This Padilla guy is a scumbag and may be thinking of doing nasty things to the U.S. but he is a citizen.  The whole dirty bomb scenario is BS, we find out later, and all they have against him is he talked to undesirable people and read undesirable books.  Who here hasn't done that.  To deny due process and the Constitution is far scarier than this bu**hole.

Very true.  Just remember, whatever they do to Terrorists today, tommorow will be used against you and I, and people like us.

Really?  So when they did the same thing to German saboteurs in WW2, it eventually happened to us?  Ooops, I forgot, it DIDN'T happen to us.  Oh well, there goes that theory.
Padilla didn't just "talk to undesirables" he COLLABORATED with an enemy that is actively at war with us.  It amazes me how little understanding some people here have.

Ditto Rik,

Little Osama bin Lopez plotted with the enemy to attack this nation.  He's an enemy combatant.  It's no different than if he was on the battlefield shooting at US soldiers.

-SARguy

I'm sorry, but has he been tried yet?  No.  All we have is the government [i]telling us[/i] he's done all these evil, nasty, criminal things.  Nothing has been [i]proven[/i] yet.  

Why is it that, just because Bush is in office, we trust everything the government tells us?

We have a guy held in prison with no counsel, no charges, and no trial.  And, we're told, he's going to get a military tribunal - something that citizens weren't supposed to be subject to - because the government has declared him an "enemy combatant."  Plus, if I'm not mistaken, Congress hasn't declared war on [i]anybody[/i] yet.  

We're supposed to be a nation of [i]laws[/i] and we're supposed to [i]follow[/i] those laws, even when it's not [i]convenient[/i] to do so.

If you're comfortable with the current situation, you haven't been paying attention.

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact." -- A. Lincoln

Cool picture, just because I thought it was neat:
[img]http://images.villagevoice.com/issues/0139/nhentoff.jpg[/img]

when did he say that!? this is A. as in Abraham, right?

no. he meant Abner Lincoln.

its the vagueness of the situation and all the bomb talk which concerns me. ...especially since there is no real bomb. im not even convinced this counts as a planned bomb.

it seems to me padilla was grabbed on the concept and the potential of his ideas and actions. depending on the govenrments perspective and viewpoint, that could set a very dangerous precedent.

where do you draw the line and define the "potential"? does a person who added some detailed informatio to the thread on "defeating armour" count as a potential threat to the us military? what if you ordered from tannerite.com? or just happend to run "suitcase nuke" through the ebay search engine.

think about how the objects, information, and actions in your life may be taken out of context and used against you. the only defense you have against that is the "system" and it's being circumvented in this case.

I agree that this puke is guilty as hell, but unfortunatly for us, he's *choke* a citizen.
Thus has rights to due process.

The Musaui (spelling?) guy, not a citizen is getting treatment like one. Seems like it's BACKWARDS to me.

We can't just throw out the law when it feels good. If we say it's ok for the government to "bend" the rules now, just remember, for the government, it won't bend back.

I am really amazed that anyone can argue that this guy should be held "till the war is over" without due process.  He is an American Citizen.  Some of you need to wake the hell up!  We are a nation of laws, not of men.  As much as I like how GWB is handling "the war" overseas, the result at home is complete suspension of the bill of rights (for some).That is a dangerous precedent.  I agree that if half of what they are saying is true he should be locked up, executed, whatever...but he deserves a trial and all the other guarentees that he is entitled to.  

They don't want him having a public trial where his connection to OKC may come to light.

I'm sorry, when were POWs in ANY war tried?  Whether they were American citizens or not?

Yes, Old Abe.  I looked for the quote to post it to this thread, and several of the pages I found it on attributed it to Lincoln.  Now that I look some more, I don't know who said it;  it's been attributed to Lincoln, to a former Supreme Court Justice, and to a couple of other sources.

The predominant attribution seems to be that Lincoln said it in regard to his suppressing the publication rights of newspapers during the Civil War.

I tend to agree that whats going on with our constitution is very scarey.  I don't care what he did...if you are a citizen you have a RIGHT to due process. The incident during WWII doesn't make the way this is being handled right.

You know, I am amazed at the whole "rally around the flag" mentality.  No matter what, people need to think critically about things.  Theres such a flurry of emotions people just trust the federal government to do the right thing.  That is an assumption that I believe is very misplaced and misguided.  Just remember rights surrendered to the government by citizens will probably never be returned.

I wish we could hear what our founding fathers would say to these events.  

Look at this guys police record. Wasn't he convicted of attempted
   murder for shooting at the driver of a car.
   Yep he sure is worth sticking up for.
Look at where he traveled.
Look at who he met with.
Look at what he may have been planning.


This gets me about as bad as a bunch of FB I  guys standing around
saying "gee we sure cant turn ZM's computer on, there might
be something on it".
Have some balls. pick the computer up, go in a back room and check
it out. You just might save a few AMERICAN lives.

Who gives a F'k about some french rag heads rights. Take him fishing
and use him as bait.

I'm not sticking up for [i]him.[/i]  I'm sticking up for [i]you and me[/i].Love to.  Where's the evidence, presented in a court of law?  So far, all I've got is a statement by the government that he's a bad guy.  Fine.  Prove it.Get a court order.  That's how it's supposed to work.  You want them to pick up YOUR computer and go through it?Maybe next, they can take me out on that boat for questioning the legality of their behavior?

You are all morons.

Read the law..

This is not a unique occurance. There is a process for dealing with it, based on the experience of the two world wars that has already passed legal tests.

Padillia is getting all he is entitled to under the law of the land as it stands today.

Just because you are ignorant of what that law is doesn't mean the government is acting arbatrary or against the Constitution.

And it is already known that some who post on this board worried about terrorist "rights" and wartime "excesses" of the Federal government, see the terrorist situation as a vheicle to deliver the anarchy they need to indulge their Mad Max/Postman fantasies or their dreams about becoming the Robert E. Lee of a second Civil War...

thankyou very much.
we need to quit fooling around and playing with fire. congress needs to declare war on al-queda and whoever else is appropriate, and do the whole thing in the constitutionally prescribed manner. allowing the executive branch to usurp legislative authority is a mistake, and so is nibbling at the edges of due process. these word games are worthy of bill clinton. boil, frog, boil.

Geez ArmLbrl...theres no need for name calling here.  I am not a terrorist sympathizer, nor am I an anarchist.  I simply want people to think critically about what the government is doing.  It's very easy to wrap oneself in the flag and go along with the bandwagon.  

I see very little difference between the cliche "fighting terror" and "for the children".  Both expressions are ment to exploit people fears inorder to bypass their sense of reason.  "Fighting terror" seems to motivate conservative folks the same way that "for the children" motivated the soccer moms.

 I truly wonder if Gore or Klinton was in the White House how many of yall would be singing a different tune.

Also, just because something is a law does not make it Constitutional.  There needs to be a very clear distinction made between the two.

You don't have to agree with me, and I won't call you names or insult you if you don't.  Just put your emotions aside for a second and think about this logically.  What new prescient could this set for the future?  Is this what the founders had in mind?  They are going after "terrorist" now but don't you see how you could easily gain the label as an owner of evil black rifles?  

KBaker


You want them to pick up YOUR computer and go through it?

I have nothing to hide. If they want MY computer they can have it.
If my country thinks its in our nations best interest to prevent a
future terrorist attack they can look all they want.

With that in mind, maybe they should.
We now have multiple Americans in league with our enemy. We can no longer trust our own.
We need to know more about every citizen.
Why do some need such a stock pile of ammunition and firearms...1 rifle and a pistol should be pleanty to defend ones family and satisfy the 2nd Amendment.
These same "types" soap box on how shooting our law enforcement officers is more than justified for stepping on their toes.
They spout revolution and SHTF rebellion.
TERRORISTS ALL!!

sounds like something a German citizen would say in the 1930's

Why, thank you for noticing!Yes, and that's the question, isn't it?  How did we get to the point where the government can hold a citizen without trial, without counsel, and state that they will try him at a military tribunal because he's an "enemy combatant?"  I've got a bit of a problem with that.No, it doesn't.  But it doesn't mean what the are doing is [i]right[/i] or [i]within[/i] the Constitution either.  Apathy on the part of the people has allowed our government to bloat beyond anything ever envisioned by the men who first established it.  "Give 'em an inch..."True.  Doesn't mean it can't happen though, does it?  And [i]"some"[/i] is not defined as [i]"all"[/i], is it?

An interesting point of view: [url=www.usatoday.com/news/comment/2002/06/14/ncoppf.htm]USA Today Opinion Piece[/url]

[b][size=5]Citizenship doesn't matter[/size=5][/b]

By Victoria Toensing

Detonating a dirty bomb in downtown Washington, D.C., would not be a crime or even an act of war. Like the Sept. 11 attacks, it would be an illegal act of war. As such, we must get used to the fact that our criminal justice system is not the place to fight an enemy who threatens to kill us.

From a constitutional view, the issue is straightforward. The "enemy combatants" who commit or plot illegal acts of war do not have to be read their Miranda rights or charged with an offense and tried speedily. Instead, like the German and Japanese soldiers our forces captured on the battlefield during World War II, they can be held until the end of the conflict.

That some of these enemy combatants — such as Abdullah Al Muhajir — are American citizens makes not the slightest difference.

The U.S. Supreme Court spoke clearly on this issue 60 years ago, when it affirmed the status and convictions of eight saboteurs who had entered the United States surreptitiously on a mission to bomb targets in support of Nazi Germany. All eight were tried and convicted as "enemy belligerents" by a military commission. Two were U.S. citizens.

The legal issue resolved, the decision becomes one of policy. The policy in this new war in which the enemy attacks civilians in our cities is that prevention trumps punishment. In practice, that policy requires our government to do all it can to learn what people such as Al Muhajir know about plots to commit additional acts of mass murder.

Understand this: If we take Al Muhajir into our civil-court system by bringing criminal charges, we will not be able to question him.

Instead, his attorney will insist on his Fifth Amendment "right to remain silent." In fact, aggressive defense attorneys will end up turning the tables. John Walker Lindh's attorneys have shut him up and successfully argued to the trial court that our intelligence officers be forced to give them information. If the government refuses, the defense will argue that the court must drop the charges.

So here's the choice: Put enemy combatants such as Al Muhajir in a process — long ago approved by the Supreme Court — that gives us a possibility to learn of future terrorist attacks. Or put him in the criminal justice system, knowing we will not be able to question him and he might be set free to plot again.

Is this really such a hard call?

[i]Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official who created the Terrorism Section, is a senior fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.[/i]

I don't think anyone is defending this guy.  If they can do it to him they can do it to anybody.  That is the problem.  Some may have faith that the elected officials will do the right things and only use these overreaching new powers on "those that deserve it", but like I stated earlier....we are a nation of laws not of men. Look what has happened in this country since 9/11 in a legal context.  It is damn scary.  I don't mean this as an insult but a little more objectivity would help matters and less of the I'm more patriotic than you are BS.

BA

Primary difference:

The U.S. had declared [i]war[/i] on Germany.

Who has Congress declared war on?

If you consider the German case precedent, why then was Jane Fonda not tried for treason for aiding and abetting North Vietnam?

(Oh, wait, we hadn't declared [i]war[/i] against North Vietnam, had we?  It was another "police action,"  like Korea.)

And if we can do to [i]any[/i] citizen what they're doing to Padilla/Al Muhajir/whatthefvck, then they can do the same to you.  It's their word against yours, and nobody gets to hear yours.

I'm not saying Padilla/Al Muhajir [i]isn't[/i] guilty!  I'm saying the precedent scares the excrement out of me.  

Difference is, I don't happen to trust that the government is looking out for my best interest.  I think it's looking out for the best interests of the powerful.  

I doubt many of you cheering this action would be anywhere near as comfortable if Gore were sitting in the White House.

Uh, I might be a little slow, but if you can point me to the Declaration of War (and the subsequent passage of same by the Congress), I would be more than happy to take back what I said and to have a good laugh at my ignorance.  Thanks!

Keep in mind the Oklahoma city bombing. McVeigh actually detonated a large bomb, killing hundreds. He was then tried and convicted in a criminal court.

The government's desire for information is not a justification for violating a US Citizen's rights. I don't care if they did it in WWII, that doesn't make it right either then or now.

He is a US Citizen, and he should not be denied his civil rights no matter what he did or what the government thinks he might do.

Here's a little senario for you:
Some government officals are at a meeting. They are concerned about the public's demand for results in the war on terror. Then one guy has an idea: "Hey, why don't we find some islamic guy that has been to Pakistan recently and just pick him up? Better make it a US Citizen or people will get pissed at the INS again. We can hold him in secret and accuse him of anything we want! All we have to do is make up a terrorist act that he was trying to commit, and hardly anyone will complain about his civil rights. And since we're holding him in secret, he can't deny the charges and we don't have to prove anything."
I'm not saying that I think this actually happened, but can you prove that it didn't?

, you are forgetting the little fact that there has been *NO* declaration of war, and since that is the case, there can be no POW's.

This stuff is simple guys.  Get your declaration of war, then do what you like to the people you don't like at the time.

I am sorry if some of you don't like it that the words "declare" and "war" were not used.

But the facts are that we ARE at war.

Congress gave its approval for Bush to act as he saw fit against those who bombed the WTC and Washington, and all those who helped them.

That is all that is needed.

The words 'declare' and 'war' never appeared in the authorization to used force against Saddam Hussain in 90 either.

Was that not a war too?

Or the "govt" to deliver the NWO. I have "read the laws" passed since 9/11. I don't like 'em...xxxxxx

[removed personal attack - Paul]

He's a citizen.  I'm a citizen.

Protecting him is in essence protecing myself.  If he can be made to be so dangerous with no real evidence, what's to stop them from doing it to you or me?  If you start making exceptions to laws and compromising here "just this once," you set the precedence that it can be done.  While I don't like Padilla, and wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire, I must respect his rights to due process of law, or be damned to let the same thing happen to me.

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...

There is a process for dealing with this [b]once there is a declaration of war and it is passed by Congress![/b]  This has not happened, and therefore previous cases do not apply.  Had this thing been done properly and war had been declared, it would not be an issue.  But it wasn't done properly, and now the law must be followed.

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...

Its funny. You log on to a gun board and you end up with some
bed wetters defending a terrorists rights.
The guy is waging war against your country. I forgot its not
your country or you would be outraged.

I am outraged when the Founding principles and the Constitution of my country which I took an oath to defend, (from foreign AND domestic enemies), is thrown in the trash can....

Bed wetter?  Wow...  How long did it take you to come up with that gem?  It's certainly close to the funniest thing I've heard today.  Since you're so gung-ho on ignoring his rights that must make you just like Sarah Brady and the anti-gunners.

Sure, let's get rid of his due process of law, established by the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.  It's an antiquated document anyway, not applicable to a modern society, right?  Then we'll get rid of that pesky Second Amendment as well since people don't need guns in a modern society.  "... shall not be infringed" doesn't mean anything anyway.

See, you are ignorant enough to think my defending his Constitutionally guaranteed rights is the same as defending his actions.  The fact that you cannot understand the difference is troubling.  I'm defending his rights as a citizen to due process of law.  Whether he's guilty or not in inconsequential.  Labelling me a "bed wetter" because you think the government should not be held inside the laws says more about you than it does me.

[B]Amendment V:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[/B]



Outraged?  I'll be the first man standing in line to shoot this sack of crap when they put him to the firing squad.  Would you do the same?

Believing in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights means you must abide by the Amendments you don't like, not just the First and the Second.

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...

See, here's where the trouble comes from.  We're engaged in a semantic argument.  Was Viet-Nam a war?  Sure looked like one, didn't it.  But officially, it was a 10 year police action.  Desert Storm kind of looked like a war, but it was not.  The current "War on Terrorism" looks like one too, but when you get down to the facts, Congress didn't declare war, and therefore it's not a war.  Sure, people are dying and the actions are still the same, but the traditional rules of engagement have not been followed.  No matter how much I don't like it, and let me clarify that I don't, this jerk still has rights, and will continue to have them, regardless of whether we're still engaged in a semantic argument over whether this is a war or not.  Congress granting the President the power necessary to carry out military action is not the same as Congress declaring war.

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...

"...SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) 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..."

[url]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.J.RES.23.ENR:[/url]

Sure...just check a videotape of the events of 9-11 in NYC and DC.  That was the declaration of war against us.

No, in fact it wasn't a war./  The war powers act gives somje pretty specific things that can and can't be done.  War was never declared so none of these draconian things are legal.

You might not mind, but I do.  How hard would it be for the Bush team to make this a legal war?  

Sounds good, but do please point me to the legal document that the President of these United States signed and forwarded to the Congress of the People of these United States asking for a Declaration of War.  

Until that document is passed by the COngress, we are not at war, we may be having a "war on Terrorism", much like we have a "War on Drugs" or a "War on Seatbelt Usage", but we are not in a state of war with another county(s).

That some foreign entity has declared war on us is all well and good, at this present time, there are 38 soverign states that are in a formal declaration of war with us, that we don't recongnize them or fight with them doesn't mean that we are at war with them.

Show me the document, or acknowledge that we are not at war.

Geez, this is as much or more info than was available about what was going to happen on 9/11, but everyone is all in an uproar saying that the gubmint should have been able to prevent 9/11.  So, if they do nothing because they don't have exact info before 9/11, their damned, and if they do something based on the same type of info available before 9/11, but with the hindsight of 9/11, their damned for that too.  A no-win situation.  The same people bitching about this guys rights would have been bitching if they had detained the hijackers before 9/11 and prevented what happened.

Sorry you hadn't noticed, but we are.  You can make political arguments till the sacred cows come home, but the fact remains we are at war.

No RikWriter, we are not.  War is a political term.  Calling what we are in right now a war is intellectually akin to calling abortion "Murder".  Neither is correct, bot are legal terms, that (suprise) have actual meanings.

You want to call it a war, fine, but realize that it is not a war, and the rights that are taken away from you in this "time of War" will not be returned to you.  Enjoy.

LOL... Funny.. I always thought the John Doe #2 looked like Slick Willy.


We should all relish and enjoy our last moments of freedom to express our opinions on this board and any other public forum before they start labeling us "enemy combatants".
It started with the commonly overused phrase, "national security" and will now start to include "enemy combatants". There is no evidence or if there is, it is very weak. The government says they are not interested in bringing charges but just want to know what he knows about the terrorists. That's a B.S. statement in your fat face.  Why should the government be interested in bring him to trial to find him guilty of anything just to send him to prison. Padilla is already in prison and the government can hold him there indefinately without due process and without having to produce any evident. All this just by declaring someone as an "enemy combatant". Your next.
 

Hey heilo? The blind can't see, and the deaf can't hear. You are wasting your time. Our founding fathers had to deal with such as these also. Those who love liberty are always a minority...