Padilla gets his day - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 53 (permalink) Old 08-17-2007, 09:30 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce R.
Nah, I'd rather you post some more gibberish. Back to the question:

Does the fact that this man was guilty mean nothing to you?????
Here, you fucking coward:

I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 53 (permalink) Old 08-17-2007, 09:40 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Von Vorschlag
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

So do those in power that under mine your Constitution are not seen as Anti- American ?
In other words, Bruce swore to uphold the right to a free trial, a right to an attorney, and the right to be tried within a set period of time, and the right to be brought before a judge where the reasons for his imprisonment had to be justified by the government. This is why these right wing nut jobs disgust me. The utter hypocrisy of his stand on Padilla and this oath he took is a dishonor to the men who died to defend the Constitution. Men do not die for the Republican Party, they die for the Bill of Rights, it is the ulitmate strength of America, worth more than any guns or bombs or scum bag President. Bruce does an excellent job of proving one of my main contentions on this forum: the US Armed Forces has become a Republican Militia and a massive danger to free men in this country. The oath above means nothing to them now. Bruce now claims the military is who judges guilt and innocence of American citizens. OVER MY FUCKING DEAD BODY. The contentions and actions in this case is a prescription for civil war in this country.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #23 of 53 (permalink) Old 08-17-2007, 09:48 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Here, maybe this one will work better. Just substitute "George Bush":

I swear by God this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich and people, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that I shall at all times be ready, as a brave soldier, to give my life for this oath.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #24 of 53 (permalink) Old 08-17-2007, 10:51 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Bruce R.'s Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2002 SLK 32 AMG, bone stock. 1987 190E 2.3-16 valve (destroyed). 2005 E320 new toy.
Location: Near Washington, DC
Posts: 14,926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
Here, you fucking coward:

I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD.
Hey, who's calling whom a coward? I served YOU didn’t, and as a point of information, I volunteered.
Did you even attempt the Peace Corps or anything remotely similar?
I think the term "fucking coward" would fit you far better then it fits me garbage man...........

One more time garbage man: Does the fact that this man was guilty mean nothing to you?????

"Negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon, the pigeon knocks over all the pieces, on the board and then struts around like it won the game."
Vladimir Putin

"They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?"
Paul Harvey 8/31/94


"The only people who have quick answers don't have the responsibility of making the decisions."
Justice Clarence Thomas
Bruce R. is offline  
post #25 of 53 (permalink) Old 08-17-2007, 11:14 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Bruce R.'s Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2002 SLK 32 AMG, bone stock. 1987 190E 2.3-16 valve (destroyed). 2005 E320 new toy.
Location: Near Washington, DC
Posts: 14,926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
Bruce does an excellent job of proving one of my main contentions on this forum: the US Armed Forces has become a Republican Militia and a massive danger to free men in this country. The oath above means nothing to them now. Bruce now claims the military is who judges guilt and innocence of American citizens. OVER MY FUCKING DEAD BODY. The contentions and actions in this case is a prescription for civil war in this country.
There are a couple of comments that you have made here that are off base enough to show you up for the extreme leftwing crank that you are:

( 1 ) US Armed Forces has become a Republican Militia and a massive danger to free men in this country. The oath above means nothing to them now.
As far as your point that the military is currently a Republican Militia, you might recall it was the Clinton administration that asked the military if they would take up arms against the American people. I believe he was a Democrat, but I could be wrong……..

( 2 ) Bruce does an excellent job of proving one of my main contentions on this forum: the US Armed Forces has become a Republican Militia and a massive danger to free men in this country. The oath above means nothing to them now. Bruce now claims the military is who judges guilt and innocence of American citizens.
Perhaps you can point out where I stated that the military judges the guilt or innocents of American citizens? I stated that Jose was arrested as an enemy combatant, and has been treated as such. Over the last few months he was reclassified as something of a criminal conspirator and sent to trial accordingly.

( 3 ) OVER MY FUCKING DEAD BODY.
Stranger things have happened...

( 4 ) The contentions and actions in this case is a prescription for civil war in this country.
I don't think so, the "people" have gotten too used to being crapped on by all the previous administrations, both Democrat and Republican. Add to that, there are far too many pacifists out there that would rather take the crap then fight for their rights.

"Negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon, the pigeon knocks over all the pieces, on the board and then struts around like it won the game."
Vladimir Putin

"They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?"
Paul Harvey 8/31/94


"The only people who have quick answers don't have the responsibility of making the decisions."
Justice Clarence Thomas
Bruce R. is offline  
post #26 of 53 (permalink) Old 08-17-2007, 11:20 AM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,926
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 596 Post(s)
The Real Verdict on Jose Padilla

The conclusion of Jose Padilla's criminal trial in a federal court yesterday shows that waging the "war on terror" does not require giving up our constitutional values or substituting military rule for the rule of law. The jury's guilty verdict should be appealed, but the verdict on the Constitution is in: We should keep it.

Padilla is a U.S. citizen who was arrested in Chicago in May 2002, pursuant to a warrant to testify before a grand jury. He was held in civilian custody in New York for a month, but on the eve of a hearing in federal court, President Bush declared Padilla an "enemy combatant." At that point, Padilla was whisked out of the civilian justice system and imprisoned in a South Carolina military brig. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft held a news conference to announce that the government had thwarted a plot by Padilla to set off a radiological "dirty bomb" in an American city.

Anyone who has seen a cop show in recent decades knows what rights people in America usually have when arrested: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Not Padilla.

For nearly two years, Jose Padilla was denied all access to his lawyers, his family and the court system. The Bush administration claimed that he could be held without trial until the end of its "war on terror." Allowing Padilla to talk to a lawyer or know that a court was considering his case, the government argued, would threaten national security. Meanwhile, the government was working to create a relationship of complete "dependency" between Padilla and his interrogators, who were busy trying to torture a confession out of him.

As court filings indicate, Padilla was allegedly subjected to sleep deprivation, stress positions and extreme temperatures. Worse, he was held without human contact, without a clock or even natural light -- with no way to know how quickly or slowly time was passing. When he was removed from his cell to visit a dentist, goggles and earmuffs were placed on him. Psychologists have long reported that extreme sensory deprivation is one of the quickest ways to drive people mad -- and make them willing to confess to anything.

The case challenging the constitutionality of Padilla's detention was in the federal courts for several years. It reached the Supreme Court in 2004, at which point the government finally allowed him to speak to a lawyer. But the high court did not review the merits; instead, it ruled on a technicality that the case should have been brought in South Carolina, not New York. Litigation continued and nearly reached the Supreme Court again in late 2005. By then, the administration had begun soft-pedaling the "dirty bomb" story, which it described as "loose talk" rather than an imminent plot. It put forward a new theory: Padilla was planning to blow up apartment buildings with natural gas. The government also argued that he could be detained as an "enemy combatant" because, it alleged, he had been in Afghanistan during the U.S. bombing campaign in late 2001.

Two business days before the government's brief was due in the Supreme Court, the administration switched tactics again. Fearful that the court would rule that a U.S. citizen arrested in the United States could not constitutionally be detained forever without criminal trial, the government announced that Padilla would be tried in a federal court in Miami. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit noted, the government's actions made it appear that it was trying to evade Supreme Court review.

The charges brought in Miami contained none of the allegations about the dirty-bomb plot, the apartment buildings or even Padilla's presence in Afghanistan in late 2001. Instead, the government alleged that Padilla had conspired in the 1990s to provide support to overseas jihadists in Bosnia and Chechnya. Commentators called even this weaker case notably thin, but Padilla was found guilty.

Padilla's fate, pending appeal, remains unknown. Also unknown is whether the courts will ever definitively rule on the legality of the government's mistreatment of Padilla during his four years of military detention. But some things are certain:

The trial showed that our federal courts are perfectly capable of dealing with terrorism cases. A federal judge presided over the five-month trial of Padilla and his co-defendants with great care for both the rights of the defendants and for national security. The Bush administration has claimed since Sept. 11 that the federal courts cannot be trusted with terrorism matters. It has argued that we should scrap our centuries-old constitutional protections and replace our system of checks and balances with one awarding the executive complete discretion to lock up whomever he wants, for however long he deems appropriate. The Founders rejected that kind of arbitrary and oppressive power. And the federal court in Florida has shown how weak the administration's case for abandoning the Constitution really is.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #27 of 53 (permalink) Old 08-17-2007, 12:16 PM
guage
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Public Law 107-40

Padilla a U.S. Citizen associated with al Qaeda forces hostile to the U.S.
in A-stan, took up arms against the U.S.

Padilla engaged in conduct that constituted hostile and war like acts.

Padilla who is a U.S. citizen iis and at the time he entered the U.S. in May 02
was, an enemy combatant.


Held as a ENEMY COMBATANT

Under Hamdi, the power to detain that is authorized under the AUMF
is not a power to detain indefinitely. Detention is limited to the duration
of hostilities as to which the detention is authorized.

Because the United States remains engaged in conflict with al Qaeda
in Afghanistan, Padilla's detention did NOT exceeded in duration.
post #28 of 53 (permalink) Old 08-17-2007, 12:24 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,926
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 596 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by guage
Public Law 107-40

Padilla ... took up arms against the U.S.
That is no small point. Could you elaborate on that, please? Was he caught engaged in hostile activites on a battlefield in Afghanistan, or was he carrying weapons of any kind when he was apprehended?

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #29 of 53 (permalink) Old 08-17-2007, 12:46 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce R.
Jim, occasionally you have to give credit where credit is due, I DID read FoTL’s post.
The man was held as an enemy combatant, NOT as a conventional criminal. He was only recently deemed as such, and then given a trial. What more would you like?
Point of fact he could have been put on trial for treason and executed, would that have been better?
Bruce,

The issue at hand is whether or not the President has the authority to arbitrarily classify an American citizen, arrested inside the United States, as an "enemy combatant" and thereby deprive that person of his Constitutional rights. There is a great expectation that that would not be the case if this had been allowed to be decided by the Supreme Court. Once denied his rights as an American citizen, Mr. Padilla was subjected to the "not torture" we do to force confessions out of enemy combatants and other bad guys who are not American citizens we happen to have in custody somewhere on the earth. For near three years.

During that time all the government could hang on this guy is some support of overseas Jihadists in the 1990's in Bosnia and Chechnya. No mention of taking up arms against the US. No mention of an association with Al-Qaeda, specifically. Seems like the guy is guilty of something, but not of being an enemy combatant, otherwise the government would never have reclassified him, voluntarily, and tried him in federal court.

If you guys really don't care about the Constitution and protecting it from all threats, especially those it is most vulnerable to, which come from an over reaching executive branch coupled with a no-balls legislative branch and a judicial branch that has been mired in scandal for years while being populated with Supreme Court justices picked by the present over reaching executive, just admit it. It is what you swore to defend first - not the flag and not Haliburton - but if you really don't care enough about it to defend it against such real threats, just be honest about it. You would rather live in a less free, Constitution-less country. Like I said earlier, there are plenty of those around. Don't try to ruin America by weakening her, just find another home where the head cheese can do what you apparently advocate - lock up dissidents and anyone suspected of a crime, call them some name and throw away the key. Remember, you guys never do bad shit so you have nothing to hide or fear, so you don't really need a Bill of Rights. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #30 of 53 (permalink) Old 08-17-2007, 01:22 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by guage
Public Law 107-40

Padilla a U.S. Citizen associated with al Qaeda forces hostile to the U.S.
in A-stan, took up arms against the U.S.

Padilla engaged in conduct that constituted hostile and war like acts.

Padilla who is a U.S. citizen iis and at the time he entered the U.S. in May 02
was, an enemy combatant.


Held as a ENEMY COMBATANT

Under Hamdi, the power to detain that is authorized under the AUMF
is not a power to detain indefinitely. Detention is limited to the duration
of hostilities as to which the detention is authorized.

Because the United States remains engaged in conflict with al Qaeda
in Afghanistan, Padilla's detention did NOT exceeded in duration.
First, lets be clear. He was convicted and, pending appeal, he should be made to serve time or whatever for his crime according to the law of the land. Now that we have that over and done with, lets look at how this unfolded, and your unwavering support of anything done in the name of the US Government. It is actually scary that you would so forcefully salute such a poorly defined policy based on that law.

Now, it appears after years of pinching Padilla's nuts to get him to squeal and spill the beans, NONE of the original acts he was accused of turned out to be true. So, it is very difficult to see how the action of the government at the time, classifying Padilla as an enemy combatant when there is now obviously nothing he was doing at the time that could remotely be considered "hostile and war-like acts" is valid or supportable. But, a panic-driven executive branch put enough pressure on the justice department, the FBI and the CIA to point to some suspects and then the executive branch directed the show from there. Another case of bad decisions made by the executive branch that end up becoming quagmire like events that distract resources from where they are truly needed. Like another, smaller version of invading Iraq for the wrong reasons.

The other frightful aspect of your post is that you apparently believe we are at war over terror. No one has declared war on anyone. We are in Iraq based on a Congressional Resolution that should have been repealed when the government of the US concluded there were no WMD in Iraq and no ties between Iraq (Saddam) and Al-Qaeda (Ossamma). To suggest a clause such as the one you quoted has any meaning in regards to the kind of "war on terror" we are engaged in today would mean that the same options existed for the entire time we were in the "Cold War" or, what about the "War on Drugs?" Or the "War on Crime?"

"The War on Terror" is a slogan. If we were truly at war we would have caught Ossamma, or at least vaporized him by now, and we would be aware of who specifically threatened us and how we were dealing with it, including how we could tell it was over. It is downright scary that people are willing to give up rights to an executive branch with a clear record of poor judgement and abuse indefinitely, possibly forever, based on your definition of the "hostilities" with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. If the enemy is in Afghanistan, what the hell are we doing in Iraq? If the key to ending these hostilities as you call them that grant these fearsome powers to the child-President, why are we not focussed on Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan?

Go read your manuals about sabotage and malpractice. The Navy teaches that when regular people are overwhelmed by the job, they are most likely to commit malpractice. It is a shortcut, avoids the procedure and the process but "gets the job done" in the eyes of many who succumb. Problems are discovered later when they are much harder to fix, or the crew experiences failures when they can least afford them, leading to disastrous consequences of uncorrected malpractice.

Our executive branch is overwhelmed by the job, and is committing malpractice on a daily basis. Just because their predicament is understandable, and one might want to be sympathetic, looking the other way or supporting them is the wrong choice - it makes one guilty of malpractice too. It is this malpractice as a citizen of this country that has the country on its downward spiral. We need to hold our political leaders to meet our expectations, which should be set higher in times of crisis instead of lower. Jim

Last edited by JimSmith; 08-17-2007 at 01:25 PM.
JimSmith is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Padilla Guerilla Botnst Off-Topic 17 02-24-2007 10:37 AM
    more Padilla mzsmbs Off-Topic 0 07-13-2006 02:10 PM
    Padilla case heads back to the Supreme Court FeelTheLove Off-Topic 34 04-04-2006 04:51 PM
    padilla charged mzsmbs Off-Topic 28 11-22-2005 09:23 PM
    Dirty Bomb Suspect Padilla Indicted firstmb Off-Topic 2 11-22-2005 05:49 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome