If your considering copy and pasting your latest drive by spam here because you cant find any other place.
DONT!
Oprano has a ZERO tolerance policy for spam. Yours WILL be deleted. If you are looking for more exposure for your product please contact advertising@oprano.com for more information.
Legacy Archived Main BoardBusiness chat and general industry chat. All participation is welcome. Dont post your fucking spam here.
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.
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...
Originally posted by Torone@Dec 1 2003, 12:05 PM 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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Torone@Dec 1 2003, 12:48 PM 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).
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....
__________________
Do you have money sitting in the bank making nothing? I will give you 15% annual returns GUARANTEED by contract. Your money is returned within 90-120 days. 100k minimum investment - All slots currently filled - check back later
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Dec 1 2003, 02:20 PM
Quote:
Let's make it personal....
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..."
__________________
Do you have money sitting in the bank making nothing? I will give you 15% annual returns GUARANTEED by contract. Your money is returned within 90-120 days. 100k minimum investment - All slots currently filled - check back later
Originally posted by KC@Dec 1 2003, 02:36 PM 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...
__________________
Do you have money sitting in the bank making nothing? I will give you 15% annual returns GUARANTEED by contract. Your money is returned within 90-120 days. 100k minimum investment - All slots currently filled - check back later
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Dec 1 2003, 02:42 PM
Quote:
"Trust me, I'm from the Government!"
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...
__________________
Do you have money sitting in the bank making nothing? I will give you 15% annual returns GUARANTEED by contract. Your money is returned within 90-120 days. 100k minimum investment - All slots currently filled - check back later
Originally posted by KC@Nov 30 2003, 05:11 PM At issue is the government's power to designate and detain "enemy combatants," in particular in the case of "dirty bomb" plot suspect Jose Padilla, the New York-born former gang member who was picked up at a Chicago airport 18 months ago by the FBI and locked in a military brig without access to a lawyer. Civil liberties groups and others contend that Padilla -- as an American citizen arrested in the United States -- is being denied due process of law under the Constitution.
---------------------------------------------
It turns my stomach that the American people allow this administration to wipe their asses with the Bill of Rights. Even the most heinous criminals have rights when they are US Citizens in the US!!!!
I've already written my Senators and Congressman. I wish other Americans speak up too.
What do you think? Is the nature of the crime relevant? Can Ashcroft pick and choose who has rights and who doesn't?
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by KC@Dec 1 2003, 03:26 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.
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.
Originally posted by KC@Dec 1 2003, 03:26 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.
I agree with KC.....that's a semantics argument. He has not been given his rights as a US citizen.
__________________
Do you have money sitting in the bank making nothing? I will give you 15% annual returns GUARANTEED by contract. Your money is returned within 90-120 days. 100k minimum investment - All slots currently filled - check back later
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.
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.
12-01-2003
A district court also felt the Gov't was violating Padilla's rights. 
urpdance:
Linear Mode
