Jose Padilla convicted: 17 years

No jest, Wildalaska,

he was not actually accused of lifting a finger to harm even a single U.S. citizen.
Click to expand...

Palpable, patent horse manure. Author Worthington lost all credibility. Stopped reading right there.

Go back and look up what "conspiracy" means. As STAGE 2 pointed out, he wasn't arrested or convicted just for daydreaming about mayhem.
 
Here's an interesting take on the Padilla conviction, one with which I'm mostly in agreement with.
Click to expand...

Of course you are. After all it comes from the completely unbiased and non-political site antiwar.com:rolleyes:

Thus, while I should dismiss the entire excerpt as trash, there is a glaring error that needs to be rectified.


Padilla's sentence – in what at least one perceptive commentator called "the most important case of our lifetimes" – is particularly shocking because it sends a clear message to the president of the United States that he can, if he wishes, designate a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant," hold him without charge or trial in a naval brig for 43 months, and torture him
Click to expand...

The supreme court has already settled this issue. His sentence sends no message other than the fact that he's a terrorist.

I don't know where you find these articles Pat, but I have a feeling its way past left field. But I would likek you to answer a question for me. Do you have any idea what the crime of conspiracy involves? Specifically do you know what elements the government needs to prove in order to get a conviction?
 
How do you have any idea what prosecutors do? Do you have a law degree? Have you ever tried a case?
Click to expand...

More of the same from you, I see. Use your eyes and ears much?

Don't like the statement, so you attack the source's credibility. I take it you watch a lot of TV.

I'm done with this thread, you just don't get it.
 
I'll assume you meant Dems. Anyway, what makes you say that?
Click to expand...
No, I meant Dims. Just suggesting them sticking to their pattern of missing the big picture to score political points and votes.

from its point of origin resulted in a loud POP!! and a bad smell...
Click to expand...
Maybe you should backoff the beans? Anyway, leftist opinion articles don't do it for me, I prefer a site with the history and links to the documents. If the source is wrong it would be a good opportunity to correct it rather than dismissing it because it doesn't fit the template.
 
More of the same from you, I see. Use your eyes and ears much?

Don't like the statement, so you attack the source's credibility. I take it you watch a lot of TV.
Click to expand...

No, I actually practice alot of law including having worked in a DA's office. Since you seem to know everything about how prosecutors go about getting their convictions, I was just curious as to where you were getting your expertise.

I'm done with this thread, you just don't get it.
Click to expand...

That much is true. I don't get how anyone can make the comments you are making.
 
For months and months now, people who hate this administration and fringe wackos have been holding up this case as an example of how the government can snatch john Q public from his home and throw him away for life. Padilla was their poster boy for a "wronged citizen".
Click to expand...

Stage 2, I have only tangentially followed the Padilla case and certainly think he should go to jail if a jury found him guilty of conspiracy.

I have a couple of questions though, and your legal experience makes you a good person to ask.

Why was he not charged with treason? He was working with Al Qaeda against the US. Legally, why is what he did not treason?

Secondly, was he held for a long time before he was charged, and did he have access to a lawyer during that time? I honestly don't know, and there are reports alledging this, but I don't know. Do you know how long he was held before he was charged? Do you think his civil rights as a US citizen were violated?
 
Sarcasm is lost on you,

So I'll be clear...

This:

Don't worry, if the Dims win the White House he'll probably get a pardon with a hefty cash settlement.
Click to expand...

Was pulled out of your keister.

--Shannon
 
Why was he not charged with treason? He was working with Al Qaeda against the US. Legally, why is what he did not treason?
Click to expand...

My best guess would be for practical reasons. Its not an easy crime to convict people under and the constitution specifically mandates that "no person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court".

So rather than have to jump through all those hoops and convince a jury he "adhered" to our enemies or gave them "aid and comfort" (two really murky concepts to begin with) its far easier to just nail him for conspiracy.

Generally speaking, conspiracy is a prosecutors bread and butter. Sometimes when trying to get a conviction on the actual crime, there may be problems with things like chain of custody or witness issues. Conspiracy is much easier to prove, and the sentence is usually almost as long as the actual crime itself.


Secondly, was he held for a long time before he was charged, and did he have access to a lawyer during that time? I honestly don't know, and there are reports alledging this, but I don't know. Do you know how long he was held before he was charged? Do you think his civil rights as a US citizen were violated?
Click to expand...

Yes they were. He should have been charged and gone to trial pronto. I don't know how long he was held and when he got to see an attorney.
 
Yes they were. He should have been charged and gone to trial pronto. I don't know how long he was held and when he got to see an attorney.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much how I remembered things. It seemed like he was held a long time with no charges, and no access to an attorney while the Feds tried to see if he could be tried as an enemy combatant.

The Feds ultimately got their conviction, but in the process, there was a lot of talk about the government violating due process and civil rights. This has spurred a lot of people to propose conspiracy theories and develop distrust against the government. That seems like a reasonable reaction, after all Padilla was a citizen and should have been treated as required by law.

The way the government chose to handle the Padilla case left many people with a bad feelings toward the government, despite the fact that Padilla was, no doubt, guilty as charged.
 
It seemed like he was held a long time with no charges, and no access to an attorney while the Feds tried to see if he could be tried as an enemy combatant.
Click to expand...

For the last time (I hope) please get your (meaning the universal you) facts straight:

Padilla was picked up May 8th, 2002 on a material witness warrant. By May 22nd...a mere two weeks later, by appointed counsel, he moved to VACATE that warrant, thereby starting the series of events that went up and down to the Supreme Court...

Even when the President directed that he be held as an enemy combatant (june 9th 2002) and he was taken into custody his atty, as his next friend (ex.rel.), filed a Habeaus petition TWO DAYS LATER...

which petition went up and down the Court system until finally he was tried and convicted...

So the net BS about him not having an attorney is a lie. The net BS about him being held and deprived of his legal rights was a lie. So the impression left that here was some poor soul held incommunicado while nobody did anyhting was a lie!!! He was represented by counsel from virtually the time he went into custody. At anytime the Court, on the application of his attorney, could have ordered him produced, could have ordered him transferred (which in fact the 2nd Cir did)...

And here is what the Supreme Court said....

"Padilla's argument reduces to a request for a new exception to the immediate custodian rule based upon the "unique facts" of this case. While Padilla's detention is undeniably unique in many respects, it is at bottom a simple challenge to physical custody imposed by the Executive--the traditional core of the Great Writ. There is no indication that there was any attempt to manipulate behind Padilla's transfer--he was taken to the same facility where other al Qaeda members were already being held, and the Government did not attempt to hide from Padilla's lawyer where it had taken him. Infra, at 20-21 and n. 17; post, at 5 (Kennedy, J., concurring). His detention is thus not unique in any way that would provide arguable basis for a departure from the immediate custodian rule. Accordingly, we hold that Commander Marr, not Secretary Rumsfeld, is Padilla's custodian and the proper respondent to his habeas petition."

And I bolded the hot part for you. :)

Ya want to yammer about Padilla, OK, get your facts straight.

WildagaintheuniversalyouandhaveyouhuggedyourWaltherTPHtodayAlaska ™
 
Even when the President directed that he be held as an enemy combatant (june 9th 2002) and he was taken into custody his atty, as his next friend (ex.rel.), filed a Habeaus petition TWO DAYS LATER...
Click to expand...
This violated the Supreme court decision in ex parte Milligan, that in and of itself, is a a high crime, an impeachable offense.

The president has no power to make such an order.
 
This violated the Supreme court decision in ex parte Milligan, that in and of itself, is a a high crime, an impeachable offense.
Click to expand...

Do you even read your own posts...

"the Court found it significant that the petitioner was a citizen not connected with military service and who lived in Indiana, was arrested there, and had not been a resident of any of the states in the rebellion or a prisoner of war. The petitioner had not been captured while participating in hostile activities against the government, for an offense against the United States."

Padilla was involved in hostile activities against the US. This distinguishes his case from that of Milligan.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the constitution prohibiting a citizen from being labeled an enemy combatant. They still retain all of their rights, but this has nothing to do with what their status is.
 
I wasn't going to touch this thread again because frankly I don't care about Padilla, I made it pretty clear what I think of him personally. I care only so much as what it could do to the rights of Americans. Stage 2 couldn't talk facts, he had to try attacking whatever credentials he thinks I might or might not have re: knowing what prosecutors do.

When juries are told to decide a case based on the evidence, I guess we're all wasting our time. Stage 2 implies that only a Juris Doc can observe evidence and decide whether it's strong or weak. Somebody better get to work & tell jurors they're not qualified to evaluate anything a prosecutor does or says. Why not keep jurors out of the courtroom while you're at it, their poor laymens brains might not be able to handle it. Then at every trial why not just give the jurors a slip of paper while they sit in their closed room. "Kindly check the box with your verdict". There's one box, it says guilty.

Stage 2's attitude goes hand in hand w/ the mindset that a gun owner who's not a lawyer, can't afford a lawyer, and finds his public defender incompetent should be made to just shut up and plead no contest, on the basis that he isn't allowed to "argue matters of law" in his own defense.

So the net BS about him not having an attorney is a lie.
Click to expand...

But, Wild, when you make statements like that somebody needs to challenge them.

Padilla v. Hanft, US District Court,
District of SC

In Statement of Facts,
Item 14,

"From June 9, 2002 until March 2004, Padilla was not allowed to meet with or communicate with his lawyers."

Item 18

"As of the date of this petition, Padilla has been imprisoned for more than two years without being charged with any criminal offense."

If an attorney can put lies that easily into the Statement of Facts part of a petition, your issue isnt with me it's with them. Now what are you waiting for :rolleyes:

Oh and if you need to check the statements yourself, tread lightly, they're on that far left site everybody hates, findlaw.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top