skins Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 (edited) This is a motion to dismiss the charges against Jose Padilla, a US citizen accused of terrorism by the government. The motion doesnt raise the issue of his guilt or innocence, it is focused on the treatment he received at the hands of his own government. He was held for 3 1/2 years without being charged with any crime. Edited October 11, 2006 by skins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Obviously, if a lawyer alledges something, it must be true... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted October 11, 2006 Author Share Posted October 11, 2006 (edited) Obviously, if a lawyer alledges something, it must be true... Thats yer response? Noone is denying it, by the way. Edited October 11, 2006 by skins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Obviously, if Bsuh alledges something, it must be true...and we must suspend all rights, beginning with innocent until proven guilty. fixed, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 what about the fact that jose padilla is a member of al qaeda, is anyone denying that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Disturbing story? Nah, I ain't losing any sleep over it. Screw him fargin diaperhead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted October 11, 2006 Author Share Posted October 11, 2006 what about the fact that jose padilla is a member of al qaeda, is anyone denying that? I am not commenting on his innocence or guilt, just his treatment. Are you suggesting that American citizens give up their constitutional rights because they are in Al Qaeda? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Are you suggesting that American citizens give up their constitutional rights because they are in Al Qaeda? That or shot for treason, you pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted October 11, 2006 Author Share Posted October 11, 2006 (edited) That or shot for treason, you pick. I dont have a problem with him being tried and sentenced if he's guilty. I could care less. But he wasnt charged with anything for three and a half years, was kept in solitary confinement during that period, denied counsel, his family wasnt told where he was, and he was allegedly tortured. And contrary to yer colorful assertion that he is an arab, H8luver, he is a hispanic US citizen. Edited October 11, 2006 by skins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gd74 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 I dont have a problem with him being tried and sentenced if he's guilty. I could care less. But he wasnt charged with anything for three and a half years, was kept in solitary confinement during that period, denied counsel, his family wasnt told where he was, and he was allegedly tortured. And contrary to yer colorful assertion that he is an arab, H8luver, he is a hispanic US citizen. He should be tortured....to find out any pertinent information that could prevent another catastrophe like 9-11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 let's just remember who we're dealing with. dude was arrested at o'hare on a flight from pakistan. he had $10,000 cash, a cell phone, and a list of email contacts of known al qaeda operatives. he was apparently planning to blow up a number of high rise apartments using their own natural gas supplies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted October 11, 2006 Author Share Posted October 11, 2006 (edited) let's just remember who we're dealing with. dude was arrested at o'hare on a flight from pakistan. he had $10,000 cash, a cell phone, and a list of email contacts of known al qaeda operatives. he was apparently planning to blow up a number of high rise apartments using their own natural gas supplies. Answer the question I asked you, please, and quit deflecting it to protect yer paymasters at the DOJ. If you want credibility, quit sidestepping it. I will assume all that you say is true and say that he should receive the proper punishment when found guilty. Are you saying that his treatment was proper for a US citizen? Edited October 11, 2006 by skins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Answer the question I asked you, please, and quit deflecting it to protect yer paymasters at the DOJ. If you want credibility, quit sidestepping it. I will assume all that you say is true and say that he should receive the proper punishment when found guilty. Are you saying that his treatment was proper for a US citizen? you're asking, do i believe an islamic terrorist who was born in the bronx, and who was arrested at o'hare on a flight from pakistan with $10K cash, a list of contacts for other known terrorists, and a plan to commit mass murder on US soil, deserves to be treated as an enemy combatant? when the alternative is letting him go with a pat on the butt? yeah, i think i'm cool with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted October 11, 2006 Author Share Posted October 11, 2006 let's just remember who we're dealing with. dude was arrested at o'hare on a flight from pakistan. he had $10,000 cash, a cell phone, and a list of email contacts of known al qaeda operatives. he was apparently planning to blow up a number of high rise apartments using their own natural gas supplies. By the way, now that you raised the allegations against him, it has been admitted that they were obtained by torture. Now I dont know if they are true or not--nor do you, by the way--but the fact that the information was obtained through torture troubles me. It also makes it very likely that Padilla will never be convicted of anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 We should torture known Al Queda members. And then drowned them in a large vat of pigs blood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 let's just remember who we're dealing with. dude was arrested at o'hare on a flight from pakistan. he had $10,000 cash, a cell phone, and a list of email contacts of known al qaeda operatives. he was apparently planning to blow up a number of high rise apartments using their own natural gas supplies. And he was locked up without trial. No one ever saw said evidence. If it was so good, why no trial? And let's not forget something else about this: Ashcroft was AG at the time and was in Moscow. He came out that morning and gave a semi-hystercial presentation where he claimed this guy was on the verge of designing and detonating a dirty bomb. The facts from that "presentation" were so skewed and out of left field that was one of the last public appearances of any type he was allowed to make for nearly a year. If that was as airtight as claimed why no formal charges, let alone trial, in 3 and a half years? And why did they put a clamp on Ashcroft's public appearances in the wake of all this airtight evidence? Was it his singing voice? I tend to doubt that. That's exactly the course of action that gives al-queda the victory it craves. And this admin plays right into its hands. Heck, even the guys at camp XRay were given more due process than this, and they weren't even Americans and their "due process" could have fit inside a thimble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted October 11, 2006 Author Share Posted October 11, 2006 (edited) you're asking, do i believe an islamic terrorist who was born in the bronx, and who was arrested at o'hare on a flight from pakistan with $10K cash, a list of contacts for other known terrorists, and a plan to commit mass murder on US soil, deserves to be treated as an enemy combatant? when the alternative is letting him go with a pat on the butt? yeah, i think i'm cool with that. Well, yer assuming a lot. Like I noted, those allegations against him were obtained by torture. Are you denying that he is a US citizen? Are you saying that US citizens no longer are entitled to due process or constitutional protection? See, if all of what you allege is true--which you dont know is true--then he should get tried and get convicted. You are saying he shouldnt be charged, tried and convicted, but instead should be held and tortured, possibly for his entire life. You are essentially saying that the US government can hold a US citizen forever without charge or trial based upon information never proven in a court of law. Did I mischaracterize yer position? Are you familiar with the concept of innocent until proven guilty? You do work for the DOJ, right? You have read the Declaration of Independence, right? All men have certain inalienable rights, such as liberty, no? I know you had a year of law school so you might have had con law and read the bill of rights. Due process, heard of it? By the way, it is cute how you start yer point by calling him an Islamic terrorist rather than a US citizen. Maybe to you the religion of US citizens has something to do with whether the US constitution applies to them. And who said anything about letting anyone go with a pat on the butt? Now yer just creating bs straw arguments from thin air. I said charge, try and convict the scumbag terrorist. You say detain without charge and torture the guy indefinitely. Why is yer position better than mine? Edited October 11, 2006 by skins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Liberals are soft on terrorists. That is why you will lose the 08 election. You simply cant be trusted with our national security. You simply cant. This mofo should have been shot in the head and you are screaming about his constitutional rights? Give me a break.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 By the way, now that you raised the allegations against him, it has been admitted that they were obtained by torture. Now I dont know if they are true or not--nor do you, by the way--but the fact that the information was obtained through torture troubles me. It also makes it very likely that Padilla will never be convicted of anything. which facts were obtained by torture? certainly none of the stuff i mentioned (the $10k, the al qaeda email list, etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted October 11, 2006 Author Share Posted October 11, 2006 Liberals are soft on terrorists. That is why you will lose the 08 election. You simply cant be trusted with our national security. You simply cant. This mofo should have been shot in the head and you are screaming about his constitutional rights? Give me a break.. What would any argument be here without yer predictable schtick. Well done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Liberals are soft on terrorists. That is why you will lose the 08 election. You simply cant be trusted with our national security. You simply cant. This mofo should have been shot in the head and you are screaming about his constitutional rights? Give me a break.. Demonstrating his guilt in a court of law will put him on death row for treason, which is where he should be. This guy is given less than the Rosenbergs were, and they argualbly changed the course of history. Why do you hate the American Constitution? Because your great grand pappys did? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 (edited) which facts were obtained by torture? certainly none of the stuff i mentioned (the $10k, the al qaeda email list, etc.) When did it become illegal to carry 10 large around in your wallet? Edited October 11, 2006 by Pope Flick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted October 11, 2006 Author Share Posted October 11, 2006 (edited) which facts were obtained by torture? certainly none of the stuff i mentioned (the $10k, the al qaeda email list, etc.) Maybe yer whole claim that he was a terrorist with a plan to commit mass murder on US soil. It is recognized that information was obtained by torture. Remember, I am not saying any of it is untrue. It may all be true and this guy should never see the light of day. The point I am making that you keep avoiding, is that he was a US citizen and he was held for three and a half years in solitary without charge, and allegedly tortured. You keep saying he is a bad man, which is probably very true. Try to focus please. By the way, Asz, why dont you explain to us why Padilla wasnt charged with having ties to Al Qaeda or plotting to blow anything up or commit crimes on US soil? Edited October 11, 2006 by skins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Are you saying that US citizens no longer are entitled to due process or constitutional protection? once he's taken up arms against the united states, i would say his constitutional rights are superceded by the national security interests of the nation. By the way, it is cute how you start yer point by calling him an Islamic terrorist rather than a US citizen. like i said, the fact that he wants to commit mass murder on american soil is a lot mroe important to me than where he was born. i think this issue is a real winner for you skins, you should keep it up. free padilla! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted October 11, 2006 Author Share Posted October 11, 2006 once he's taken up arms against the united states, i would say his constitutional rights are superceded by the national security interests of the nation. like i said, the fact that he wants to commit mass murder on american soil is a lot mroe important to me than where he was born. i think this issue is a real winner for you skins, you should keep it up. free padilla! Some questions for you because you seem to know very little about these issues. Hopefully, these will help you learn about the case a little: Why isnt he considered an enemy combatant now? When did the Constitutional rights of a US citizen get superceded by anything (I want yer specific authority for this position)? When did anyone prove he "took up arms against the US" (I am not denying its true, just how are you certain about all of these allegations about Padilla?)? Why isnt he charged with intending to "commit mass murder on american soil" as you keep mindlessly repeating (again, it may be true, but he wasnt charged with it by yer employers)? I prefer to characterize my issue as being pro-Constitutional rights, even when the US citizen in question is the most vile of scum. You, of course, are taking the anti-Constitutional rights position depending upon the characteristics of the US citizen in question. Yer something of a fascist, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.