kill us and plot our demise. This guy was a bad apple and no amount of wrangling over what rights he did (or didn't) have will change that.

It never ceases to amaze me.

I'm hardly "the left". I'm "the right"as it once was. When protecting the Constitution was paramount, when even the threat of nuclear annihilation wasn't justification for what's being done these days even though any threat today is pathetic by comparison. If the right today is represented by the feckless leaders that pursued this reprehensible course they are worse than useless. They're scoundrels.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
and if the government can arrest, detain and lock up the bad guys without a trial, they can do the same to you.

Can you please elaborate on any U.S. Citizens who have been locked up without a trial? I keep hearing about this BS but there hasn't been a single name put out...besides Padilla, and he did get his trial. I have to laugh when people argue about it taking 3 years...so what? People wait to be executed for 25 years in this country too. Justice can be slow. And perhaps I missed something vis-a-vi Padilla -- didn't he have an attorney and a trial?

And the hell of it is, there is no real argument AGAINST extending legal protection to even the very worst bad guys. Sure, it pisses the righties off (but then again, what doesn't?), but I've never heard a good argument as to why we can't possibly fight terrorism AND protect liberty all at the same time.

There is a hell of an argument against extending "legal protection" to those who are not rightfully due it.

If we don't fight terrorism and protect the institution, what good is your liberty?

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Can you give me any reason why this trial couldn't have been done when he was initially taken into custody? Why was there a need to circumvent the law?

Since when does one receive a trial on the spot? Many people wait years in this country to get their day in court. And as I said previously, Padilla got his damn trial. So what's the issue here?

The Executive Branch fought against allowing a trial. He was detained without access to legal council. He wasn't held for trial. He was held without regard for one. Don't obfuscate. You know full well the Administration fought tooth and nail against him having his rights. He doesn't need rights to be granted by the government, he HAS them even if Bush and Co say otherwise.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The Executive Branch fought against allowing a trial. He was detained without access to legal council. He wasn't held for trial. He was held without regard for one. Don't obfuscate. You know full well the Administration fought tooth and nail against him having his rights. He doesn't need rights to be granted by the government, he HAS them even if Bush and Co say otherwise.

Yes, Bush declared him an illegal enemy combatant, which started the whole legal proceedings.

That is really neither here nor there. Padilla got his trial.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The Executive Branch fought against allowing a trial. He was detained without access to legal council. He wasn't held for trial. He was held without regard for one. Don't obfuscate. You know full well the Administration fought tooth and nail against him having his rights. He doesn't need rights to be granted by the government, he HAS them even if Bush and Co say otherwise.

Yes, Bush declared him an illegal enemy combatant, which started the whole legal proceedings.

That is really neither here nor there. Padilla got his trial.

Yes, Bush decided the Constitution was something he could ignore, he fought hard to prevent it's being honored, and put the full force of the Executive Branch against a US citizen because Bush thought he was above the same Constitution he swore to protect. Yet in spite of it Padilla got his trial (after three and a half years of trying to prevent it). Everything that the Founders, and many died for was tossed out the window, but alls forgiven. It was a gag.

 

[teiresias]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The Executive Branch fought against allowing a trial. He was detained without access to legal council. He wasn't held for trial. He was held without regard for one. Don't obfuscate. You know full well the Administration fought tooth and nail against him having his rights. He doesn't need rights to be granted by the government, he HAS them even if Bush and Co say otherwise.

Yes, Bush declared him an illegal enemy combatant, which started the whole legal proceedings.

That is really neither here nor there. Padilla got his trial.

This is like saying "In the end, Hitler didn't succeed" as a way to disregard the fact that it took a war to guarantee that. The Bush administration was actively working to prevent judicial review of this case, they WERE violating a citizen's rights and would have continued to do so indefinetly if it had not been confronted over this issue.

Yes, Padilla had his trial, but only after the courts and other pressures force the administration to proceed in that direction. All this proves is that it can't be trusted to behave any better towards anyone else and that it will take judicial battles to have this administration actually abide by the Constitution of our country.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Let me get this straight...according to you budding anarchists

Padilla should walking the streets eating a slurpee, Bush is Hitler, all Conservatives are stupid..

Did I get it right?


Your statements are all lies and inaccurate.

In reality, Bush had a legal basis for holding Padilla. He was deemed an unlawful enemy combatant.

When this legal strategy was challenged, the White House decided to pursue a different route for prosecuting Padilla, and was successful.

The Supreme Court never ruled on initial White House strategy, so to claim Padilla's rights were violated, is merely a supposition, and not a fact.

The law was followed, the Consititution was protected, tyhe Country was protected, and Padilla has a room in the Graybar Hotel for the forseeable future.

But I know that deep down, you would rather have Padilla walking around free to create havoc and destruction (which you could then blame on Bush), rather than have Bush "win" and get Padilla locked up. Admit it. That's what you really want. You would prefer to have another catastrophe with thousands dead, just so you can blame Bush for something else.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Let me get this straight...according to you budding anarchists

Padilla should walking the streets eating a slurpee, Bush is Hitler, all Conservatives are stupid..

Did I get it right?


Your statements are all lies and inaccurate.

In reality, Bush had a legal basis for holding Padilla. He was deemed an unlawful enemy combatant.

When this legal strategy was challenged, the White House decided to pursue a different route for prosecuting Padilla, and was successful.

The Supreme Court never ruled on initial White House strategy, so to claim Padilla's rights were violated, is merely a supposition, and not a fact.

The law was followed, the Consititution was protected, tyhe Country was protected, and Padilla has a room in the Graybar Hotel for the forseeable future.

But I know that deep down, you would rather have Padilla walking around free to create havoc and destruction (which you could then blame on Bush), rather than have Bush "win" and get Padilla locked up. Admit it. That's what you really want. You would prefer to have another catastrophe with thousands dead, just so you can blame Bush for something else.

Are you retarded? How do you know that the law was followed? You said yourself when the legality of what Bush was doing was challenged (ie... it might not be legal) that he shopped around for another court so that he wouldn't have to deal with the likely adverse result. How you can say that the law was followed and the Constitution was protected when Bush specifically avoided letting any impartial party rule on that is mind boggling.

Padilla being convicted in a civilian court is a defeat for Bush in a lot of ways, not a win. It simply proves that his whole business with the enemy combatant crap was completely unneccessary.

Finally your whole last paragraph is laugh out loud retarded. It contributes nothing except to give everyone here ammo to make fun of you with. You are either very young, very ignorant, very angry, or very stupid.

 

[heartsurgeon]

(ie... it might not be legal)

oooh.."it might be illegal".....

so basically you agree with me. (even if you won't admit it)

there is no factual basis upon which to claim anyone's "rights" were tramped or any laws were broken.

there is no basis in fact for claiming Padilla had his "rights" infringed upon. You can opine that they were, but it's just your opinion, not fact.

as for the last paragraph, i have no doubt that many of the anti-Bush crowd think exactly the way that paragraph reads...exactly...

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

(ie... it might not be legal)

oooh.."it might be illegal".....

so basically you agree with me. (even if you won't admit it)

there is no factual basis upon which to claim anyone's "rights" were tramped or any laws were broken.

there is no basis in fact for claiming Padilla had his "rights" infringed upon. You can opine that they were, but it's just your opinion, not fact.

as for the last paragraph, i have no doubt that many of the anti-Bush crowd think exactly the way that paragraph reads...exactly...

Being detained for 3 years without being charged is a violation of his rights. He was also held for a substantial amount of time without any access to a lawyer. This is a gross violation of his rights and the rights of all US citizens.

After almost four years, the administration finally charged Padilla with crimes was because it wanted to avoid a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on whether the President has the power to imprison U.S. citizens without charges.

That's it, end of story.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

(ie... it might not be legal)

oooh.."it might be illegal".....

so basically you agree with me. (even if you won't admit it)

there is no factual basis upon which to claim anyone's "rights" were tramped or any laws were broken.

there is no basis in fact for claiming Padilla had his "rights" infringed upon. You can opine that they were, but it's just your opinion, not fact.

as for the last paragraph, i have no doubt that many of the anti-Bush crowd think exactly the way that paragraph reads...exactly...

No, I don't agree with you in the slightest. If you want to talk trash to me for assuming that what he did is likely illegal, (despite considerable backup from nearly the entire legal community outside of White House lawyers and John Yoo) then you have the same problem with assuming its legal.

That's how you find out if things are legal or not. The police/executive branch ALWAYS act before legal disputes are resolved... that's the whole purpose of the executive vis a vis the judiciary. Bush did something that is very likely illegal, and then did the hokey pokey around the courts to avoid judicial review. That is against everything that the separation of powers doctrine, the constitution, and the bill of rights are about.

If you truly believe that there is no problem with the executive branch detaining people for years without access to legal advice, courts, or any form of redress to their detention, then you are a fascist. You would be far more comfortable in a police state dictatorship then you would be in a functioning democracy.

I feel like the term fascist and things like it are too often thrown around here, and they tend to lose a lot of their meaning because of it. I just have no other way of expressing my total contempt for your anti democratic hyper authoritarian enabling viewpoint.

 

[Fern]

This discussion made me curious as many issues being bandied about here. But has been so long I couldn't remeber what transpired and when. So I went over to Wiki.

If Wiki is to be believed, Padilla was involved in the judicial system from the begining. GWB relied upon an old SCOTUS case (Ex Parte Quinn) to authorize the detention. So, while the Padilla case may be rare, it is not the first time a President has detained a US citizen(s) on US soil as an enemy combatant (which allows for unlimited detention).

There were many appeals etc. The 4th Curcuit actually upheld GWB etc. (contrary to the 2nd which was dismissed by SCOTUS on technical grounds, wimping out again)

The SCOTUS appears to have dodged the opportunity to ultimately rule (they have a penchant for that).

As usual, I think much of the outrage is overwrought and over-hyped.

( I have no comments on alledged torture etc, as far I can tell, we have allegations but no proof. Furthermore, we likely have a reasonable disagreement over the definition of "torture".)

Mostly, I think this case underscores the philosophical differences of dealing with terrorism/terrorists: use of military vs. use of civilian law enforcement. Clearly those screaming of alleged civil rights abuses prefer the latter, while the administration pursued the former.

Oh, and Congress needs to be more careful in crafting legislation. I believe they bear some of the responsibility for ill defined laws that were relied upon in Padilla's case. Congress bears a great responsibility if only because under the Constitution they CAN suspend Habeas Corpus

Fern

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

I won't insist on innocence but to me imprisoning an American citizen for 3.5 years with out access to a lawyer or being charged with a crime makes a mockery of due process.

"Padilla, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi face life in prison because they were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas. All three were also convicted of two terrorism material support counts that carry potential 15-year sentences each."

I believe Padilla is in simple terms a traitor, and actually deserves to be executed. Our due process has actually spared his life. That's hardly a mockery of justice. Concern for Padillla is a mockery of common sense.

---I totally agree!!!

 

[heartsurgeon]

Being detained for 3 years without being charged is a violation of his rights. He was also held for a substantial amount of time without any access to a lawyer. This is a gross violation of his rights and the rights of all US citizens.

again, your entitled to your opinions, but there has been no determination by any court that anyone's rights have been violated. barring that, your just blowing smoke...

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

I won't insist on innocence but to me imprisoning an American citizen for 3.5 years with out access to a lawyer or being charged with a crime makes a mockery of due process.

"Padilla, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi face life in prison because they were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas. All three were also convicted of two terrorism material support counts that carry potential 15-year sentences each."

I believe Padilla is in simple terms a traitor, and actually deserves to be executed. Our due process has actually spared his life. That's hardly a mockery of justice. Concern for Padillla is a mockery of common sense.

---I totally agree!!!

Was it a mockery of justice 5 days ago?

 

[heartsurgeon]

No, I don't agree with you in the slightest. If you want to talk trash to me for assuming that what he did is likely illegal, (despite considerable backup from nearly the entire legal community outside of White House lawyers and John Yoo) then you have the same problem with assuming its legal.

EXACTLY! you (maybe) finally get it...you have your opinion about what happened, and Bush has his opinion, but without a judicial ruling, there is no factual basis to state Padilla's rights were violated.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

No, I don't agree with you in the slightest. If you want to talk trash to me for assuming that what he did is likely illegal, (despite considerable backup from nearly the entire legal community outside of White House lawyers and John Yoo) then you have the same problem with assuming its legal.

EXACTLY! you (maybe) finally get it...you have your opinion about what happened, and Bush has his opinion, but without a judicial ruling, there is no factual basis to state Padilla's rights were violated.

No. No. No. No.

Please read my posting again. You are trying to perform some impressive intellectual gymnastics in order to not appear a fool, and frankly you aren't smart enough to pull them off. Just because the Bush administration was not given a court order to stop doing something unconstitutional, doesn't mean that it wasn't unconstitutional. It either is, or it isn't... and the overwhelming opinion of the legal community is that his rights were violated.

Things aren't suddenly legal just because nobody stopped you. By that same logic if I came over and stole your TV, but was never convicted of it... did I still steal your TV?