Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/4/2006 1:03:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 1:05:11 PM EDT by XDBACKUPGUN]
Padilla will be released to Civilian Custody..........looking for a story now!
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060104/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_padilla_4;_ylt=AnljoGxcSrDzzZDhdYl.5kYTv5UB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Finally this bastard will be tried.....then executed!
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:09:16 PM EDT
Or he'll walk....
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:09:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Or he'll walk....



As screwed up as this country is that might happend it is a shame.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:12:52 PM EDT
He'll hav the entire ACLU as his defense team, so there is a good chance that he'll be blowing up his oven by easter.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:13:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 1:18:17 PM EDT by raven]
Really? What did he do that could get capital punishment under criminal law? He didn't really DO anything.

See that's the problem. Civil rights types and liberals dont understand we're at war, dont understand that people like Padilla aren't criminals but enemy agents, don't understand that with terrorism aimed at the US we do not act like the justice system that brings criminals to trial only after they commit a crime; we're trying to detect and stop them before the terrorists strike. Problem is, they often dont break very significant laws until the actual terrorist attack that kills thousands of people occurs.

The liberal sees the government acting so proactively against the terrorists, and INSTINCTIVELY, the liberal imagines himself inevitibly becoming a similar target of the government if his dissent becomes too bothersome or threatening to the government whose policies he opposes. Not only is there no real terrorist threat in the liberal's eyes, the move to fight terrorism is in fact more dangerous than "terrorism" itself.

And that's why they rush to Padilla's defense, because they deeply empathize with his plight. And guys like Padilla and his pals back in Pakistan must sit back laugh, while they go over the finer points of acting the victim.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:13:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By XDBACKUPGUN:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Or he'll walk....



As screwed up as this country is that might happend it is a shame.



There is no might about it. He will walk. He will be painted as a victim of the Jeorge Buzh admin. And rallied behind like that kook Shehan.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:19:39 PM EDT
i hate this guy too. but as a US citizen he was being held illegally.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:25:10 PM EDT
You all are missing the point entirely. By trying Padilla in a civilian court, the defense attorneys have the right to examine all of the means and methods our country use to maintain security, even if and especially if they are top secret. This is called Discovery and is one of the main reasons that the .gov wants terrorists to be tried in military tribunals. Under the military tribunals, the methods by which we tap into terror cells and the people we have infiltrated into these terror networks are protected and kept secret. In a civilian court, the defense has the right to challenge these methods and question our informants.

This will set our intelligence community back to the Clinton years. Way to go ACLU you communist libtard fuckstains.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:26:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 1:26:39 PM EDT by Not_so_Clever]

Originally Posted By DvlDog:
i hate this guy too. but as a US citizen he was being held illegally.



No doubt about it. He gets his day in court. Same as you or me.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:28:57 PM EDT
Padilla was involved with the Oklahoma City bombing.. He should never be released. Thanks to the Clintons he was released and set free to be involved in 911.

Wasn't he also working at Logan Aiport and then disappeared after 911?
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:32:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Win_88:
Padilla was involved with the Oklahoma City bombing.. He should never be released. Thanks to the Clintons he was released and set free to be involved in 911.

Wasn't he also working at Logan Aiport and then disappeared after 911?



I'd like to believe you, but you haven't offered any support for that statement. If it's true, I'd like to show the truth to as many people as I can. If it's false, I'll look like an idiot when it's debunked.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:36:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lu380:

Originally Posted By Win_88:
Padilla was involved with the Oklahoma City bombing.. He should never be released. Thanks to the Clintons he was released and set free to be involved in 911.

Wasn't he also working at Logan Aiport and then disappeared after 911?



I'd like to believe you, but you haven't offered any support for that statement. If it's true, I'd like to show the truth to as many people as I can. If it's false, I'll look like an idiot when it's debunked.



There is no real evidence that Jose Padilla was involved in the Oklahoma City Bombing, but it has been noted that he bares a striking resemblance to the alleged "hispanic accomplice" that McVeigh supposedly had.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:38:36 PM EDT
When in doubt, remember the fundamental rule.....


"Bush is evil."

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:40:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DvlDog:
i hate this guy too. but as a US citizen he was being held illegally.



Prove that... the courts have not said that so where did you get it.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:42:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:
When in doubt, remember the fundamental rule.....


"Bush is evil."




Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:45:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dvr9:
You all are missing the point entirely. By trying Padilla in a civilian court, the defense attorneys have the right to examine all of the means and methods our country use to maintain security, even if and especially if they are top secret. This is called Discovery and is one of the main reasons that the .gov wants terrorists to be tried in military tribunals. Under the military tribunals, the methods by which we tap into terror cells and the people we have infiltrated into these terror networks are protected and kept secret. In a civilian court, the defense has the right to challenge these methods and question our informants.

This will set our intelligence community back to the Clinton years. Way to go ACLU you communist libtard fuckstains.



Lol. You totally misunderstand what just happened. It was the BUSH administration that was pushing to get Padilla tried in a civilian court. His own lawyers wanted him to be held by the military (this is a reversal of their earlier positions). The reason for this is that SCOTUS would have been forced to rule on whether or not the President has the right to hold people indefinitely without charges. The Bush administration was desperate to get Padilla into a civlian court in order to avoid the risk that SCOTUS would rule Bush's actions to be unconstitutional.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:48:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By DvlDog:
i hate this guy too. but as a US citizen he was being held illegally.



Prove that... the courts have not said that so where did you get it.



Well, it's not illegal in the sense that if I rob someone, it isn't illegal because no court has said that I commited the crime until the trial.

It boggles my mind that you can arrest an American citizen on US soil and hold him without trial on secret evidence with no access to an attorney for 3 years.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:48:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Not_so_Clever:

Originally Posted By garandman:
When in doubt, remember the fundamental rule.....


"Bush is evil."







If yer not sure what to think about Padilla, go to the old saw horse "Bush is evil."

When Bush wanted to try him in military tribunal, they said Bush was evil.

Now that Bush wants to try him in civilian courts, they said Bush was evil.

So, when in doubt, Bush is evil.

See?



Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:52:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

When Bush wanted to try him in military tribunal, they said Bush was evil.

Now that Bush wants to try him in civilian courts, they said Bush was evil.



But the only reason that Bush is trying Padilla in a civilian court now is to avoid a SCOTUS review on the extent of the powers of the executive. They are basically making a judgement call that what will come out in the criminal trial will be less damage than having SCOTUS tell POTUS that he's over-reached.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:52:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pliftkl:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By DvlDog:
i hate this guy too. but as a US citizen he was being held illegally.



Prove that... the courts have not said that so where did you get it.



Well, it's not illegal in the sense that if I rob someone, it isn't illegal because no court has said that I commited the crime until the trial.

It boggles my mind that you can arrest an American citizen on US soil and hold him without trial on secret evidence with no access to an attorney for 3 years.




Then it is not illegal in any sense, is it… You might not like it but it is not illegal.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:52:52 PM EDT

Just shoot him.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:56:42 PM EDT


If yer not sure what to think about Padilla, go to the old saw horse "Bush is evil."

When Bush wanted to try him in military tribunal, they said Bush was evil.

Now that Bush wants to try him in civilian courts, they said Bush was evil.

So, when in doubt, Bush is evil.

See?

Uh, nope.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:57:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Not_so_Clever:

Originally Posted By DvlDog:
i hate this guy too. but as a US citizen he was being held illegally.



No doubt about it. He gets his day in court. Same as you or me.



+1 once we deprive him of his citizenship (its been done before) we can stick his ass to rot in gitmo though
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:58:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pliftkl:

Originally Posted By garandman:

When Bush wanted to try him in military tribunal, they said Bush was evil.

Now that Bush wants to try him in civilian courts, they said Bush was evil.



But the only reason that Bush is trying Padilla in a civilian court now is to avoid a SCOTUS review on the extent of the powers of the executive. They are basically making a judgement call that what will come out in the criminal trial will be less damage than having SCOTUS tell POTUS that he's over-reached.




Good plan, I'd say.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:58:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Just shoot him.




The 13 cent solution.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:01:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
once we deprive him of his citizenship (its been done before) we can stick his ass to rot in gitmo though



Do you have a reference to this (having been done before)?

The US has in the past revoked citizenship of people who entered the US illegally (ie, who lied on their immigration or citizenship application). They've bullied people into signing away their citizenship (basically telling them, you've violated the law, sign this and you are not a citizen). However, I was told by an immigration lawyer that there is actually no legal means by which the government can revoke a citizenship of a naturalized citizen. Granted, there are things that are supposed to get your citizenship revoked, but there is no process by which the government can revoke it without your consent.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:02:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 2:02:57 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By pliftkl:

Originally Posted By Dino:
once we deprive him of his citizenship (its been done before) we can stick his ass to rot in gitmo though



Do you have a reference to this (having been done before)?

The US has in the past revoked citizenship of people who entered the US illegally (ie, who lied on their immigration or citizenship application). They've bullied people into signing away their citizenship (basically telling them, you've violated the law, sign this and you are not a citizen). However, I was told by an immigration lawyer that there is actually no legal means by which the government can revoke a citizenship of a naturalized citizen. Granted, there are things that are supposed to get your citizenship revoked, but there is no process by which the government can revoke it without your consent.



The did it to Mafia gangsters...
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:19:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By pliftkl:

Originally Posted By Dino:
once we deprive him of his citizenship (its been done before) we can stick his ass to rot in gitmo though



Do you have a reference to this (having been done before)?

The US has in the past revoked citizenship of people who entered the US illegally (ie, who lied on their immigration or citizenship application). They've bullied people into signing away their citizenship (basically telling them, you've violated the law, sign this and you are not a citizen). However, I was told by an immigration lawyer that there is actually no legal means by which the government can revoke a citizenship of a naturalized citizen. Granted, there are things that are supposed to get your citizenship revoked, but there is no process by which the government can revoke it without your consent.



The did it to Mafia gangsters...



Are you sure these weren't revokations based on illegal entry (or misrepresented entry) to the US?

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:21:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 2:28:22 PM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By pliftkl:

Originally Posted By Dino:
once we deprive him of his citizenship (its been done before) we can stick his ass to rot in gitmo though



Do you have a reference to this (having been done before)?

The US has in the past revoked citizenship of people who entered the US illegally (ie, who lied on their immigration or citizenship application). They've bullied people into signing away their citizenship (basically telling them, you've violated the law, sign this and you are not a citizen). However, I was told by an immigration lawyer that there is actually no legal means by which the government can revoke a citizenship of a naturalized citizen. Granted, there are things that are supposed to get your citizenship revoked, but there is no process by which the government can revoke it without your consent.



It was standard procedure to remove citizenship for most of our history. In the mid 60's the Supreme Court rules it coudn't be done without due process.

It has been done in the case of Nazi war criminals for instance

usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/2005/Aug/31-404598.html


good summary here

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_citizenship

Loss of U.S. citizenship

Various court decisions have ruled that citizenship is a constitutional right and cannot be deprived without due process. However, a U.S. citizen may lose citizenship for a variety of reasons which include:

1. Service in a foreign armed forces
2. Employment with a foreign government of which the person is a citizen
3. Renunciation of citizenship to a U.S. diplomatic officer
4. Renunciation of citizenship within United States to the proper authority (this only applies 'in time of war')
5. Naturalization as a citizen of a foreign state

It is also important that the person in question has the intention during the majority of these cases of relinquishing U.S. citizenship and also that the person has another nationality to assume (a person cannot become stateless for renunciation purposes). If a dual national is required to perform military service for a foreign military, and does so without the intention of losing U.S. citizenship, this does not constitute a breach of citizenship. There are also special provisions for persons who are deemed to be avoiding U.S. taxation (which is, in theory, applicable up to ten years after the official loss of citizenship), which can result in loss of right to entry into the United States. While in practice there is little to stop a foreign citizen who has performed a said act from entering the U.S., the U.S. State Department "requires" that a Certificate of Loss of Citizenship be obtained at a U.S. embassy or consulate (though this is generally treated as a gray area, judged on a case by case basis).



Until they remove his citizenship, he is the same as you or I. He needs his day in court.



p.s. you can see a history of revokations with this link
List of citizenship revocations
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:21:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lu380:

Originally Posted By Win_88:
Padilla was involved with the Oklahoma City bombing.. He should never be released. Thanks to the Clintons he was released and set free to be involved in 911.

Wasn't he also working at Logan Aiport and then disappeared after 911?



I'd like to believe you, but you haven't offered any support for that statement. If it's true, I'd like to show the truth to as many people as I can. If it's false, I'll look like an idiot when it's debunked.



He was suspected of being involved in the Oklahoma City Bombing.
www.okcbombing.org/News%20Articles/Padilla/padilla_beck.htm

We was quickly suspected of being involved in 911 when he didn't show up to work after 911.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:24:00 PM EDT
"no legal means by which the government can revoke a citizenship of a naturalized citizen"

"there is no process by which the government can revoke it without your consent"


And there it is. Sorry MM.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:24:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pliftkl:
Lol. You totally misunderstand what just happened. It was the BUSH administration that was pushing to get Padilla tried in a civilian court. His own lawyers wanted him to be held by the military (this is a reversal of their earlier positions). The reason for this is that SCOTUS would have been forced to rule on whether or not the President has the right to hold people indefinitely without charges. The Bush administration was desperate to get Padilla into a civlian court in order to avoid the risk that SCOTUS would rule Bush's actions to be unconstitutional.





Huh?!
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:29:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Just shoot him.




With a .223 10 times and let him die slowly.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:30:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 2:33:18 PM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By Not_so_Clever:
"no legal means by which the government can revoke a citizenship of a naturalized citizen"

"there is no process by which the government can revoke it without your consent"


And there it is. Sorry MM.




not true,

it can be done with due process


It just can't be done on a whim. Currently, we are effectively doing that by depriving citizens of due process without first depriving them of their citizenship



eta: read the links I posted. It was done as recently as last year
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:32:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By XDBACKUPGUN:
As screwed up as this country is that might happend it is a shame.



http://www.toefl.org
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:34:16 PM EDT
Jihad Johnny walked, and was caught red handed in a foreign country.

John Walker Lihnd?( I think was his name)
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:37:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

It was standard procedure to remove citizenship for most of our history. In the mid 60's the Supreme Court rules it coudn't be done without due process.

It has been done in the case of Nazi war criminals for instance



They can do it for former Nazi's because the former Nazi's lied on their immigration application. There's a specific procedure for revoking their citizenship by filing paperwork with the courts alleging that they entered the US based on false paperwork.


Loss of U.S. citizenship

Various court decisions have ruled that citizenship is a constitutional right and cannot be deprived without due process. However, a U.S. citizen may lose citizenship for a variety of reasons which include:

1. Service in a foreign armed forces
2. Employment with a foreign government of which the person is a citizen
3. Renunciation of citizenship to a U.S. diplomatic officer
4. Renunciation of citizenship within United States to the proper authority (this only applies 'in time of war')
5. Naturalization as a citizen of a foreign state



I agree that these are all things for which you can theoretically lose your citizenship. However, there is no process by which the government can currently revoke your citizenship without your consent. Anytime the government wants to do anything, there's paperwork to be filed and a process to be followed. The lawyer who explained this to me claimed that there was simply no process in place by which a naturalized American's citizen could be revoked, and that naturalized American's who do have their citizenship "revoked" are in fact tricked into giving it up.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:44:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By liquidsunshine:
Jihad Johnny walked, and was caught red handed in a foreign country.

John Walker Lihnd?( I think was his name)



He got 20 w.o.p.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:23:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 3:24:09 PM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By pliftkl:

Originally Posted By Dino:

It was standard procedure to remove citizenship for most of our history. In the mid 60's the Supreme Court rules it coudn't be done without due process.

It has been done in the case of Nazi war criminals for instance



They can do it for former Nazi's because the former Nazi's lied on their immigration application. There's a specific procedure for revoking their citizenship by filing paperwork with the courts alleging that they entered the US based on false paperwork. and that procedure was instituted after a need was demonstrated, like there is a need now with cases like Padilla's


Loss of U.S. citizenship

Various court decisions have ruled that citizenship is a constitutional right and cannot be deprived without due process. However, a U.S. citizen may lose citizenship for a variety of reasons which include:

1. Service in a foreign armed forces
2. Employment with a foreign government of which the person is a citizen
3. Renunciation of citizenship to a U.S. diplomatic officer
4. Renunciation of citizenship within United States to the proper authority (this only applies 'in time of war')
5. Naturalization as a citizen of a foreign state



I agree that these are all things for which you can theoretically lose your citizenship. However, there is no process by which the government can currently revoke your citizenship without your consent. Anytime the government wants to do anything, there's paperwork to be filed and a process to be followed. The lawyer who explained this to me claimed that there was simply no process in place by which a naturalized American's citizen could be revoked, and that naturalized American's who do have their citizenship "revoked" are in fact tricked into giving it up.



Which is where the current administration is going wrong. Intead of developing a process, they ignore the Constitution and do exactly what there is no process for.

By holding him for 3 years with no trial, they have effectively made him a non-citizen.

I have zero issue with treating dirtbags like dirtbags. A procedure needs to be formulated instead of ignoring the rights of a citizen.

Right now, the President's word is all that is required to effectively strip you of your rights as a citizen. I'm not too worried about Bush abusing it, but when Hillary is president she will have the exact same power.

It scares the hell out of me that people are just accepting this crap as a wartime measure.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:25:34 PM EDT
even though i get yelled at for saying it....

the 4th am is dead
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:32:02 PM EDT
The only reason Padilla is being tried in civilain court (Not even for his alleged dirty bomb plot either) is that Bush was going to get smacked down by the Supreme Court for holding him without charge.

Padilla might be a shit stain, but that's for a court of law to decide. Bush should be rebuked for holding him without charge and without access to a lawyer for 3 years which is quite clearly unconstitutional.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:36:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Just shoot him.




Holy fuck batman, you're crazy. Should we start building concentration camps for other dissenters now?
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:37:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:


If yer not sure what to think about Padilla, go to the old saw horse "Bush is evil."

When Bush wanted to try him in military tribunal, they said Bush was evil.

Now that Bush wants to try him in civilian courts, they said Bush was evil.

So, when in doubt, Bush is evil.

See?




The only reason that this is going to a civlian court is because there was going to be a court case on the legality of indefinitely detaining US citizens without charging them with a crime. By turning Padilla over, the administration avoids a legal challenge to this practice.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:38:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By liquidsunshine:
Jihad Johnny walked, and was caught red handed in a foreign country.

John Walker Lihnd?( I think was his name)



20 years is walking?
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:39:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dvr9:
You all are missing the point entirely. By trying Padilla in a civilian court, the defense attorneys have the right to examine all of the means and methods our country use to maintain security, even if and especially if they are top secret. This is called Discovery and is one of the main reasons that the .gov wants terrorists to be tried in military tribunals. Under the military tribunals, the methods by which we tap into terror cells and the people we have infiltrated into these terror networks are protected and kept secret. In a civilian court, the defense has the right to challenge these methods and question our informants.

This will set our intelligence community back to the Clinton years. Way to go ACLU you communist libtard fuckstains.



A simple solution to satisfy both sides is to select a jury composed of people who hold "Top Secret" clearances, then. Close the trial to all but the cleared jury, the prosecutors, and the defense. You can satisfy the Constitutional requirement that people like Padilla get a fair jury trial and still keep whatever secrets the administration wants to protect. Why no one else to date has thought of this is beyond me...
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:43:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:

Originally Posted By garandman:


If yer not sure what to think about Padilla, go to the old saw horse "Bush is evil."

When Bush wanted to try him in military tribunal, they said Bush was evil.

Now that Bush wants to try him in civilian courts, they said Bush was evil.

So, when in doubt, Bush is evil.

See?




The only reason that this is going to a civlian court is because there was going to be a court case on the legality of indefinitely detaining US citizens without charging them with a crime. By turning Padilla over, the administration avoids a legal challenge to this practice.



Nobody says garandman actually has to educate himself on an issue. He can just spew talking points.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:46:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 3:49:21 PM EDT by ixy]

Originally Posted By DLoken:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Just shoot him.




Holy fuck batman, you're crazy. Should we start building concentration camps for other dissenters now?



US Concentration Camps
US urban exercises
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:48:40 PM EDT
Small world. His mother works at the same company I do.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 9:35:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ixy:

Originally Posted By DLoken:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Just shoot him.




Holy fuck batman, you're crazy. Should we start building concentration camps for other dissenters now?



US Concentration Camps
US urban exercises



Alex Jones is a nutbag, mmmkay....

Link Posted: 1/5/2006 4:02:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DLoken:

Originally Posted By H46Driver:

Originally Posted By garandman:


If yer not sure what to think about Padilla, go to the old saw horse "Bush is evil."

When Bush wanted to try him in military tribunal, they said Bush was evil.

Now that Bush wants to try him in civilian courts, they said Bush was evil.

So, when in doubt, Bush is evil.

See?




The only reason that this is going to a civlian court is because there was going to be a court case on the legality of indefinitely detaining US citizens without charging them with a crime. By turning Padilla over, the administration avoids a legal challenge to this practice.



Nobody says garandman actually has to educate himself on an issue. He can just spew talking points.



Nobody says that you have to actually read and comprehend my posts.

Which is a good thing for you, as you have CONSISTENTLY shown yourself incapable of it.

Link Posted: 1/5/2006 4:05:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:

Originally Posted By garandman:


If yer not sure what to think about Padilla, go to the old saw horse "Bush is evil."

When Bush wanted to try him in military tribunal, they said Bush was evil.

Now that Bush wants to try him in civilian courts, they said Bush was evil.

So, when in doubt, Bush is evil.

See?




The only reason that this is going to a civlian court is because there was going to be a court case on the legality of indefinitely detaining US citizens without charging them with a crime. By turning Padilla over, the administration avoids a legal challenge to this practice.



Point is, people who were complaining about Bush detaining Padilla indefiniately (which I have a problem with, he is a US citizen) are getting what they asked for - Padilla charged and transferred to civvy court.

And yet, even when Bush does what they want and they get their way, Bush is still evil cuz he's got wrong motives for doing what they wanted.

Basically, whatever Bush does, they consider him wrong and evil.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top