Asian Man Shot Dead on London Tube

[Clifra Jones]

Originally posted by Krusher
Why do we need to charge Mr. Padilia with anything at all?  He declared war on us and until that war ends he should stay put.  This is not a criminal, this is a soldier in a war.

No he's a terrorist. He has no protection under the Geneva Convention or any international treaties. He should be thankfull he wasn't interogated and then taken out and shot! Which would be his fate in many places around this world.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Chairboy
The Patriot act replaces the presumption of innocence until proven guilty with something more sinister.  The police can, at their discretion, 'short-circuit' many of the checks and balances that the founding fathers and two centuries of judicial oversight have instituted into our justice system.

[/b]

Could you give me specific examples of what has replaced the presumption of innocence? What checks and balances are short-circuited?

 
On the trains/homeless issue: What is your feeling about only ticketed passengers being allowed inside the airport security perimeter? (Inside the metal detectors, basically?) How would you feel about the same system when applied to train stations, in light of London's recent experience?

On the Mayfield arrest, apparently they had what they thought was ONE fingerprint of his on the Madrid bombing evidence. Rightfully, the FBI memo says this isn't enough to arrest him. I'm OK with that. Apparently, they want to keep him around as a "material witness" based on that one print until they either get more evidence to arrest him or fail to get any and remove him from consideration. They appear to have some fear that if it hits the papers that they're looking at him, he'll flee before further evidence either way is unearthed. So, when it hit the papers, they held him as a "material witness" and let him go in two weeks when nothing further indicated he was part of the plot.

What would you have preferred, that they ignore the one fingerprint and if he WAS in on the plot take the chance of him escaping? Or hold him until they could indict or clear him for sure?

[Karnak]

Based on reports thus far I'd have to say this looks like a job well done by the British.  In such circumstances and with such people you have no choice but to shoot to kill.

And if he wasn't guilty, then he was the biggest moron in London to run from the police/special unit/special forces/whatever in the tube after the events of the last few weeks.


One thing that you on the right should stop doing is saying what Libertarians will do if there is another attack.  Libertarians, be they leftwing or rightwing Libertarians, have a lot more intestinal fortitude to accept casualties as the price of living in a free society than you give us credit for.  Even if such an attack should claim somebody close to me I would not cry out for my security or laws as I do not believe that having that much governmental oversight is a good or healthy thing for a free society.  It would be most unreasonable to demand such a thing.


There is a stereotype of lilly livered Liberals that is very strong on this board, but you should recognize that this is a stereotype based on the most absurd elements of the left, and of apolitical Americans, that is pushed by the right in order to reduce the ability of their opponents to fight agaist them.  Both sides do it, but the right wing has been far more effective than the left wing at doing so over the last couple of decades.

Our real problem in this country is not the thinking right or the thinking left, but rather people who just react to whatever the latest issue is and demand solutions without ever considering the eficacy, side effects or reasonableness of what they demand.  These people are usually neither left nor right, but just easily influenced and often apolitical until something prods them.

[T0J0]

If I have to tackle a guy wearing a bomb belt with wires attached I reserve the right to pop the entire  clip into him in an effert to stop the guy from detonating the device...  But you know im sure this is all just a big mistake, was probably a homemade GPS system used for subway navigation...

TJ

[Gunthr]

Even if such an attack should claim somebody close to me I would not cry out for my security or laws as I do not believe that having that much governmental oversight is a good or healthy thing for a free society. It would be most unreasonable to demand such a thing. - karnak

Oh really?  

You can't concieve of a circumstance where "random" searches of bags of those using public transportation would be appropriate?  

Or using bomb sniffing dogs up and down the isles?

Or limiting "freedom of speech" for Imam's preaching Jihad?

Or using the lessor burden of Reasonalble Suspicion instead of "Probable Cause" to search a house for stores of small pox contagion?

I assure you, if you don't care about losing those close to you, you will be jumping up and down for the government to do something - if only to save your own skin.  Of course, you won't realize it until, like the overdue stop sign installation at the 4 -way intersection, people die.

[Gunthr]

That isn't to say that we don't have to keep an eye on government. We do.  But, c'mon...

[Krusher]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Because the only evidence you have of that is th government's say so. Of course, no government would ever lie about such a thing...

Now how would you know that the goverment has no evidence?

Better yet, what could possibly be gained by holding this person if there is nothing to hold him on?

[Gunthr]

The requirement for a trial before determing guilt in criminal law isn't to protect the criminal, it's to protect the innocent. The same should apply to "enemy combatants".

What if they decide that you are an enemy combatant?

(Padilla was arrested in Chicago, he wasn't picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan)

I disagree.  Padilla made admissions that he trained and plotted with AQ to commit terror and kill  hundreds of Americans.

 I'd be outraged if he were awarded bail, the right to due process, a jury of his peers and a "dream team" of showboat lawyers to occupy and entertain the country for months.  Enemy combatants, especially in the war on terror, are far too dangerous.

[Furious]

Originally posted by Gunthr
I'll give it to you straight, Chairboy.  You will be demanding for your country to protect you, along with the rest- of us, when attacks start here and we see body counts on Mainstreet. There's no telling what you might be willing to give up.  You don't have to believe me.  When it hits home for you personally, all will become crystal clear.

you are wrong.

[Gunthr]

Go on, Furious...  you must have more to say about it.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Gunthr
That isn't to say that we don't have to keep an eye on government. We do.  But, c'mon...

If you insist on thinking people who disagree with you are cowards or do so for unprincipaled reasons you do yourself a disservice.

I did not mention any of the things that you mentioned in your initial response to me.  The tactic you used is called "Strawman" which goes to the heart of what I was talking about.  When you take your oponent and make his position an extreme version of what he said, then say how ridiculous it is and decare yourself the winner you are attacking an argument you made and not one that your opponent made, hence a strawman.

Bomb sniffing dogs are of course fine.  Searches of people that are reasonably suspect is fine.  Neither of those things require any changes in the law.  Openly monitoring speach is fine, so long as it does not cross over into intimidation.

Giving the government the power to conduct investigations without prior search warrants is not ok.  Wire tapping without search warrants is not ok. Indefinate incacerations is not ok.  Blocking the ability to even mention events pertaining to these laws is not ok.  Monitoring attorney/client conversations without evidence that the attorney is breaking the law is not ok. Stripping rights from people by playing defintion games is most definately not ok.  These inalienable human rights are inalianable human rights, not inalienable American rights.

We, the People, must, must, be able to apply effective oversight to our government.  If we allow the government to operate in secrecy taking only their word that these things will never be used accept against the terrorists we abrogate our duty that was bequeathed to us by those who came before and we lose what we should have pssed on intact to those who will come after us.  Maybe the current government will not abuse the capabilities that these laws confer, but what of the next government?  And the one after that and after that and so on?  When has a government not availed itself of all of the powers it has?

Without transparency of government of the powers we grant that government over the citizenry it becomes impossible for the citizens of a Democratic Republic, or a Parlimentary Democracy, to make informed voting choices and to effectively monitor their government.

Without transparency it becomes impossible to reliably tell if a government is or is not abusing it's powers.

Governmental secrecy in a democratic country should not be applied lightly.  There are, obviously, things that must be secret, but the government should not apply secrecy to things lightly.

[Gunthr]

I never called you a coward.

I agree, we have to watch the government.  

Part of my point is that you will demand that your police, your military and your government maintain order and provide protection in the face of terrorist attacks in the streets, schools, institutions and infrastructure of America.  Visualize something along the lines of another 911, what happened in England, or worse.

The rest of my point is only to enlighten you that, in order to fight terror from within, the government needs atypical methods.

Summary:  

1. Americans will need to set aside some of the liberties you  have described, not all, but to some degree, to fight in-house terrorism.

2.  The majority of citizens will demand it when we get significant civilian casualties.

Of course, if we don't get any more terrorist attacks and loss of life here on US soil,  we should be hopefully able to continue to be a free and open society.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Gunthr
I never called you a coward.

This:

Originally posted by Gunthr
I assure you, if you don't care about losing those close to you, you will be jumping up and down for the government to do something - if only to save your own skin.  Of course, you won't realize it until, like the overdue stop sign installation at the 4 -way intersection, people die.

Is calling me both a coward and an idiot.

Originally posted by Gunthr
Part of my point is that you will demand that your police, your military and your government maintain order and provide protection in the face of terrorist attacks in the streets, schools, institutions and infrastructure of America.  Visualize something along the lines of another 911, what happened in England, or worse.

You base this off of what knowledge?

That's right, none except your own stereotypes of what people who disagree with current policies will do.

Originally posted by Gunthr
1. Americans will need to set aside some of the liberties you  have described, not all, but to some degree, to fight in-house terrorism.

Why?  Give me a reason that any of these things are needed and why we can't fight without them?

Originally posted by Gunthr
2.  The majority of citizens will demand it when we get significant civilian casualties.

True in all likelyhood, but the majority of the populations falls into the reactionary group than until they get prodded are mostly apolitical and don't think about this kind of stuff.

Originally posted by Gunthr
Of course, if we don't get any more terrorist attacks and loss of life here on US soil,  we should be hopefully able to continue to be a free and open society.

But these laws which take away our ability to monitor the government make that more difficult to ensure.  Further, there is no evidence that they are needed and that this is anything other than the government using a crisis to powergrab.

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by Gunthr
1. Americans will need to set aside some of the liberties you  have described, not all, but to some degree, to fight in-house terrorism.

2.  The majority of citizens will demand it when we get significant civilian casualties.

I accept that I can't change your mind, and I can blame noone but myself for lacking the skills needed to communicate the nature of my concerns adequetely.  Consequently, I'll fall back on the time honored crutch of the "no talk so good person", the quotation:

The most repeated, yet most relevant:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin

Some additional thoughts on the matter:

We love peace, but not peace at any price.  There is a peace more destructive of the manhood of living man, that war is destructive to his body.  Chains are worse than bayonets. - Douglas Jerrold

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.  His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. - John Stuart Mill

Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have. - Harry Emerson Fosdick

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power that by violent and sudden usurpations. - James Madison

[Nashwan]

Padilla's "confession" came after he had been in detention for a long time without access to legal representation. It hasn't been tested in a court of law, parts of have been released in a press conference.

He was initially accused of being part of a dirty bomb plot, that has morphed into planning to blow up apartments with natural gas. The initial claims relating to the dirty bomb seem to have been dropped.

The biggest problem I have with his treatment is that if the government has evidence against him, why hasn't it ever presented it before a court and laid charges? They charged and convicted Richard Reid, they charged and convicted John Walker Lindh.

If they have evidence against Padilla, why not charge him?

I think the truth is they have nothing more than suspicions about Padilla.

What it boils down to is the goverment has locked up a citizen they claim they have evidence against, but they are refusing to put that evidence before a court.

Any way you spin it, it's detention without trial, it overrides rights that date back to the Magna Carta.

It's wrong that it is taking 3 years to go through the system but I think the point is that it is going through the system.

The system has allowed Padilla to be imprisoned for more than 3 years without trial. How well is the system working?

If he gets out 1 day before he dies of old age at 90 is the system working?

I think 3 years shows that the system isn't working, and whatever happens, Padilla has been denied due process. Of course he might get it at some time in the future, but that's not going to give him his time back, is it?

I'm not really concerned with Padilla as an individual, but what's happened to Padilla could happen to anyone in the US. Of course it's not likely any normal US citizen is going to get caught up like that, but you've moved from a position of having your rights guaranteed by law to having your liberty dependent on the government behaving properly and not wanting to imprison you.