|
Post by MorningStar on Apr 24, 2004 0:12:14 GMT -5
are you talking about someone in particular? i question because in the one artilce is says American's should be warned and so on - not anyone in particular. most often in criminal cases the people are held in a prision awaiting trial - when it's severe enough to warrant such action. i believe it's the same thing with others that are accused. in regards to going against the constitution -- i believe that someone, anyone that strikes out against the US in a terrorist action IS going against all that "we the people" stand for, therefore, they are going against the constitution. Well, in the article, it mentioned: "Padilla is an American (and, for a few years, a Floridian) seized at Chicago's O'Hare Airport in 2002 on suspicions of plotting with al-Qaida to explode a "dirty" nuclear bomb." To me, hold this person is against their rights as a citizen. And, (and this is flame material), I do feel sorry for those being imprisioned in Cuba. Indefinite imprisonment at the hands of an enemy - scary stuff. (Yes, I know they were fighting against us)
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Apr 26, 2004 10:14:22 GMT -5
Found some more info on him, thoughts its in NY Times (have to register, yuck). Some snippets: Mr. Padilla was arrested at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, suspected of involvement in a "dirty bomb" plot. Mr. Hamdi was captured by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. ... Citizens can be deprived of their liberty only on the basis of a properly enacted law, after a judicial trial that meets minimum standards of due process. Once a citizen's liberty has been taken away, he is entitled to challenge his imprisonment in a habeas corpus proceeding. These rights all apply to Mr. Padilla and Mr. Hamdi, and they have all been violated. President Bush asserts that he can circumvent these constitutional protections simply by invoking his military powers, but that is inconsistent with the law, and with fundamental American values. In the Declaration of Independence, the Founders criticized the king of England for "render[ing] the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power." In establishing the American system, they made clear that civil authority had supremacy over military authority. The Supreme Court recognized this principle in a landmark Civil War-era case, Ex parte Milligan, in which it held that if civilian courts are open and functioning, they, not the military, must try American citizens. www.nytimes.com/2004/04/26/opinion/26MON1.htmlMr. Padilla's lawyers do not exaggerate when they tell the court that if their client loses, "it would mean that for the foreseeable future, any citizen, anywhere, at any time, would be subject to indefinite military detention on the unilateral order of the President." That formula for totalitarianism has never been the law in America. -- Editorial, The Wall Street Journal [April 26, 2004]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 27, 2004 6:03:11 GMT -5
not everyone has taken up arms: "Padilla is an American (and, for a few years, a Floridian) seized at Chicago's O'Hare Airport in 2002 on suspicions of plotting with al-Qaida to explode a "dirty" nuclear bomb." Seized on suspicions - enough to throw out the Consitutuion? They should have just killed him, then the bleeding hearst wouldn't have anything to cry about. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Apr 27, 2004 7:27:29 GMT -5
They should have just killed him, then the bleeding hearst wouldn't have anything to cry about. [/color][/quote] Yeah, should have just shot that American citizen right in the middle of the airport. You are just sick.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 27, 2004 10:36:50 GMT -5
Yeah, should have just shot that American citizen right in the middle of the airport. You are just sick. I'm not sick but I'm also not a bleeding heart. He took up arms against the USA and we don't even know if he might have killed american soldiers. He made a choice to give up his citizenship when he took up arms. He is no better than those he joined. Now he wants to be an american again so he can enjoy the bleeding hearts in this society who have "compkmtyolpion" although it may be misguided. He gave up his rights along with his citizenship and is a traitor. He is no better than Benedict Arnold and should be treated as such. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Apr 27, 2004 10:59:26 GMT -5
I'm not sick but I'm also not a bleeding heart. He took up arms against the USA and we don't even know if he might have killed american soldiers. He made a choice to give up his citizenship when he took up arms. He is no better than those he joined. Now he wants to be an american again so he can enjoy the bleeding hearts in this society who have "compkmtyolpion" although it may be misguided. He gave up his rights along with his citizenship and is a traitor. He is no better than Benedict Arnold and should be treated as such. [/color][/quote] Sick or not, one thing is for certain, you don't read. "Jose Padilla may be a traitor and a terrorist. But he was not captured in Afghanistan with a gun in his hand. He was arrested at Chicago O'Hare airport. "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 offence 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. 5th Amendment to U.S. Constitution
And he was no where near the man Benedict Arnold was. Only in recent years have historians fully acknowledged Arnold's contributions to the American cause. The virtual burial of his outstanding military reputation began as soon as news of his treason came to light. Brigadier General "Mad Anthony" Wayne, for one, suddenly attributed Arnold's bravery to heavy drinking, "even to intoxication." In the years since, the name Benedict Arnold has become virtually synonymous with "traitor."
Ironically, it was Arnold--the American general and the hero of Saratoga--who sealed the French alliance that helped guarantee independence for the country he had betrayed. americanhistory.about.com/library/prm/blbenedictarnold4.htm
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Apr 27, 2004 14:43:04 GMT -5
Sick or not, one thing is for certain, you don't read. "Jose Padilla may be a traitor and a terrorist. But he was not captured in Afghanistan with a gun in his hand. He was arrested at Chicago O'Hare airport. "but i would have to question -- why was he in chicago? are people who are terrorists or suspected of being so able to come back here and hide? if so then why would it matter if we'd know who was "thinking" of the hideous acts of 9/11 -- if we didn't have proof positive or conclusive evidentiary support -- they'd then just be walking around anyway right -- we have no grouds to hold them on suspicion (spx). MS -- i know i'm not putting that through properly, i only hope you can figure out where i'm trying to come from. i'm on a borrowed system as mine is being invaded by pop up's and i have our IT guys trying to figure out what's what! it's a royal pain but... anyway, i just don't think that someone, once they choose to go against america can then hide within or behind it.
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Apr 27, 2004 16:56:55 GMT -5
but i would have to question -- why was he in chicago? are people who are terrorists or suspected of being so able to come back here and hide? if so then why would it matter if we'd know who was "thinking" of the hideous acts of 9/11 -- if we didn't have proof positive or conclusive evidentiary support -- they'd then just be walking around anyway right -- we have no grouds to hold them on suspicion (spx). MS -- i know i'm not putting that through properly, i only hope you can figure out where i'm trying to come from. i'm on a borrowed system as mine is being invaded by pop up's and i have our IT guys trying to figure out what's what! it's a royal pain but... anyway, i just don't think that someone, once they choose to go against america can then hide within or behind it. I think I know what you're saying M, but from what I understand, this guy didn't fight with the Taliban. He is only a suspected terrorist, and being held as a 'enemy combatant'. Its still my view that no matter how suspect, he should still have his rights under the law.
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Apr 29, 2004 9:50:22 GMT -5
I think I know what you're saying M, but from what I understand, this guy didn't fight with the Taliban. He is only a suspected terrorist, and being held as a 'enemy combatant'. Its still my view that no matter how suspect, he should still have his rights under the law. ah ha - now i question then... let's say it was another man/person - only because i don't want to accuse him however... okay this guy is a suspected terrorist... we do nothing becasue without the patior act neither the feebs or cia are talking to each other, we do nothing because we don't want to infringe upon his rights. he acts and kills and maims many, he's not longer just a suspected terrorist but a suspect in terror activites. someone mentions - hey he was arrested in chicago over a year ago, under suspiction and we did nothing about it... can you imagine the blame game that will be going on? it may be "different than before" when it comes to suspicious people, but IMO it's because the stakes are much higher. MS, people have to realize they can't have it both ways -- they can't be complaining about what did or didn't happen prior if they won't let epople take action under "suspected only" jurisdiction. (ps -- glad you now understand "my language". these boards can often be a challange and i thank you!)
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Apr 29, 2004 10:28:54 GMT -5
Or, imagine it this way, you are suspected of being a terrorist and are held in a military prision - no trial, no laywers, no rights. Fun times.
If the law thinks someone is a suspect for a crime, we go after them, and there are laws to handle how the government and authorities should act. Suspicion to commit murder - we put the person through a trial, let them defend themselves, and push to the full extent of the law.
If they have enough evidence to arrest and detain this citizen, then they should put him through a trial of his peers and present this evidence as the Constitution calls for. I still don't think the government should be able to walk all over a person's rights.
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Apr 29, 2004 10:39:31 GMT -5
Or, imagine it this way, you are suspected of being a terrorist and are held in a military prision - no trial, no laywers, no rights. Fun times. If the law thinks someone is a suspect for a crime, we go after them, and there are laws to handle how the government and authorities should act. Suspicion to commit murder - we put the person through a trial, let them defend themselves, and push to the full extent of the law. If they have enough evidence to arrest and detain this citizen, then they should put him through a trial of his peers and present this evidence as the Constitution calls for. I still don't think the government should be able to walk all over a person's rights. ah yes, there are two sides to every coin! it's just if we are going to follow the rules and hold every one at arms length... then IMO we can not condenm people after the fact if this person then does go off the deep end. that's just what bothers me. sure we treat him "normally" and then nothing happens -- we've done it the right way. HOWEVER, we do the norm and then he wacks out and does something monsterous -- we're being sued and called evil and "you knew this was going to happen and you did nothing". that's the concern of mine.
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Apr 29, 2004 11:58:45 GMT -5
I guess you're losing me a bit now, what do you mean by treat him 'normal'? You're talking no trial/just let him go?
If he is acquitted, then goes and blows up something, then it happens. I guess I'd rather see a trial, no matter what the outcome than letting the government circumvent the laws of the country by calling a citizen an 'enemy combatant' and holding them w/o charges and destorying their rights.
Wouldn't this be a good step for someone to claim Christians are terrorists and just hold them w/o reason/charges other than they are 'dangerous'?
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. - Ben Franklin.
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Apr 29, 2004 12:26:38 GMT -5
I guess you're losing me a bit now, what do you mean by treat him 'normal'? You're talking no trial/just let him go? If he is acquitted, then goes and blows up something, then it happens. I guess I'd rather see a trial, no matter what the outcome than letting the government circumvent the laws of the country by calling a citizen an 'enemy combatant' and holding them w/o charges and destorying their rights. Wouldn't this be a good step for someone to claim Christians are terrorists and just hold them w/o reason/charges other than they are 'dangerous'? Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. - Ben Franklin. you are right on the normal vein... if the information is primarily circumstantial -- then they can be off and running. i know it's a rather ***ed if you do and ***ed if you don't type of waiting game. it's just i hear everyone saying - they knew there were going to be people trying to hurt us with planes prior to 9/11. man did you travel at all within that year after?! i did and i wanted to smack people upside the head. they were whining and moaning about the security measures. could you have imagined what would have happened had they tried to get these measures in place prior -- without reasonable cause. i guess each case is open for interprutation! i see your point too -- if can and does go to extreems on both sides.
|
|
|
Post by Onion on Apr 29, 2004 14:15:18 GMT -5
not everyone has taken up arms: "Padilla is an American (and, for a few years, a Floridian) seized at Chicago's O'Hare Airport in 2002 on suspicions of plotting with al-Qaida to explode a "dirty" nuclear bomb." Seized on suspicions - enough to throw out the Consitutuion? They should have just killed him, then the bleeding hearst wouldn't have anything to cry about. [/color][/quote] Like I said before, this is not allowed.
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Apr 29, 2004 15:16:42 GMT -5
Like I said before, this is not allowed. Even genesda and I don't get along, but still, this is uncalled for.
|
|