Padilla gets his day - Page 5 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #41 of 53 (permalink) Old 08-18-2007, 01:27 PM
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.
So Jim, bottom line was he guilty or not? Apparently it doesn't matter to you, as long as we treat him nicely...... I imagine he would do the same for you too, wouldn't he.........
So this is the right wing line of attack on this right? Listen you stupid fucking cunt, the issue has never been the guilt or innocence of Padilla, ultimately that is for a jury to decide. Here is the real issue: are you and your pals fucking fascists who are dangerous to our way of life? The verdict is in.

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 #42 of 53 (permalink) Old 08-18-2007, 01:30 PM
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 edfreeman
What a pickle . . . the COTUS guarantees due process, and our laws define what that is. The timeline in Ron's lengthy post appears to be a manipulation of loopholes in some current laws. The one cited by guage I'm not familiar with, but if it says that, it looks like it needs tuning up to define what due process is for that situation. In the absence of that, the other definitions would apply. This is a question of whether the end justifies the means. Given the end, the conviction, albeit untimely, I would hope both sides of this would put political posturing aside and define a due process that would get us the end we had (protecting everyone), but would have the checks and balances that would protect the individual.
Oh for Christs sake, try the fucking Bill of Rights, will ya? What are you saying, Ed that there is something that supercedes them? Tell me ED, where in the 6th Amendment does it say "maybe" or "under this circumstance" or "in the case of" or "the president may"? Where? Now where the fuck does it say NO?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

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.

Amendment VI

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.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XIIII

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

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

Last edited by FeelTheLove; 08-18-2007 at 01:41 PM.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #43 of 53 (permalink) Old 08-18-2007, 01:39 PM
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,529
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
Oh for Christs sake, try the fucking Bill of Rights, will ya?
This is the one I was referring to . . .

Amendment V

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.

The deprivation of liberty is, I think, what we're referring to, can't be done without due process . . . I think that's what I said.

The speedy trial thing, well, this isn't the only example of that . . . a good example, perhaps.

Not sure why you bolded up XIV.


Last edited by edfreeman; 08-18-2007 at 01:45 PM.
edfreeman is offline  
post #44 of 53 (permalink) Old 08-18-2007, 02:16 PM
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 JimSmith
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

Guage is so full of crap. Congress, the President, they can make all the damn laws they want, but ultimately the Bill of Rights is supreme. It's in black and white in the US Constitutution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


The Bill of Rights gives immutable rights to US Citizens who are on US soil. No one can take them away or change them without changing the Constitution itself.

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 #45 of 53 (permalink) Old 08-18-2007, 02:23 PM
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 edfreeman
This is the one I was referring to . . .

Amendment V

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.

The deprivation of liberty is, I think, what we're referring to, can't be done without due process . . . I think that's what I said.

The speedy trial thing, well, this isn't the only example of that . . . a good example, perhaps.

Not sure why you bolded up XIV.
You seemed to be saying there is some escape clause in this. Do you still think so?

The position guage put forward on the Sept 11 Authorization Act is the exact same one the Bush Administration tried to use as it's case to hold Padilla, it was rejected by court after court, and when it came time for it to be heard by the Supreme Court, Gonzalez dropped the case and turned Padilla over for trial. The reason why is obvious, they have never had a leg to stand on. The Supremcy Clause and the Bill of Rights over rule everything when it comes to the rights of US Citizens. Just think of where this was leading. The Executive Branch was attempting to claim that it had the rights of the Judiciary Branch, and that it could do what it wished simply by stating something as being so. Who says Padialla is a terrorist? They did. Who said he broke the law? They did? Who was going to sentence him to a life time in prison? They were. Do you really wish for the Executive Branch to have this power over us?

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 #46 of 53 (permalink) Old 08-18-2007, 02:31 PM
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 edfreeman
This is the one I was referring to . . .

Amendment V

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.

The deprivation of liberty is, I think, what we're referring to, can't be done without due process . . . I think that's what I said.

The speedy trial thing, well, this isn't the only example of that . . . a good example, perhaps.

Not sure why you bolded up XIV.
"Cases arising in the land and naval forces" refers to soldiers on active duty.


The Fourteenth Amendment nullifies the idea that any governmental entity can simply pass acts that deny due process to citizens. Without it, one could claim that the September 11th law did not include the words "due process" so it was not required. The 14th states that all laws passed infers that citizens are guaranteed due process of law.

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 #47 of 53 (permalink) Old 08-18-2007, 02:54 PM
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
So this is the right wing line of attack on this right? Listen you stupid fucking cunt, the issue has never been the guilt or innocence of Padilla, ultimately that is for a jury to decide.
OK, not a problem, they can deduct his time served from his sentence. I might also add that the jury DID decide………… You DID notice that didn’t you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
Here is the real issue: are you and your pals fucking fascists who are dangerous to our way of life? The verdict is in.
FoTL has anybody told you that you're cute when you get all puffed up and pissy? Not any smarter, just real cute. :gay:

"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 #48 of 53 (permalink) Old 08-18-2007, 03:02 PM
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,529
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
You seemed to be saying there is some escape clause in this. Do you still think so?

The position guage put forward on the Sept 11 Authorization Act is the exact same one the Bush Administration tried to use as it's case to hold Padilla, it was rejected by court after court, and when it came time for it to be heard by the Supreme Court, Gonzalez dropped the case and turned Padilla over for trial. The reason why is obvious, they have never had a leg to stand on. The Supremcy Clause and the Bill of Rights over rule everything when it comes to the rights of US Citizens. Just think of where this was leading. The Executive Branch was attempting to claim that it had the rights of the Judiciary Branch, and that it could do what it wished simply by stating something as being so. Who says Padialla is a terrorist? They did. Who said he broke the law? They did? Who was going to sentence him to a life time in prison? They were. Do you really wish for the Executive Branch to have this power over us?
No, not the executive branch (think I said that, as well). The guy was basically declared a POW of sorts, and how you do that (or if you'll do that) when the W he is a PO of is different from other W's we've had. Don't misread me, here, I really don't like it either. I think it bears examination if we need different rules of due process when a citizen aids an enemy when we are allegedly fighting a war. If we don't, we don't, I'd be happy with that conclusion. But then, you'd take this timeline and critique it and figure out how to get from point A to B (conviction) without deviating from the due process that we believe should be.


Last edited by edfreeman; 08-18-2007 at 03:10 PM.
edfreeman is offline  
post #49 of 53 (permalink) Old 08-18-2007, 03:10 PM
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,529
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
"Cases arising in the land and naval forces" refers to soldiers on active duty.


The Fourteenth Amendment nullifies the idea that any governmental entity can simply pass acts that deny due process to citizens. Without it, one could claim that the September 11th law did not include the words "due process" so it was not required. The 14th states that all laws passed infers that citizens are guaranteed due process of law.
Yes, I know that applies to the military only. And I agree with your assessment of the 14th, not sure it contributed to your previous point.

Wonder if they had a similar OT discussion during the civil war? Surely there were POW's then, deprived of liberty, but I bet the accepted practices of due process were different than they are today. Very different situation, I know, citizens fighting each other on our soil, where this is a citizen aiding a faceless enemy out there somewhere, but wasn't the alleged result of the aid to be an attack? Consider the preceding rhetorical.

edfreeman is offline  
post #50 of 53 (permalink) Old 08-18-2007, 04:08 PM
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 edfreeman
No, not the executive branch (think I said that, as well). The guy was basically declared a POW of sorts, and how you do that (or if you'll do that) when the W he is a PO of is different from other W's we've had. Don't misread me, here, I really don't like it either. I think it bears examination if we need different rules of due process when a citizen aids an enemy when we are allegedly fighting a war. If we don't, we don't, I'd be happy with that conclusion. But then, you'd take this timeline and critique it and figure out how to get from point A to B (conviction) without deviating from the due process that we believe should be.
Actually, the precedents for this were set in the Civil War. It is really quite simple: if you are a US Citizen, and you are on any US soil where courts are in operation, i.e. not a foreign country, not a state in rebellion, not a battlefield, then you are under the protection of the Bill of Rights. If you are a US Citizen in a foreign country, on a battlefield, or in an area of rebellion, then you are under the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch, either military in the case of battlefields and rebellion, or criminal or diplomatic in the case of being in a foreign country - the FBI does not need a warrant to drag your ass back from Mexico, for example, but once you hit US soil, then it is required to honor your rights.

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
 
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