Jose Padilla, an American's rights revoked.

Do you approve of the U.S Government's actions in this case?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 11.8%
  • No

    Votes: 30 88.2%

  • Total voters
    34

Enemy Ace

Death comes ripping.
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
575
Location
USA
Jose Padilla is an American citizen of Peurto Rican origin. He was arrested on May 8th, 2002 upon his return from Pakistan. The government claims he was complicit in a plot to detonate a radioactive or 'dirty' bomb inside the United States. Mr. Padilla has been held since that time without access to legal representation and by the military. He has not been charged of any crime. The government has labeled him an 'enemy combatant' and seems intent on holding him indefinitely.

This man is an American citizen. His rights have been violated by the U.S Government. They basically revoked his citizenship without any trial whatsoever. If they can do it to him, they can do it to you.

BBC Profile: Jose Padilla

TIME Magazine

"...some began asking not only why Mr. Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was being held in a Navy brig as an 'enemy combatant,'"

"...the story broke this week because the authorities had to move him out of the criminal justice system and into military detention, for lack of evidence (at least evidence which the government would be willing to reveal to a judge) to support keeping him in prison."

Charge Jose Padilla

Jose Padilla: No Charges and No Trial, Just Jail
 
It does seem a little unconstitutional to me but then I'm not a lawyer specialising in American consitutional law. Anyway he is an American citizen and this is a matter for the American people not for me. I am much more concerned with the several British citizen currently being held without charges or trial by the American government.
 
Well allow me to clarify the situation, more.


5th Amendment, U.S 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."

6th Amendment, U.S Constitution

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."


This should end all doubt.

Additionally, I want to say that this is tantamount to kidnapping.
 
@rmsharpe

what if i said that you might be making a dirty bomb and without evidence, i arrest you and lock you up indeffinanlty, because you may have potential to possibly consider making a dirty bomb?
 
Our government thinks he has some connection to terrorists. They certainly aren't going to let him roam about freely. Plus, if they tried him now he would likely be convicted of treason and sentenced to death.
 
What about the rights of those people that don't want to get blown up or die from radiation poisoning?

They do not override, and they never have overridden, and they never shall override, our Constitution. PERIOD.

I do NOT approve of our Government's actions, which are unconstitutional, illegal, and therefore despicable. Period.

There is no room for debate in this topic. Either you stand for respect for the law and the Constitution, or you stand for an Orwellian willingness to give up your birthrights as a citizen in this country for a vague and elusive "security".

The government has NO right to lock up a citizen and keep him without trial. I say try Mr. Padilla and stop trampling the Constitution.
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe
What about the rights of those people that don't want to get blown up or die from radiation poisoning?

It's ironic that those who most advocated bringing "freedom" to Muslims in Iraq are the same ones that could care less about the freedom of Muslims in their own country.
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe
What about the rights of those people that don't want to get blown up or die from radiation poisoning?

Allowing this man legal representation and putting him on trial to be faced by his accusers and the evidence against him does not threaten the people of this nation. I would contend that not doing so, hurts the people.
 
1) I vote yes
2) The Supreme Court will decide as it has taken the case
3) If you are willing to accept that the military of any nation may hold the enemy combatants, e.g. POWs; can understand that an illegal combatant is NOT protected by the Geneva convention nor any other international law: then you can understand the premise that the Commander-in-Chief of a nation may hold any combatant until the end of hostilities.

Now I understand you may disagree with how that authority may be exercised.(and I expect the court to be very restrictive if not prohibitve toward this idea). The Constitution of the US requires that the gov't "provide for the common defense", the Congress has codified the definition of combatant and unlawful combatant, the Chief Executive has exercised his lawful authority, and now the court is going to rule if that action is just.

If you view the acts like 9/11 as an act of war then the actions of people like Jose Padillia constitute sabotage and our LAWS under the Uniform Code of Military Justice DO not only allow for this sort of detention but also actually allow for summary execution of illegal combatants. People are used to the word "Spy". They think of espionage but spy can also mean saboteur. In times of war there are conditions for detainment and execution without trial.

If you view acts like 9/11 as a crime then indeed there is a much stronger arguement for Padillia. Even treason requires that the gov't follow the articles mentioned by other posts here. The Executive branch has every right to interpret the adminstration of the law. The court can only say if the act is or is not unconstitutional.
 
Originally posted by sims2789
@rmsharpe

what if i said that you might be making a dirty bomb and without evidence

Stop right there. Who said there isn't any evidence?

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
They do not override, and they never have overridden, and they never shall override, our Constitution. PERIOD.

Let the Supreme Court decide what is "overriding" the Constitution.

The government has NO right to lock up a citizen and keep him without trial. I say try Mr. Padilla and stop trampling the Constitution.

Absolutely correct. The government should immediately revoke his citizenship.

Originally posted by RedWolf


It's ironic that those who most advocated bringing "freedom" to Muslims in Iraq are the same ones that could care less about the freedom of Muslims in their own country.

Freedom to Muslims, not to terrorists.

Originally posted by Enemy Ace


Allowing this man legal representation and putting him on trial to be faced by his accusers and the evidence against him does not threaten the people of this nation. I would contend that it, in fact, hurts the people.

If the man is a security risk, he should not be allowed to freely wander while the government collects evidence.
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe

Freedom to Muslims, not to terrorists.

In order to be considered a terrorist you have to either have been caught red handed in the commission of a terrorist act (ie: Holding a gun to hostages heads on the airliner) OR failing that be convicted in court of law (which he has not been). And THAT is the whole point of this discussion isn't it? Whether ALL people (guilty or not) are deserving of a fair trial as the constitution requires.

No nation can legitimately claim the label of "democracy" without this right in my opinion.
 
Originally posted by SewerStarFish

understand the premise that the Commander-in-Chief of a nation may hold any combatant until the end of hostilities.

The problem here of course is that terrorism will NEVER truly end. There will be terrorists until the end of time so therefore the war will NEVER end. The result of this being you've effectively signed your constitutional rights over to your "comander in chief".
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe
What about the rights of those people that don't want to get blown up or die from radiation poisoning?

Yeah, we should lock everybody up and throw away the key to protect us all from the chance of being blown up and dying of radiation poisoning. Go ahead and do the "patriotic" thing and volunteer for self-detention. I prefer my freedom and a government that can follow the Constitution. If Ashcroft and his boys can't convict Padilla, then maybe we deserve radiation poisoning for electing the dope that appointed Ashcoft in the first place.
 
Stop right there. Who said there isn't any evidence?

If there is evidence, why isn't he standing in a court room on trial for treason? If the evidence can't be presented due to a sensitive source, why aren't they watching him like a hawk, to catch him in the act (giving usable evidence) while still preventing him from harming anyone?

The only time a person can be simply labelled an enemy combatant and throw away is if they are actually there with the aforementioned enemy; ie the guy with the taliban a couple yrs ago. He may very well be an enemy combatant, but they need to prove it before tossing him away.
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe


Stop right there. Who said there isn't any evidence?

Let the Supreme Court decide what is "overriding" the Constitution.

Absolutely correct. The government should immediately revoke his citizenship.

Freedom to Muslims, not to terrorists.

If the man is a security risk, he should not be allowed to freely wander while the government collects evidence.

If the government has enough evidence to know that he was complicit in this plot, there should be enough to hold him and put him on trial. Even so, if they have not the evidence to hold him, the F.B.I should be able to keep an eye on him until there is enough evidence. Innocent until proven guilty.

Additionally, the supreme court should not even have to act upon this. The F.B.I should have raided the compound where Mr. Padilla was being held and arrested those responsible for his kidnapping. Then they can all be put on trial along with Mr. Padilla and grow to appreciate the rights which they denied to him.

Should this become a more common occurance, there will be trouble.
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe
What about the rights of those people that don't want to get blown up or die from radiation poisoning?

How exactly is a trial going to kill people. We've got plenty of evidence to seen him away for a good while. We're not talking about freeing him, only giving him a trial for his crime.
 
Isn't the Superme Court going to hear an case about this issue?

Also why did John Walker( the american taliban) get a trial in a american court if he was an enemy combant?
 
Originally posted by archer_007


How exactly is a trial going to kill people. We've got plenty of evidence to seen him away for a good while. We're not talking about freeing him, only giving him a trial for his crime.

I have no issue with giving Mr. Padilla a trial. I'm saying that letting him go without being charged would be a very dangerous thing to do.
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe


I have no issue with giving Mr. Padilla a trial. I'm saying that letting him go without being charged would be a very dangerous thing to do.

I 110% agree with that. He should surely be tried. Im saying just speedy up the process and do it in the manner set forth by the Constitution.
 
Top Bottom