Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

US arrests Dirty Bomb suspect.


Tommy-the-Greek

Recommended Posts

Amazing, when faced with facts and truths, the Liberal resorts to name calling to avoid the argument.

Kilmer,

Were you intentionally being hypocritical here? By labeling everyone who is not in favor of Dubya as liberal, then you are as guilty of name calling as those so called liberals.

I will provide some facts though.

FACT - Padilla was arrested May 8 in Chicago.

FACT - Padilla is being held WITHOUT CHARGES as an "enemy combantant".

FACT - Padilla, like it or not, is still a U.S. Citizen

FACT - U.S. Citizens are generally afforded the right that, under Amendment V of the US Constitution,

"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 offense 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."

FACT - Taken fron CNN's website... As a U.S. citizen, Padilla usually would be afforded traditional legal rights such as presumption of innocence until a conviction. However, the designation of enemy combatant, allows U.S. authorities to interrogate the suspect in a more aggressive fashion. It means that he has fewer legal rights than an ordinary civilian defendant in a criminal case. For example, he can be held indefinitely.

The U.S. Supreme Court defined an "enemy combatant" or "unlawful combatant" in a World War II case, Ex Parte Quirin. In this 1942 decision, the court confirmed the authority of Congress and the president to try Nazi terrorists operating in the United States by military commissions.

The case centered on eight Nazi saboteurs who had crossed the Atlantic in a German submarine: four Nazi operatives landed on Long Island, New York, and another four at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. The FBI arrested both groups and turned them over to the military, which promptly tried them.

In the case, the United States was able to execute the saboteurs because they were not deemed to be prisoners of war but unlawful combatants.

International debate has arisen about the U.S. classification of "enemy" or "unlawful combatants."

The United Nations, Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross have disputed the U.S. definition of Afghan war detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as "unlawful combatants."

These groups say the detainees are prisoners of war and are entitled to rights guaranteed under the Geneva Convention, to which the United States is a signatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kilmer,

What name calling? I said they need to have a "declared war" to use war powers. I am against the loss of our liberties and freedoms no matter who the President.

It appears you are the one who will blindly follow "your guy". I wonder if it would be OK with you if the government just shot the guy in the head and told us it was for our protection and that they can not release the details for security reasons?

BTW I am a liberal so feel free to call me that any time you want. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were you intentionally being hypocritical here? By labeling everyone who is not in favor of Dubya as liberal, then you are as guilty of name calling as those so called liberals.

So calling someone a Liberal is name calling? I have no problem with someone calling me a conservative, I DO have problem with people constantly calling our President and people who believe in him, stupid or dumb or any other *******ization of his name. I that means Im a hypocrite, so be it.

What name calling? Dumya.

The day he decided to take up arms against the US, he forfeited his rights as a citizen.

And I am still waiting for any Liberal to answer my question about the Liberal hypocisy. But al I get are name calling and red herrings.l

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kilmer,

By lumping ALL that are not in favor of Dubya (which even he calls himself) as Liberals - yes you are name calling. I am not Liberal. However, I do not agree with Dubya's policies all the time.

Out of curiosity - did you ever refer to Clinton as Bubba or Slick Willie? Not saying that you did - but most people did. Its the same thing with Dubya or Dumya or whatever.

As for stating that the day he took up arms against the US he forfeited his rights as a citizen...I agree with you to some point. However, I am not sure that this statement always applies. Should the black americans (and some whites too) who took up arms against the state militias in the 1960's be stripped of their rights as citizens? Should abilitionists in the 1850's who took up arms against the government that permitted slavery been stripped of their rights as citizens? Don;t get me wrong though - these are special cases that are VERY DIFFERENT than the Padilla case.

Moreover, does the US (assuming that it revokes citizenship for Padilla) have the responsibility then to abide by the rules and regulations of the Geneva Convention? Or do we set our own rules now that 9/11 has happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cmon now, there is a difference between referring to Clinton as Slick Willie, and calling Bush Dumya. Dubya is fine IMO.

As for your argument about abolishonists (sp?) John Brown would fit that bill to a T. He was executed in Charles Town WVA. (A block from my grandmothers house BTW) without a civil trial.

I will certainly take your side if American citizens are designated combatants without cause or proof. (IE a car thief, or even a heinous crime like murder) But in a case where we know that a person is plotting an attack on the US, this is the proper and legal forum in which to deal with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you regarding the status of Padilla as a an enemy combantant...

But my question still remains for everyone...does the US have the right to go against the Geneva Accord (which the US signed) now that 9/11 happened.

It would appear that the US is doing this exactly by holding both US Citizens (Padilla) and non-US citizens (those imprisoned at GETMO) without some sort of trial or charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not an expert on the Geneva accord. In fact I can only say what I have heard and read from others. But, doesnt the Geneva Accord allow for the detainment of enemies as prisoners of war without a trial? Isn't that what we are doing in Cuba?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats a good question and I found out that I mispoke - its not the Geneva Accord, rather its the Geneva Convention of 1949.

In it the following exists...

"CHAPTER III

PENAL AND DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS

ARTICLE 84

A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105.

ARTICLE 85

Prisoners of war prosecuted under the laws of the Detaining Power for acts committed prior to capture shall retain, even if convicted, the benefits of the present Convention.

ARTICLE 86

No prisoner of war may be punished more than once for the same act or on the same charge.

ARTICLE 87

Prisoners of war may not be sentenced by the military authorities and courts of the Detaining Power to any penalties except those provided for in respect of members of the armed forces of the said Power who have committed the same acts.

When fixing the penalty, the courts or authorities of the Detaining Power shall take into consideration, to the widest extent possible, the fact that the accused, not being a national of the Detaining Power, is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance, and that he is in its power as the result of circumstances independent of his own will. The said courts or authorities shall be at liberty to reduce the penalty provided for the violation of which the prisoner of war is accused, and shall therefore not be bound to apply the minimum penalty prescribed.

Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishment, imprisonment in premises without daylight and, in general, any form of torture or cruelty, are forbidden. "

All you ever wanted to know about the Geneva Convention of 1949 can be found here...

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm

I do not know how much actually applies though - since we are not "at war" at the present moment.

Peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, to answer my question - I do not know if the US is violating the rules set up by the 1949 Geneva convention.

One could argue that by interning those captured at GETMO in outside areas without roofing that yes - we are violating it.

Now...as for the lack of charges...I do not know yes or no, if the Convention requires them. I would think that since we are not offically at war, then some type of charges would be needed to hold people (caught in the act or not).

That would be the spirit of the law, I would think (but I'm no lawyer!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The day he decided to take up arms against the US, he forfeited his rights as a citizen. "

Don't you think the government should have a burden of proof or should we just take their word for it?

Although I don't know for sure but a reasonable person would think Kilmer called President Clinton worse things than Slick Willy. I think it's a pretty good bet based on the names he called me when I called Dubya, Dumya.

BTW: Did you think Ronald Reagan was "Slick"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without a doubt Reagan was slick.

When asked by Admins to stop beating you up, I complied, you continued.

Does the Govt have to prove it to you? no. This is not a case of accusing someone without proof. The Govt has proof from captured AlQueda members, from surveillance and from intelligence "people". That's all they need under the law. If you dont like it, by all means try to have the law changed. Write your Congressman, volunteer to work on campaigns etc and get people elected who can change it. But until then, understand that it is perfectly LEGAL to do this now.

Now about that hypocrisy question, have you come up with an answer yet? Or do you have another red herring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kilmer,

I honestly don't know the full question you want answered I will always answer a serious question.

The government does have to prove it to a court? No? Just take their word for it. Have you ever heard of checks and balances.

You memory about the Admin episode is suspicious. I recall you were the only one stepping over the personal line. In fact I was thanked for taking the high road, which I will continue to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good grief.

Here is your post AFTER OM asked us to stop the name calling

"You're right. I don't know why I let the nutjob piss me off like that. I'm done too."

Now please enlighten us as to how exactly that doesnt constitute continuing to call me names?

Or explain the name calling today (Dumya).

Om's response to you after that was clearly tongue in cheek, referring to the fact that you CONTINUED to do what he asked you to stop.

Im sure in your frightening little world the GOvt has black helicopters patrolling over your house spying on you, but in the real world our Govt caught a bad guy and is staying well within the law in their dealings with him. As I said before, if you dont like the law, do something to change it.

My questions (there have been 2) about hypocrisy are as follows

1- How do you Liberals explain this hypocricy.

-- You cry out that we are taking away liberties by profiling Arabs entering our country, yet you claim a coverup when the Govt DIDNT profile when given info about Arabs taking flight training prior to 9/11. So which is it? Should we profile? If not, how should we have reacted to the pre 9/11 info.

2- You claim the Govt shouldnt hide info, but when they release it, you claim it is only for political game. (example- Padilla case. Daschle today stated the info was released for political gain only, yet 2 weeks ago, he attacked the administration for not releasing info on the arrests of other Al Queda members arrested in the US). So which is it? Do you want the info or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kilmer,

#2 doesnt make any sense.

Daschle, the Dems, whoever, was saying that the info regarding Padilla's arrest wasn't reported when it happened (over a month ago). And that Padilla's arrest was released to the media just 4 days after Bush's new anti-terrorism package was released.

This seems to go along with Daschel's, the Dems, whoever's comments that the Bush administration is not releasing info on the arrests of other Al Queda members arrested in the US.

Is their claim that Padilla's arrest was leaked to the media so the Bush administration could gain politically unfounded? Who knows.

The truth of the matter is, the Bush administration hasn't been forthcoming about arrests. They MAY have a reason though - they want to flush out all leads to Al Queda before using the media spin machine to gain more support of their administration. Or it may just be a typical way of doing things.

As for #1, I have no idea what you are talking about since I am not a liberal.

BTW, is it me, or is Dubya looking (not appearance but actions) more and more like a Gerald Ford clone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, they dont have to release it at all. They did because they were having a hearing moving him to SC so the media was going to pick it up. IMO they shouldnt release any info on them. It allows them to become martyrs and heroes in the eyes of the other Al Queda out to destroy us. Daschle wants the info out in the open, but when it comes out he has a problem with the timing???? That's political grandstanding at it's finest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im sure in your frightening little world the GOvt has black helicopters patrolling over your house spying on you, but in the real world our Govt caught a bad guy and is staying well within the law in their dealings with him. As I said before, if you dont like the law, do something to change it.

I say the government is not acting within the law. That's the point my friend.

Let me try to help you with your little questions.

My questions (there have been 2) about hypocrisy are as follows

1- How do you Liberals explain this hypocricy.

-- You cry out that we are taking away liberties by profiling Arabs entering our country, yet you claim a coverup when the Govt DIDNT profile when given info about Arabs taking flight training prior to 9/11. So which is it? Should we profile? If not, how should we have reacted to the pre 9/11 info.

This is a rather easy question. The problem before 9/11 was not that the government didn't profile. They just didn't finish their jobs. They didn't take the extra steps and check out those flight schools or try for the warrent on that guys PC. To follow a lead checking out Arabs taking flight training is not the same as having two different sets of rules for entry to the country solely dependant on onces nationality. I would have been OK if they change the rules and fingerprinted everyone from everywhere coming in. So the answer is there is no hyprocisy because they are not the same thing.

2- You claim the Govt shouldnt hide info, but when they release it, you claim it is only for political game. (example- Padilla case. Daschle today stated the info was released for political gain only, yet 2 weeks ago, he attacked the administration for not releasing info on the arrests of other Al Queda members arrested in the US). So which is it? Do you want the info or not?

Another simple question. All information is not the same and thus you can not just say its all or nothing. There is no "THE INFO". In some cases they should release it and in others they should not. In the Padilla case I think they really had to because they were about to violate the guys citizenship rights and his lawyer would have screamed to press anyway. This administration seems to behave like a bunch of children when questioned. When some suggested they knew more before 9/11 than the people have been led to believe, what did they do? Well just like a child they had a tantrum. They said oh you want to know every time we get a warning? Well show you we will give alerts daily.

What did that accomplish? Cry Wolf? This might be the most political administration in my lifetime. This wouldn't be that bad except they are attempting to gain from the war and the 9/11 attack.

Security must not be a reason for us to give up our liberties.

"Those who would give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither liberty nor security."

Ben Franklin

As for the other issue I'm not going to bring in the specifics again out of respect to the moderator but the name calling was 10 to 1 you calling me names. Go back and reread if you don't believe me. I haven't been called some of those names since Junior High which is another topic for another day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have reread them, in fact I even posted them for you to read, but you wont even admit you did it. Sounds Clintonesque to me. ( Is that namecalling?)

An interesting spin on the other questions, so I will ask a follow up.

How would the left media have reacted if the FBI started arrested Arabs for taking flight training because we suspected they were terrorists? My guess would be pretty similar to the way the Liberals are reacting NOW to the detainment of Padilla.

A good OpEd on Liberties

http://www.msnbc.com/news/765521.asp

It pretty well sums up my feelings on Liberties and freedoms.

The best part is the part about the draft.

Paraphrased- The Govt DOES have the right to suspend our Liberties in times of war. They have done so for every draft to defend our country. They also take away our right to life, since we can be drafted and sent to be killed in defense of our country.

And once again, the Govt is NOT breaking any laws by detaining Padilla, they are acting within the existing laws. If you dont like the law, do something to change it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have reread them, in fact I even posted them for you to read, but you wont even admit you did it. Sounds Clintonesque to me. ( Is that namecalling?)

No doubt I did it but my point on the 10 to 1 was pretty true as well. Clintonesque is a fine thing to call me thanks.

How would the left media have reacted if the FBI started arrested Arabs for taking flight training because we suspected they were terrorists? My guess would be pretty similar to the way the Liberals are reacting NOW to the detainment of Padilla.

Its a hypothetical but I think they would have been fine. If those people were arrested I assume charges and evidence would have been brought. At the very least they could have been deported very easily.

Let's say on 9/1 the FBI said. We arrested 21 Arab men who were in flight school because they are suspected in a plot to blow up the World Trade center. They were not taking training on landing or taking off. There is no media that would have slammed the FBI for that right or left. Now if the government said we thought these 21 Arab men would blow up the WTC so we decided to shoot them in the head than maybe your premise would be correct.

The Padilla case does not compare. He is an American citizen being held without charges being filed. Can you see the difference or do I need to explain further?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out curiousity...does anyone remember if Richard Jewell (the once suspected Atlanta Olympic Games bomber - who was late exonerated) was held for a month without charges being taken against him? Or without the government giving the media something to nibble on?

I mean, it was only 1 year after Tim McVeigh and whoever else had blown up Oklahoma City. And ironically, they were both white americans.

One would think that the FBI/CIA/whoever would have acted the same way then that it is now. With the wounds being so fresh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For every "Jackass" there was a "Nutjob". Deal with it.

The difference is I stopped when asked, you continued and still continue.

What if those 21 Arabs were simply taken to a military base in S.C.? You are fooling yourself if you dont think the media and Daschle and Company wouldnt have been screaming from the rooftops with the ACLU. Even now, After 9/11, they are screaming that we cant take precauationary steps regarding foreigners entering our country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm just fooling myself. I don't think the pre-9/11 democrats would have had a problem with it.

Is calling Dumya a name the same as calling you a name? Are you George Bush? Who knew? Hello there Mr President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Geneva convention applies only when you have 2 nation states at war. It does not apply here. We are treading into a new frontier. The rules can be made as we go along, as we see fit.

The rules of law can only apply when both parties believe the other has the right to exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps this will put an end to it..or maybe it will open new doors.... I dunno... :gus:

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/rights/law/02032206.htm

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz says the only people who would be subjected to trial by a U.S. military commission are "non-U.S. citizens who were connected to al-Qaeda or other terrorist movements" and who are strongly suspected of involvement "in some of the most terrible crimes ever committed" against the United States.

Wolfowitz told Jim Lehrer in a PBS News Hour interview March 21 that "it's important to emphasize" that a presidential decision would be required in each individual case before anyone would go before a commission.

He said the Defense Department announced the rules of procedure for the commissions March 21 not because it is ready to put a particular individual on trial but "because we had reached the end of a fairly exhaustive process" to ensure a fair trial while dealing with the possible need to use classified information and information collectedfrom the battlefield.

Asked what will happen to the detainees at Guantanamo if they are not to be tried by military commissions, the deputy secretary said there will be "different dispositions, I think, for different ones." He added:

"Some of them may turn out to be completely harmless. Some of them may turn out to be the kind of enemy combatant you would want to hold until the end of the war. Some of them may go back to their own country for some kind of trial, and some of them may go to military commissions. We're still in the sorting out stage."

So, it appears:

1.) Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has already declared war.

2.) He said that only NON US citizens would be subjected to trial by a U.S. military commission (military courts).

3.) Padilla, being that he is still a US Citizen, must then be tried in Federal Courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The slippery slope continues. I didn't likeour treatment of the prisoners and not giving them a trial. However, I was told by fervent Bush supporters "Don't worry, it's because they aren't citizens. If they were, they would get normal trials." Well, here we are with citizens being picked up and arrested with no charges. Still the ardent Bush supporters say don't worry.

Just remember this when the first drug user is arrested and not allowed a lawyer or even a trial. After all the war on drugs is atleast as official as our war on terrorism. How would you like ot be held on suspision of having used drugs at some point or even better yet of possibly using them in the future? According ot the rules that seem to be advocated on this board, can you imagine being held "till the end of the war."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...