[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Padilla Ruling. (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 1/4/2006 1:03:25 PM EDT
|
Padilla will be released to Civilian Custody..........looking for a story now! news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060104/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_padilla_4;_ylt=AnljoGxcSrDzzZDhdYl.5kYTv5UB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl Finally this bastard will be tried.....then executed! |
|
Really? What did he do that could get capital punishment under criminal law? He didn't really DO anything. See that's the problem. Civil rights types and liberals dont understand we're at war, dont understand that people like Padilla aren't criminals but enemy agents, don't understand that with terrorism aimed at the US we do not act like the justice system that brings criminals to trial only after they commit a crime; we're trying to detect and stop them before the terrorists strike. Problem is, they often dont break very significant laws until the actual terrorist attack that kills thousands of people occurs. The liberal sees the government acting so proactively against the terrorists, and INSTINCTIVELY, the liberal imagines himself inevitibly becoming a similar target of the government if his dissent becomes too bothersome or threatening to the government whose policies he opposes. Not only is there no real terrorist threat in the liberal's eyes, the move to fight terrorism is in fact more dangerous than "terrorism" itself. And that's why they rush to Padilla's defense, because they deeply empathize with his plight. And guys like Padilla and his pals back in Pakistan must sit back laugh, while they go over the finer points of acting the victim. |
|
You all are missing the point entirely. By trying Padilla in a civilian court, the defense attorneys have the right to examine all of the means and methods our country use to maintain security, even if and especially if they are top secret. This is called Discovery and is one of the main reasons that the .gov wants terrorists to be tried in military tribunals. Under the military tribunals, the methods by which we tap into terror cells and the people we have infiltrated into these terror networks are protected and kept secret. In a civilian court, the defense has the right to challenge these methods and question our informants. This will set our intelligence community back to the Clinton years. Way to go ACLU you communist libtard fuckstains. 
|
I'd like to believe you, but you haven't offered any support for that statement. If it's true, I'd like to show the truth to as many people as I can. If it's false, I'll look like an idiot when it's debunked. |
There is no real evidence that Jose Padilla was involved in the Oklahoma City Bombing, but it has been noted that he bares a striking resemblance to the alleged "hispanic accomplice" that McVeigh supposedly had. |
Lol. You totally misunderstand what just happened. It was the BUSH administration that was pushing to get Padilla tried in a civilian court. His own lawyers wanted him to be held by the military (this is a reversal of their earlier positions). The reason for this is that SCOTUS would have been forced to rule on whether or not the President has the right to hold people indefinitely without charges. The Bush administration was desperate to get Padilla into a civlian court in order to avoid the risk that SCOTUS would rule Bush's actions to be unconstitutional. |
Well, it's not illegal in the sense that if I rob someone, it isn't illegal because no court has said that I commited the crime until the trial. It boggles my mind that you can arrest an American citizen on US soil and hold him without trial on secret evidence with no access to an attorney for 3 years. |
If yer not sure what to think about Padilla, go to the old saw horse "Bush is evil." When Bush wanted to try him in military tribunal, they said Bush was evil. Now that Bush wants to try him in civilian courts, they said Bush was evil. So, when in doubt, Bush is evil. See?  |
But the only reason that Bush is trying Padilla in a civilian court now is to avoid a SCOTUS review on the extent of the powers of the executive. They are basically making a judgement call that what will come out in the criminal trial will be less damage than having SCOTUS tell POTUS that he's over-reached. |
Then it is not illegal in any sense, is it… You might not like it but it is not illegal. |
|
If yer not sure what to think about Padilla, go to the old saw horse "Bush is evil." When Bush wanted to try him in military tribunal, they said Bush was evil. Now that Bush wants to try him in civilian courts, they said Bush was evil. So, when in doubt, Bush is evil. See? Uh, nope. |
Good plan, I'd say. |
Do you have a reference to this (having been done before)? The US has in the past revoked citizenship of people who entered the US illegally (ie, who lied on their immigration or citizenship application). They've bullied people into signing away their citizenship (basically telling them, you've violated the law, sign this and you are not a citizen). However, I was told by an immigration lawyer that there is actually no legal means by which the government can revoke a citizenship of a naturalized citizen. Granted, there are things that are supposed to get your citizenship revoked, but there is no process by which the government can revoke it without your consent. |
The did it to Mafia gangsters... |
Are you sure these weren't revokations based on illegal entry (or misrepresented entry) to the US? |
It was standard procedure to remove citizenship for most of our history. In the mid 60's the Supreme Court rules it coudn't be done without due process. It has been done in the case of Nazi war criminals for instance usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/2005/Aug/31-404598.html good summary here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_citizenship Loss of U.S. citizenship Various court decisions have ruled that citizenship is a constitutional right and cannot be deprived without due process. However, a U.S. citizen may lose citizenship for a variety of reasons which include: 1. Service in a foreign armed forces 2. Employment with a foreign government of which the person is a citizen 3. Renunciation of citizenship to a U.S. diplomatic officer 4. Renunciation of citizenship within United States to the proper authority (this only applies 'in time of war') 5. Naturalization as a citizen of a foreign state It is also important that the person in question has the intention during the majority of these cases of relinquishing U.S. citizenship and also that the person has another nationality to assume (a person cannot become stateless for renunciation purposes). If a dual national is required to perform military service for a foreign military, and does so without the intention of losing U.S. citizenship, this does not constitute a breach of citizenship. There are also special provisions for persons who are deemed to be avoiding U.S. taxation (which is, in theory, applicable up to ten years after the official loss of citizenship), which can result in loss of right to entry into the United States. While in practice there is little to stop a foreign citizen who has performed a said act from entering the U.S., the U.S. State Department "requires" that a Certificate of Loss of Citizenship be obtained at a U.S. embassy or consulate (though this is generally treated as a gray area, judged on a case by case basis). Until they remove his citizenship, he is the same as you or I. He needs his day in court. p.s. you can see a history of revokations with this link List of citizenship revocations |
He was suspected of being involved in the Oklahoma City Bombing. www.okcbombing.org/News%20Articles/Padilla/padilla_beck.htm We was quickly suspected of being involved in 911 when he didn't show up to work after 911. |
Huh?!  
|
not true, it can be done with due process It just can't be done on a whim. Currently, we are effectively doing that by depriving citizens of due process without first depriving them of their citizenship eta: read the links I posted. It was done as recently as last year |
They can do it for former Nazi's because the former Nazi's lied on their immigration application. There's a specific procedure for revoking their citizenship by filing paperwork with the courts alleging that they entered the US based on false paperwork.
I agree that these are all things for which you can theoretically lose your citizenship. However, there is no process by which the government can currently revoke your citizenship without your consent. Anytime the government wants to do anything, there's paperwork to be filed and a process to be followed. The lawyer who explained this to me claimed that there was simply no process in place by which a naturalized American's citizen could be revoked, and that naturalized American's who do have their citizenship "revoked" are in fact tricked into giving it up. |
He got 20 w.o.p. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh |
Which is where the current administration is going wrong. Intead of developing a process, they ignore the Constitution and do exactly what there is no process for. By holding him for 3 years with no trial, they have effectively made him a non-citizen. I have zero issue with treating dirtbags like dirtbags. A procedure needs to be formulated instead of ignoring the rights of a citizen. Right now, the President's word is all that is required to effectively strip you of your rights as a citizen. I'm not too worried about Bush abusing it, but when Hillary is president she will have the exact same power. It scares the hell out of me that people are just accepting this crap as a wartime measure. |
|
The only reason Padilla is being tried in civilain court (Not even for his alleged dirty bomb plot either) is that Bush was going to get smacked down by the Supreme Court for holding him without charge. Padilla might be a shit stain, but that's for a court of law to decide. Bush should be rebuked for holding him without charge and without access to a lawyer for 3 years which is quite clearly unconstitutional. |
The only reason that this is going to a civlian court is because there was going to be a court case on the legality of indefinitely detaining US citizens without charging them with a crime. By turning Padilla over, the administration avoids a legal challenge to this practice. |
A simple solution to satisfy both sides is to select a jury composed of people who hold "Top Secret" clearances, then. Close the trial to all but the cleared jury, the prosecutors, and the defense. You can satisfy the Constitutional requirement that people like Padilla get a fair jury trial and still keep whatever secrets the administration wants to protect. Why no one else to date has thought of this is beyond me... |
Nobody says garandman actually has to educate himself on an issue. He can just spew talking points. |
US Concentration Camps US urban exercises |
Alex Jones is a nutbag, mmmkay.... |
Nobody says that you have to actually read and comprehend my posts. Which is a good thing for you, as you have CONSISTENTLY shown yourself incapable of it. |
Point is, people who were complaining about Bush detaining Padilla indefiniately (which I have a problem with, he is a US citizen) are getting what they asked for - Padilla charged and transferred to civvy court. And yet, even when Bush does what they want and they get their way, Bush is still evil cuz he's got wrong motives for doing what they wanted. Basically, whatever Bush does, they consider him wrong and evil. |