Tommy-the-Greek Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 http://www.dailynews.com/socalincludes/pmupdates/articles/0602/10/pm03.asp http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/10/attack/main511671.shtml I want to know why they arrested him now. Why not tag him let him come back to America thinking noone is watching him. Then we follow him back to the nest, and find out how many cells are here in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyskinsfan Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 That may be because he's deadly enough to in fact operate on his own, without a hint of the others, if any. He also showed Geneva and other coalition members where they're banking and the connections. He was so thurough with his mission, he was immediatley identified as serious and possibly armed threat. We couldn't take chances he'd wait. That is, he could have acted on his next move within 24 hours and set up all kinds of hazards along the way, include high speed chases, taking hostages, and/or booby trapping sites before we aprehended him. He was considered as high a risk as the affiliates who sent him. Walker wasn't anywhere near the priority case this guy is and he'll be under the lights for information now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 I know that a "dirty bomb" is a "poor man's nuke" and radioactive and all that, but can can anyone give some insight on what this is exactly and more importantly what whould be the scenario if one of these things was successfully detonated in a major metropolitan area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 Here you go Brave. good info here. I knda needed it myself. A bit more detailed than the info in the article. http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,4489147%255E15574,00.html Agreed indy.( :?: ) I believe the article also mentioned he may have been or was on a fact finding mission if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted June 11, 2002 Author Share Posted June 11, 2002 He was going to scout out targets before doing anything. At the very least by following him we would know what there target list is. They could have slipped him a mickey on the plane. And tagged his ***. He could'nt go anywhere with out us knowing exactly where he was. As soon as he went to a source of radiation or bomb components then grab him. I get the feeling they would have followed him right to cells of US citizens who are al qeda members like himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 The scariest part of this story: ...Muhajir, born in New York as Jose Padilla... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 What is ironic is that I got into a discussion with my god daughter and told her the next terrorists would be hispanics and asians within this country and she couldnt get past the idea that hispanics would only be Catholic. I was under the impression we acted soon beause of the liberals pushing an investigation on our intelligent agencies and they wanted to show these idiots and the public that they are doing their job. Now the liberals are concerned with the bad guys rights again since his labelling put him in the custody of the military a great move IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted June 11, 2002 Author Share Posted June 11, 2002 Originally posted by NavyDave Now the liberals are concerned with the bad guys rights again since his labelling put him in the custody of the military a great move IMO. I agree with this 100%. If the damn liberals didn't wake up after 9/11 they never will. Send them to any major city in the middle east and have them protest on behalf of the individuals in US milatary custody. But have them do it with the american flag draped around them. The militants don't want infidals to take there side and almost all of them will be executed. The ones they don't kill will be brainwashed to come back to america to be terrorists. It's a win win situation because the ones that come back we can execute for treason. Either way we have fewer liberals. And the ones who are here will see the truth about what we are up against. These terrorist should not be considered human. They are filthy rodents who must be exterminated. They have no legal rights. You get that?? I said NO LEGAL RIGHTS. They only have the right to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golgo-13 Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 You gotta' love how the liberal were pissed at W. because he didn't label the people who went into flight school and were suspicious. But now we have a possible suspect and they ARE getting pissed for labeling him. These people can't make up their damn minds about anything. All they can do is complain about the people that actually do anything. Drives me nukin futz :gus: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 I'll respond for the Liberals. 1- Bush stole the election 2- Bush is stupid 3- It takes away all of our freedoms if we take away 1 persons 4- The towers would still be standing if Clinton were still in office Have I missed any? And dont try to make a Lib explain the hypocrisy about the pre 9/11 warnings of Arabs taking flight training and profiling. They cant do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 Ah come on guys. Do you just define Liberals as those who think different than you and therefor should be shot on site. I'm sorry but the indiscriminate liberal bashing is a bit much. What I find truely funny is that 10 years ago, it was the concervatives who were all for individual rights. What happened? Here's my version: Liberals are anybody who doesn't agree with you if you concider yourself a concervative. They are therefor to be blaimed for everything (that's how this board reads). I suspect true conservatives from just a few years ago would be more protective of a suspects rights than anybody on the current Left. I guess nobody here wonders what legal process this guy will go through? I'm kind of curious. He is a U.S. citizen. Are they pressing charges? LAst I heard yesterday was no. So how are they holding him? On what grounds? Funny thing is, I would have expected the conservatives who want government to just butt out of people's lives to be more enraged. I find it funny when I find myself taking a traditionally conservative standpoint and labeled as "that darn liberal" by conservatives. Oh the humanity. Concider this: in law, Concervatives are usually those for enforcing the law as written. Liberals usually get blasted for trying to interpret the spirit of the law (atleast that's the litmus test used for judges). Where do you think holding a prisoner without charging him with anything would fit in? "Fair and speedy trial?" on what charge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 I knew if I hung around here long enough Kilmer would make sense. Nice work Billy, you must be sober. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 He's being held as a military combatant. Fair enough in my eyes. He will get a trial (military) and be afforded all of the rights of such. Which of his freedoms are we not allowing him? Did you come up with answer to your hypocrisy Jack or do you just want to sling mud again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 Since when does the constitution say American Citizens can be tried in Military Courts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 As a soldier fighting for the other side, he should consider himself lucky that he doesn't get shipped to Cuba with the rest of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 Since when does the constitution say American Citizens can be tried in Military Courts? The thing is, it doesn't. But Abraham Lincoln did it repeatedly and you don't see him listed as a "bad president". I am not, however, supporting him being tried in military courts! I wonder if this guy is going to be tried for treason? Article III, section 3 of the Constitution defines treason as "consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Funny thing is, Aaron Burr and John Brown are the big names in the 30 or so trason cases that have occurred in US History. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 Okay, here is what one story says about the man's detention and possible trial. "A Justice Department official said that under U.S. legal rules, Mujahir can be held indefinitely an as enemy soldier. But there are no plans to impose a military tribunal or otherwise press U.S. criminal charges against Mujahir, said this official, discussing the case only on grounds of anonymity." "Lt. Col. Rivers Johnson, a Pentagon spokesman, said Mujahir would not be eligible for trial by a military tribunal set up under Defense Department rules issued in March because those tribunals are for alleged terrorists who are not U.S. citizens." Jack C especially, I would read this article again. This answer your question about American Citizens in militry courts? As for letting picking him up right away instead of waiting. There's this from the second article. "(CBS) The FBI gave serious consideration to letting suspected al Qaeda member Jose Padilla walk out of Chicago's O'Hare International Airport last month to see where he would lead them and who he might meet. But after determining there was no one to meet him in the airport, and no one waiting outside, agents made the arrest because they simply didn't want to take the chance of losing him, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart" Second guessing is one of the things that's caused the current turmoil in Washington over 9/11 so I think I will just avoid it. I will say this, without really being one of the people involved in the investigation and privy to all the info, I'll just take their word for the fact that they didn't want to risk losing him. Politically pressured on that decision? Again speculation. I read enough Clancy as it is. :cool: hey. A little input from an ivestigator would be good on this. Oh and EG, Burr by Vidal, dryest book ever written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted June 11, 2002 Share Posted June 11, 2002 Since when does the constitution say American Citizens can be tried in Military Courts? :soapbox: If you pick up arms against the U.S., you forfit your rights as an American citizen. That is how it has been and how it should be. These people are at war with us, that's what they want, that's what they get. Worse than that, they have no country or infrastructure to bomb into the stone age. They are among us and they use our system against us. Enough is enough. That SOB was going to kill a lot of people if he could and render a large area uninhabitable. Lock him up and question hime every single day for the rest of his life if that is what it takes. Game over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted June 12, 2002 Author Share Posted June 12, 2002 I heard the other day that there was a supreme court ruling in 1942 that sets the precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 As far as I'm concerned, we should get every bit of info out of this scumbag that we can and then torment his family in front of him before skinning his sorry as$. Fukk the ACLU. As far as I'm concerned, they're traitors. Arrest them all and try them with this piece of $hit. After all, America is wrong because we'd rather sacrifice a piece of $hit's rights than get nuked. the ACLU and all these other idiots are going to hold up the war on terror for years with all their civil rights bull$hit. With any luck, Padilla will get out AND we'll get nuked! But hey, a dirty scumbag rat motherfukker got his guaranteed constitutional rights, correct? The constitution isn't meant to be a fukking suicide pact. There are technicalities everywhere in the system, so much that I bet if we caught bin Laden the libs would be crying foul about his rights. How about you go to Pakistan, convert to Islam, and enjoy when we nuke your sorry scumbag as$es. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 Here's my beef with all of this. WE have plenty of things to try him on like conspiracy to commit murder or treason for example. At the least, we can pick him up arrest him, and latter release him if there is no evidence. As of right now, we picked him up, and have no intention of trying him in a military court or otherwise. Try him, convict him, and fry him. Just don't start picking people up on the street for having been in Afganistan and changing their name. The U.S. has to stand for something. To me, one of the formost things the U.S. has stood for over the years is the rule of law. People have fought and died for our rights to avoid just this type of $hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 In order to compare this to the 1940's ruling we must have congress declare war. Until that happens Dumya's administration can not begin its seizure of American citizens. Wag the Dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 (GASP) Amazing, when faced with facts and truths, the Liberal resorts to name calling to avoid the argument. Thanks for proving my point Jack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 Does the fact that the man was arrested LAST MONTH have any importance? Padilla was arrested MAY 8 in Chicago and has been held since without charge as an "enemy combatant." Just wondering why the held onto this arrest for so long and then came forward with it. Sounds like politics like usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 Democrats are trying to politicize it by claiming the Bush administration only announced it for political purpose. Yet they also want full disclosure of the FBI investigations prior to 9/11? So which is it? Do they want the info or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.