Originally posted by Kayless Does he consider himself an American citizen? I tend to doubt it, since most of the Al-Qaeda supporters seem to put very religion as their first and only devotion, forsaking all others (while America is seen as the land of pure evil). Personally I don’t think he should be considered a citizen anymore. He committed treason by plotting to slaughter thousands of people, not because he’s a psychotic criminal, but because he believes that this nation is the enemy and needs to be attacked. Since he renounced America let America renounce him.
... he is still a US citizen not unless legal papers show that he is not anymore.
BTW, there was an American captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban(?). I think that he is now being tried (for treason) as a US citizen and not as an enemy combatant. Is this true?
"There is no weakness in honest sorrow... only in succumbing to depression over what cannot be changed." --- Alaundo, BG2
Brother Scribe, Keeper of the Holy Scripts of COMM
[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/"]Moderator, Speak Your Mind Forum[/url]
[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/sym-specific-rules-please-read-before-posting-14427.html"]SYM Specific Forum Rules[/url]
Originally posted by fable I'm not sure that's the issue. After all, we don't know he did anything that the government says he did--the government (and not the Bush administration, here, but US governments, and for that matter, many governments I can think of, elsewhere) has been repeatedly wrong in its accusations, before. The American legal system is also founded on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Or has that been forgotten?
When it comes to getting nuked (not literally, but the Dirty Bomb is the next best thing) I’m glad that the U.S. plays it safe. Even if he is innocent (which I doubt), one man’s discomfort is worth potentially preventing another 9/11.
Originally posted by fable But the real issue here (which the government is trying to cover with an emotional plea) is a Constitutional one. The law is supposed to safeguard all citizens from unfair detention. No provision is made in the US Constitution, however, for what to do during wartime. The current administration would have you believe that a war is in progress, and maybe it is; but to my knowledge, it hasn't been proven.
To me the thousands who died on 9/11 stand as proof positive that we are indeed caught in a war. We've been blind to that for too long (it took a tragedy to open our eyes).
Originally posted by fable To what extent are we at war? And if we are at war, what measures are necessary to preserve the wellbeing of the state? Would that wellbeing be served by keeping a single US citizen behind bars, without legal representation, and without charges?
I'm weighing the lives of the many against the life of one. I wouldn't be willing to take the chance that countless people could be killed, just to uphold procedure. People are always saying our legal system doesn't work. Why give someone this potentially dangerous the chance to exploit it?
Originally posted by fable I can't help thinking that we're all being kept far too much in the dark, being asked to travel down a series of steps in the dark based on leaders who cite "restrictions of war" as the cause for never telling us what lies ahead. It bothers me greatly, and would no matter who was in the White House.
The government has to keep a few secrets (and personally I feel they’re being way too open). It's human nature to be curious, but that can also prove dangerous. How much help have terrorists gotten off CNN or other news broadcasts? I say let the government do its job without being mired in public relations (At least the terrorists will be surprised by what's ahead too).
Nature’s first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
Originally posted by Maharlika ... he is still a US citizen not unless legal papers show that he is not anymore.
Yeah technically, but the rules seem to be changing now. I'd like a "you become a terrorist, you're not a citizen anymore" policy. After all, why should we protect people who want set off radioactive bombs in our cities?
Originally posted by Maharlika BTW, there was an American captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban(?). I think that he is now being tried (for treason) as a US citizen and not as an enemy combatant. Is this true?
Nay, treason is way too hard to prove in court. I'm not sure what they did with him (murder charges or something similar probably). Fable or HLD probably know (they keep up on current events better than I do).
Nature’s first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
When it comes to getting nuked (not literally, but the Dirty Bomb is the next best thing) I’m glad that the U.S. plays it safe. Even if he is innocent (which I doubt), one man’s discomfort is worth potentially preventing another 9/11.
I don't understand. We don't know that he was doing the thing he's accused of. Assuming in advance not only flies in the face of the entire foundation of American law, but against every precedent outside of wartime. Our legal system is one of the things we've been justly proud of over the years. I find something problematic about a position that argues "Our legal system is a great one that protects the innocent, but we'll forget about it and toss it aside if we feel the accused is guilty without proof."
And even if he did what he's accused of, how is the US government "playing it safe" by not giving the man access to a lawyer and ordering a trial? Even Alger Hiss had his day in court. What's gained by keeping him *out* of court, in your opinion?
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Sorry guys. It's hard to keep up when you're the only one waging an uphill debate.
Originally posted by Ned Flanders Now HLD is really speaking sense. Your last statements on how the US'es actions give credence to the 'cause' said terrorists fight for convince me. Padilla should be held and tried as a US citizen. Changing the rules for one man is not the correct way to go about bringing Padilla to justice.
Glad I convinced somebody (of the opposing opinion, notwithstanding). Check out the Machiavelli quote again.
"If men were entirely good this precept would not hold, but because they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound to observe it with them."
Is it moral? Depends on your point of view, but many would say probably not. But is it better for our own survival and well-being? I think so. Does a lion worry about treating another lion fairly after the other lion tried to kill it? Men impose morality on themselves in order to make a better world. But how do you deal with those who would use your moral code against you? Nations have a right to defend themselves (with drastic measures if necessary) and sometimes morality is antithetical to practicality (and survival).
Originally posted by fable Again, this is a matter of law. What the suspect considers is irrelevant. If he were a Belgian citizen, he would be tried under Belgian law. He's an American citizen, unless he took citizenship in another nation, and should be tried in American courts by American law.
The laws are made by those in power, and right now it seems those in power are changing them. They’re setting an example, so as to discourage others from thinking the system will play nice after they try to crash a plane into a building or use a dirty bomb.
Originally posted by HighLordDave Then let him be tried for treason (or whatever crimes they can lawfully bring against him). Treason is (I believe) the only crime specifically addressed by the Constitution and many, many people have been tried and convicted under its precedent (the latest being Robert Hanssen, who did more real damage to the United States than Padilla could ever hope to). However, that does not give the government the ability to abrogate his inalienable rights.
"In time of war the law falls silent."
- Cicero Yeah it's harsh and hardly politcally correct, but it's true. Like I said before, sometimes morality is secondary to victory, and to survival.
Originally posted by fable And even if he did what he's accused of, how is the US government "playing it safe" by not giving the man access to a lawyer and ordering a trial? Even Alger Hiss had his day in court. What's gained by keeping him *out* of court, in your opinion?
Sorry, let me elucidate my point. What if Padilla were to make bail and skip town (or merely contact others via code to help continue the plan)? Six months later Chicago or Philadelphia is hit by one of these bombs. Public outcry. Why didn’t the government do enough to stop it? Why did so many have to die? etc. People would invariably blame the government for not doing enough to stop it. They're playing it safe by not taking that chance.
Whew! You guys are going to have to give me a breather! It's getting hard to keep up!
Nature’s first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
I used to work for a guy who was born in Germany in the late 30s. His mother told him this story:
There was a rape in the town where he and his parents lived. The police were called and the Nazis brought out the "rapist". He was tried and executed by hanging him in the town square that day. There were no more rapes as long as the Nazis occupied the town.
On the one hand, the problem was stopped. On the other, there was no evidence brought before a legitimate court and the man was not proven to be the rapist. He was strung up as an example, without regard to his innocence or guilt.
A government that rules through fear is not fit to call itself the leader of the free world. A government that will trample on the civil rights of one person will trample on the rights of us all. If the rule of law does not apply equally to everyone, victim and perpetrator alike, our system has failed.
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
Sorry, let me elucidate my point. What if Padilla were to make bail and skip town (or merely contact others via code to help continue the plan)? Six month later Chicago or Philadelphia is hit by one of these bombs. Public outcry. Why didn’t the government do enough to stop it? Why did so many have to die? etc. People would invariably blame the government for not doing enough to stop it. We're playing it safe by not taking that chance.
There are procedures in place that refuse people accused of certain crimes (treason among 'em) of being granted bail. He'd be in a maximum security cell on federal property--which means a space that's roughly ten feet wide and long, with cameras monitoring every inch the entire time, in solitary confinement, and with multiple armed guards present at all times. Same thing if he goes on trial. And I'm sure the media would be barred from entry.
No offense, but I'd still like to hear a single convincing argument why any US citizen shouldn't be given a trial when accused of a crime.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Originally posted by fable Use code to get help and escape, from a maximum security cell? You do know we're talking about a space that's roughly ten feet wide and long, with cameras monitoring every inch the entire time, in solitary confinement, and with multiple armed guards present at all times? He's in one such cell, now. If he goes on trial, he'd still be in one, given the gravity of the accusation. The condition is a wash: making statements in a courtroom are no more likely to get him out of his cell than away from a courtroom.
Again, sorry for not being clear. I meant, assuming he can’t escape (as you so thoroughly showed the difficulties of) he can call up one of his buddies using his phone call and clue them in on some his contacts, the progress he was making, the location of undiscovered materials, etc. Which could be just as bad as if he'd escaped. But I don't really think he's much of a threat at present, but it's better to err on the side of caution.
Originally posted by fable I'd still like to hear a single convincing argument why any US citizen shouldn't be given a trial when accused of a crime.
Yeah I know, I suck at debating. Too much emotion coming through, not enough articulacy, I guess. Oh well, I tried. I suppose I could try and get one of my professors to post here in my stead.
Nature’s first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
Originally posted by HighLordDave For our enemies, it will only lend them the credibility they crave and give credence to their claims that the US is a corrupt, hypocritical bully.
Sadly this will not matter one or the other to our enemies. First you would have to assume they give the US any credibility...which they don't. Second they already believe the US is corrupt.
As for the topic...Ex Parte Quirin
If "He's an undeclared combatant , a saboteur ... aiming at civilian targets, and outside the protection of the Geneva Convention."
But "U.S. officials must still supply evidence showing Padilla at least planned to harm U.S. interests," Story
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
The Ex Parte Quirin designation was for a different time and different circumstances, Weasel. We were at war with the Nazis, and unless I've missed a joint session of Congress, we currently aren't at war with anyone (except in presidential soundbytes). Padilla is an American citizen and not working for a foreign government or standing army. Why should he not be tried in a civilian court with all of the same protections which are afforded to other people who have done or planned far worse?
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
Hmmm, interesting link Weasel... I didn't know the "unlawful combatant" classification arose from Nazi saboteurs operating in the United States during the war. Maybe I won't need my professor with you around.
Nature’s first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
Yeah I know, I suck at debating. Too much emotion coming through, not enough articulacy, I guess. Oh well, I tried. I suppose I could try and get one of my professors to post here in my stead.
Not worth worrying about, @Kayless. We're all shooting in the dark on this issue, and I think nobody is suggesting this guy be allowed any kind of breaks. I can only speak for myself, but all I believe is that he should get the lawyer and court appearance that any US citizen deserves, without delay. I'm inclined to think the US government wouldn't make such accusations if they didn't have some good evidence, but accusations have the weight of verdicts only in the court of popular opinion. I want him convicted or freed by evidence.
You might want to read what happened in a very celebrated court case that occurred in France nearly a century ago. It became known as the Dreyfus Affair, and dealt with a French army officer wrongfully detained, court-martialed, and later sentenced before a military tribunal to solitary confinement in irons on Devil's Island--all because his superiors and the government tried to cover their own incompetence in giving access to secret plans to a high ranking spy.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
If the US would have played this by the rules, wouldn't Padilla have gotten the right to remain silent? I heard on CNN that the authorities wanted to interrogate him to get more information about his activities and therefore gave him this new status.
Originally posted by Omar If the US would have played this by the rules, wouldn't Padilla have gotten the right to remain silent? I heard on CNN that the authorities wanted to interrogate him to get more information about his activities and therefore gave him this new status.
In a word, no. The so-called "right to remain silent" doesn't apply to all accusations of criminal conduct.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Ah, I see!
What then does the government gain by deeming Padilla an enemy combatant? What would happen if Padilla was treated like your common suspect? He would still be in custody, being watched, and interrogated. I don't follow the reasoning of the government here. Could it mean that there isn't any hard evidence against him? I heard that he was arrested in the beginning of May, and after one month they decided to go public with it and give him this "enemy" status. Why wait a month?
(Sorry, lot of questions; like Fable said: we are in the dark here)
@Everyone as I know you are all so curious to what I think here is my two cents:
No one man is worth compromising the ideology of a nation over. If we were to deny this man a trial it would go against America's original "rights". I would not have this nation survive as a compromised shadow of itself(which it is in many cases already) just to have a "security" that cannot always save and protect you.
Originally posted by HighLordDave The Ex Parte Quirin designation was for a different time and different circumstances, Weasel. We were at war with the Nazis, and unless I've missed a joint session of Congress, we currently aren't at war with anyone (except in presidential soundbytes). Padilla is an American citizen and not working for a foreign government or standing army. Why should he not be tried in a civilian court with all of the same protections which are afforded to other people who have done or planned far worse?
"Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, [317 U.S. 1, 38] guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war."
Now as I said I'm no lawyer, but I do believe this is what he is being held for. Now I see a fight coming to clarify this in court.
Is it guilty by being associated with Al Qaeda which is/was part of the Taliban which ruled Afganistan...a country the US, I thought was at war with.
"Government lawyers said Tuesday that under a 1942 Supreme Court ruling, even Americans who fight against the United States are subject to military courts -- but only if they enter the country. The court's decision, from six decades ago, focused on "armed prowlers" who blow up bridges or cut telegraph wires." Fox News as well
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
On another note..I did find one reason he is being held..."
The associate worked with Padilla, an American, on researching "dirty bombs" in Lahore, Pakistan, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. The official said the second person is not an American but declined to name the associate or the country where the questioning is being conducted."
"U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Padilla used the Internet at a home in Lahore, Pakistan, to learn how to build a "dirty bomb" that could spread radioactive material over dozens of city blocks. Authorities say they think he was traveling to the United States to scout locations for bombings."
I seriously doupt this will hold up. Just because I visit a site and see how a "dirty bomb" is built shouldn't be against the law. This might be the same link.
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
i heard on the radio today some speculation as to the reasoning behind using the 'unlawful combatant' status in this case. a spokesman from MI5 made the point that a military trial is not public, and can use evidence not usable in a coutroom. the examples were certain types of intercepted messages and the medium on which they are stored, as well as intelligence gathered using secret (and possibly illegal) means, that would not be disclosed by the security services if their operations would then be in the public domain. (raising the interesting point of personal privacy vs. public safety)
nonetheless, the decision looks very much like a political one, and a pretty reprehensible one, too.
Here where the flattering and mendacious swarm
Of lying epitaths their secrets keep,
At last incapable of further harm
The lewd forefathers of the village sleep.
Originally posted by Omar Ah, I see!
What then does the government gain by deeming Padilla an enemy combatant? What would happen if Padilla was treated like your common suspect? He would still be in custody, being watched, and interrogated. I don't follow the reasoning of the government here. Could it mean that there isn't any hard evidence against him? I heard that he was arrested in the beginning of May, and after one month they decided to go public with it and give him this "enemy" status. Why wait a month?
(Sorry, lot of questions; like Fable said: we are in the dark here)
I think the main reason that the government is doing this is because THEY HAVE NO CASE. They are trying to buy some time, and trampling on the constitution while they do so. I'm not sympathetic to the guy--but it sounds to me like the Justice Dept. screwed up and detained this guy before they had enough evidence to make a case. Ashcroft is a fascist, and would love to set a precedent like this.
"the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival." Part 2, Chapter 9, pg. 192--George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil.
-- George Orwell / Nineteen Eighty Four (1948)
WAR IS PEACE - FREEDOM IS SLAVERY - IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
-- George Orwell / Nineteen Eighty Four (1948)
“I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.” - Edgar Allen Poe
Check out the Machiavelli quote again. 
Too much emotion coming through, not enough articulacy, I guess. Oh well, I tried. 
I suppose I could try and get one of my professors to post here in my stead. 
The so-called "right to remain silent" doesn't apply to all accusations of criminal conduct.
