Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 2, 2004 OK, I'm a little shocked that this hasn't been mentioned, but here goes: The Padilla case. In about a month, the Supreme Court is expected to issue its verdict in the case determining if the U.S gov't can continue to hold him without pressing charges. Today, the gov't issues documents that explain why they're holding him --- and the reasons are not good. Padilla, along with an accomplice, were planning on renting apartments in a major city with natural gas, letting the gas run, and then blowing up the apartment building. He also planned on trying to develop a dirty bomb, but his handlers apparently didn't agree with the idea. So, there is a good chance he'll be released. The gov't got his confessions before his rights were read and before an attorney was present --- which means, most likely, he won't be able to be charged. BUT, should this man ever be free? There is no reason to assume he won't continue to try and kill Americans --- and good luck to authorities in trying to monitor him, as his lawyer can point out that they refuse to press charges on him. SO, I suppose this a multi-part question: 1) Does one forfeit his/her Constitutional rights when they commit acts of treachery? 2) Do the rights of Padilla trump the rights of the millions of people that we have strong reason to assume he'll still try and kill? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted June 2, 2004 1) Yes 2) No Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 2, 2004 1) Yes 2) No Wow. Succinct and to the point. You Canadians are so wacky. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted June 2, 2004 1) No. 2) No. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krankor 0 Report post Posted June 2, 2004 1) Yes 2) No Agreed. Padilla will kill innocent people if he's released so therefore he shouldn't be released back into society. He committed treason for plotting against his country so he loses all of his rights. That's how it worked when the country was created and they didn't have the stupid problems we have today. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted June 2, 2004 He should be labled as an enemy combantent, stripped of his citizenship and charged with treason. How anyone could argue that is ludicrous. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krankor 0 Report post Posted June 2, 2004 That's exactly what he is. He should never be allowed out of his jail cell or whatever box they are keeping him in ever again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted June 2, 2004 No to both questions, but I don't even know who this guy is. Guess I haven't been watching my CourtTV. Sorry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted June 2, 2004 Court TV? This guy was planning to set off a radiological bomb in Chicago and it gets no attention? No wonder Americans laugh at warning levels, this is serious shit and Julia Roberts giving birth to twins gets more attention. As this report from the FAS says, if the amount of cessium found in a medical gauge were used in a radiological bomb detonated at the National Gallery of Art, the contaminated area would probably include the Capitol, Supreme Court, and Library of Congress depending on the wind. The whole place would have to be evacuated, demolished, and abandoned for decades. If one piece of radiocative cobalt was stolen from a food irridation plant (where there are thousands of such pieces) and detonated at the tip of Manhattan, Lower Manhattan would have the same radiation level as the enclosed area of Chernobyl not to mention what would happen to Upper Manhattan and the Bronx. Long term damage would go as far north as Danbury, Connecticut. All this from ONE bar of cobalt from a food irridation plant! You ask me, this sort of shit is just as, if not more, scary than the threat of a regular nuke or BCW. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C Dubya 04 0 Report post Posted June 2, 2004 I feel that one does forfeit their Constitutional Rights when they commit an act of treachery, but this should be proven. What I mean is that this guy should have to go to trial and if he is found guilty, then there should be no appeals allowed when he is. I think that once you try to commit acts against the US, you are no longer a citizen and thus not protected by our Constitutional Rights. But this must be proven to prevent other Americans from having their rights restricted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 2, 2004 No to both questions, but I don't even know who this guy is. Guess I haven't been watching my CourtTV. Sorry. JOTW, the man intended to blow up apartment buildings in major cities and was trying to build a dirty bomb. That you are unaware of this shows how shockingly little the press chooses to cover the war in anything but a negative light. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripper 0 Report post Posted June 2, 2004 No to both questions, but I don't even know who this guy is. Guess I haven't been watching my CourtTV. Sorry. JOTW, the man intended to blow up apartment buildings in major cities and was trying to build a dirty bomb. That you are unaware of this shows how shockingly little the press chooses to cover the war in anything but a negative light. -=Mike No that shows that JOTW hasn't been watching the news. This guy has been the top story on every news show, and is the "UPDATE" guy on CNN and FOX news...why do they have that UPDATE thing when they never really are updating what they already have told you...anyway... And well, if they can prove it then I could give a shit if they shot his dick off, but saying he was going to do something and him actually trying to do it is two different things. Not saying he didn't but if they can prove it I could give a shit about his "rights" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted June 2, 2004 saying he was going to do something and him actually trying to do it is two different things Yeah, and they're both felonies. Ever heard of the Nuremberg trials? Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime itself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted June 2, 2004 That you are unaware of this shows how shockingly little the press chooses to cover the war in anything but a negative light. -=Mike Actually, I ignore most criminal court cases period. I recognize the name from the newspaper, but I haven't ever read the story under the headlines. I've watched almost no TV news in the past two weeks or so, which is why I'm off on the top stories bit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripper 0 Report post Posted June 2, 2004 saying he was going to do something and him actually trying to do it is two different things Yeah, and they're both felonies. Ever heard of the Nuremberg trials? Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime itself. Stop being...all...Marney. You know what I mean. If he was really planning on doing it, then do bad stuff to him. But prove he was trying to do it. thats all I am saying. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted June 2, 2004 Well, since that's pretty much what the law says, and that's what the government has done already, I don't immediately see where you have a problem. Stop being all... Ripper. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted June 2, 2004 You want Ripper to stop being black? RAYCIST~! © Ripper, NAACP and the Nation of Islam. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krankor 0 Report post Posted June 2, 2004 JOTW, the man intended to blow up apartment buildings in major cities and was trying to build a dirty bomb. That you are unaware of this shows how shockingly little the press chooses to cover the war in anything but a negative light If you lived in the Chicagoland area you would have heard a lot about this news. The dirty bomb information really isn't new news that happened a year ago or so whenever the first arrested him and got pretty good news coverage here. The apartment building being blown up is just recent information that they acquired. That's why its just now being reported. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 2, 2004 saying he was going to do something and him actually trying to do it is two different things Yeah, and they're both felonies. Ever heard of the Nuremberg trials? Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime itself. Stop being...all...Marney. You know what I mean. If he was really planning on doing it, then do bad stuff to him. But prove he was trying to do it. thats all I am saying. Him saying he intended to do it isn't enough for you? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest INXS Report post Posted June 2, 2004 Why can't they put this guy on trial? Either they have evidence of his guilt - or they don't. We've seen how Bush's government plays fast and loose with the rules and for all we know, Padilla is just a unlucky dupe that Bush is using to claim a "victory" against terrorism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 2, 2004 Why can't they put this guy on trial? Either they have evidence of his guilt - or they don't. We've seen how Bush's government plays fast and loose with the rules and for all we know, Padilla is just a unlucky dupe that Bush is using to claim a "victory" against terrorism. Yes, they INVENTED everything about him. You nailed 'em. Why can't they bring him to trial? Because his confession, most likely, will be ruled inadmissible. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krankor 0 Report post Posted June 2, 2004 Why can't they bring him to trial? Because his confession, most likely, will be ruled inadmissible. They took his confession before they read him his rights. So that means it cannot be used in court. Padilla Guilty - Yes Have Evidence - Yes Victory on Terrorism - Yes Did some one screw up and take a confession before right were read - Yes Should Padilla ever be released - No Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 2, 2004 Why can't they bring him to trial? Because his confession, most likely, will be ruled inadmissible. They took his confession before they read him his rights. So that means it cannot be used in court. Padilla Guilty - Yes Have Evidence - Yes Victory on Terrorism - Yes Did some one screw up and take a confession before right were read - Yes Should Padilla ever be released - No Thing is, the evidence backs up the confession. Odds are, without the confession, there is no way to tie it all together. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted June 3, 2004 Okay, I've been reading up on this. The dirty bomb thing is balogna, they already ruled it any possibility he could have actually followed through with anything like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 3, 2004 Okay, I've been reading up on this. The dirty bomb thing is balogna, they already ruled it any possibility he could have actually followed through with anything like that. He was planning it --- but his handlers disapproved. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted June 3, 2004 Why can't they put this guy on trial? Either they have evidence of his guilt - or they don't. We've seen how Bush's government plays fast and loose with the rules and for all we know, Padilla is just a unlucky dupe that Bush is using to claim a "victory" against terrorism. Anyone else miss hunger4unger? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted June 3, 2004 Okay, I've been reading up on this. The dirty bomb thing is balogna, they already ruled it any possibility he could have actually followed through with anything like that. He was planning it --- but his handlers disapproved. -=Mike Right, so they just decided to go with plan B - blowing up lots of people using conventional explosives. Seriously, this fucker should be left to rot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hogan Made Wrestling 0 Report post Posted June 3, 2004 Can't Padilla just be deported to Afghanistan or whatnot? It's not like he would last long even if set free over there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted June 3, 2004 what's the noise coming from? just asking oh, it's Rant's avatar.. 1) define treachery please 2) maybe, maybe not Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest cobainwasmurdered Report post Posted June 5, 2004 Well, since that's pretty much what the law says, and that's what the government has done already, I don't immediately see where you have a problem. Stop being all... Ripper. The law also says you can't hold someone indefinetly without charging them. 1) Does one forfeit his/her Constitutional rights when they commit acts of treachery? 2) Do the rights of Padilla trump the rights of the millions of people that we have strong reason to assume he'll still try and kill? 1. No. 2. No. Your rights are your rights, and generally that means they're something that you CAN'T lose because they ARE your rights. Of course his rights aren't more important. But that doesn't mean they aren't important. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
