Jose Padilla anyone know who this is?

[Elfie]

This guy wasnt captured on a battlefield. He either needs to be charged or let go. If he had been captured on a battlefield I would be ok with it.

[Lazerus]

Perhaps the battlefield was the city he was captured in?

Does a place become a battlefield only after an attack has taken place, or when an attack is intended to take place?

Just because he was taken into custody here doesn't mean it wasn't on a battlefield.

Just something to think about, I'm not quite sure where I stand on this one.

[greentail]

Originally posted by Martlet
You're confusing anti-Americanism with anti-terrorism.

No. You're confusing freedom with security. If you are too scared to handle living in a free society, there are plenty of police states in the world. Pick one and go. Don't ruin things for the rest of us.

Why do you support criminals?

[/B]

He is a citizen of the United States. In the U.S. there is a presumption of innocence. He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Perhaps you should move to Europe? They operate on a presumption of guilt. A person has to prove his innocence once accused.

This "gentleman" has not been charged, much less found guilty of a crime. He is NOT a criminal.

You want to live in a society where the government can lock you up indefinitely for any reason? Perhaps you'd enjoy living in the People's Republic of China. You don't seem cut out to handle life in the the U.S.

Edit:  I won't even get into the fact that it's a 16 month old quote.

Have you changed your mind since then?

[Martlet]

Originally posted by greentail
No. You're confusing freedom with security. If you are too scared to handle living in a free society, there are plenty of police states in the world. Pick one and go. Don't ruin things for the rest of us.



 

Afraid to handle a free society?  I'm afraid of your idea of a free society.   Coddle the criminals and let the terrorists roam free.  If you'd like to live with criminals, don't ruin things for the rest of us.  Go to prison.

He is a citizen of the United States. In the U.S. there is a presumption of innocence. He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Perhaps you should move to Europe? They operate on a presumption of guilt. A person has to prove his innocence once accused.  This "gentleman" has not been charged, much less found guilty of a crime. He is NOT a criminal.

He's not?  Have you looked at his life?  He's actually quite the criminal.   Even before he started hanging out with terrorists.  Odd that you are so anxious to see him on the streets.

You want to live in a society where the government can lock you up indefinitely for any reason? Perhaps you'd enjoy living in the People's Republic of China. You don't seem cut out to handle life in the the U.S.

I have no problems with terrorists being held indefinitely.  I'm not surprised that you think plotting with terrorists isn't reason enough to be held.  Perhaps you'd enjoy living in Iran.  You don't seem cut out to be an American.
 

Have you changed your mind since then?

No, my opinion stays exactly the same.  I have no problem holding terrorists who happen to be US Citizens until the information that would be revealed in a trial is no longer a factor.   I do think 3 years is excessive, though.

Like I said.  You know you're just looking to cry when you have to go back over a year to did up something to cry about.  Then, when you find it, you don't discuss it.  You throw a tantrum.

[greentail]

Originally posted by Martlet
Afraid to handle a free society?  I'm afraid of your idea of a free society.   Coddle the criminals and let the terrorists roam free.  If you'd like to live with criminals, don't ruin things for the rest of us.  Go to prison.



He's not?  Have you looked at his life?  He's actually quite the criminal.   Even before he started hanging out with terrorists.  Odd that you are so anxious to see him on the streets.



I have no problems with terrorists being held indefinitely.  I'm not surprised that you think plotting with terrorists isn't reason enough to be held.  Perhaps you'd enjoy living in Iran.  You don't seem cut out to be an American.
 

[/B]

Terrorists should be dealt with harshly. This man has been neither tried nor charged.

No, my opinion stays exactly the same.  I have no problem holding terrorists who happen to be US Citizens until the information that would be revealed in a trial is no longer a factor.   I do think 3 years is excessive, though.

Like I said.  You know you're just looking to cry when you have to go back over a year to did up something to cry about.  Then, when you find it, you don't discuss it.  You throw a tantrum.

You seem to be opposed to habeus corpus. I'm discusing it with you now.

So you are saying that the Constitution is to be ignored when it is convenient for the government to do so?

Do you believe that the Bill of Rights is excessive? Should they be abolished at the whim of any government official? What happens when a government you don't like comes into power? Say the next administration arrests W. on war crimes. Perhaps they would consider any of his public supporters to be accessories to those alleged crimes.  How would you feel about the right to a speedy trial then?

You protray yourself as a super patriot. So I am confused when you make posts apparently opposed to our constitutional rights.

[JB88]

Originally posted by Seeker
Couldn't you guys see which way your country was developing once the government assinated Dennis Weavers family?

randy weaver?

[greentail]

Originally posted by Seeker
Couldn't you guys see which way your country was developing once the government assinated Dennis Weavers family?

Always wondered how Festus got his job.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by greentail


Terrorists should be dealt with harshly. This man has been neither tried nor charged.

 

What's charged or tried have to do with anything?  We aren't allowed to hold our enemies in a time of war?  We have to try them first?  When did this start?

You seem to be opposed to habeus corpus. I'm discusing it with you now.

No, I'm opposed to letting our enemy run free.  I'm further opposed to conducting lengthy and expensive trials for each enemy combatant.

So you are saying that the Constitution is to be ignored when it is convenient for the government to do so?

I'm saying when you decide to go fight for the other team, I'm not going to fight for you when you're treated like the enemy.   Publicly trying the enemy in a time of war releases information that retards further investigation and puts soldiers at risk.  I'm willing to let a terrorist sit in prison for awhile if it prevents attacks and saves lives.

Do you believe that the Bill of Rights is excessive? Should they be abolished at the whim of any government official? What happens when a government you don't like comes into power? Say the next administration arrests W. on war crimes. Perhaps they would consider any of his public supporters to be accessories to those alleged crimes.  How would you feel about the right to a speedy trial then?

Arresting someone on war crimes isn't the same as arresting someone for conspiring with the enemy and plotting an attack against the US.  It's funny to watch you make that comparison, though, as the defense of your position becomes more desperate.

You protray yourself as a super patriot. So I am confused when you make posts apparently opposed to our constitutional rights.

You portray yourself as a troll.  You then go back through over a years worth of comments to find something to troll about.  I'm not confused at all.  I've got you pegged accurately.

[Shamus]

Originally posted by Martlet





I'm saying when you decide to go fight for the other team, I'm not going to fight for you when you're treated like the enemy.   Publicly trying the enemy in a time of war releases information that retards further investigation and puts soldiers at risk.  I'm willing to let a terrorist sit in prison for awhile if it prevents attacks and saves lives.

Thats the point, where is the evidence that he was fighting for the other side, and why is the administration afraid to present it?

shamus

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Shamus
Thats the point, where is the evidence that he was fighting for the other side, and why is the administration afraid to present it?

shamus

They aren't afraid to present it.  They've released that he was working with Abu Zubaydah, who the US has in custody and is co-operating.

[Shamus]

Originally posted by Martlet
They aren't afraid to present it.  They've released that he was working with Abu Zubaydah, who the US has in custody and is co-operating.

Thats not evidence..thats a statement.

An opening statement by a prosecutor or defense lawyer is not  considered evidence until the other side has the opportunity to cross-examine it.

shamus

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Shamus
Thats not evidence..thats a statement.

An opening statement by a prosecutor or defense lawyer is not  considered evidence until the other side has the opportunity to cross-examine it.

shamus

It doesn't matter what they did at the time, short of a trial.  You wouldn't have been satisfied.

[Shamus]

Bingo.

shamus

[greentail]

Originally posted by Martlet
What's charged or tried have to do with anything?  We aren't allowed to hold our enemies in a time of war?  We have to try them first?  When did this start?



No, I'm opposed to letting our enemy run free.  I'm further opposed to conducting lengthy and expensive trials for each enemy combatant.



I'm saying when you decide to go fight for the other team, I'm not going to fight for you when you're treated like the enemy.   Publicly trying the enemy in a time of war releases information that retards further investigation and puts soldiers at risk.  I'm willing to let a terrorist sit in prison for awhile if it prevents attacks and saves lives.




Arresting someone on war crimes isn't the same as arresting someone for conspiring with the enemy and plotting an attack against the US.  It's funny to watch you make that comparison, though, as the defense of your position becomes more desperate.




You portray yourself as a troll.  You then go back through over a years worth of comments to find something to troll about.  I'm not confused at all.  I've got you pegged accurately.

Martlet,

Thank you for proving my point. The Constitution is a meaningless document to you.

Unfortunately, it is also a meaningless document to the present administration.

However, the constitution has survived other attacks upon it, and will survive here, despite people such as yourself.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by greentail
Martlet,

Thank you for proving my point. The Constitution is a meaningless document to you.

Unfortunately, it is also a meaningless document to the present administration.

However, the constitution has survived other attacks upon it, and will survive here, despite people such as yourself.