Jose Padilla convicted: 17 years

[625]

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.

You are wasting your time attempting any debate with some folks here. They only wish to argue for the sake of arguing.

Here are a couple of articles for some of the folks here to chew on that don't think it's frightening how a U.S. citizen was treated by the Executive branch. Let's see if you folks can debate the facts within and not attack the sources.....


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3208

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081601771.html

 

[Wildalaska]

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

I guess you didnt read my post.

Here it is again, simpler. From the time (almost) he got picked up, until the day he was sentenced in Court, Padilla had a lawyer representing his interests. I never sad ANYHTING about the factual issue of whether he was allowed to meet or communicate with with his lawyer. Perhaps go beyond the "Statement of Facts" and find the actual Findings of Fact by the way.

In fact, I would go so far as to say the whole issue of Mr. Padilla being held "incommunicado" was quite possibly a strategic decision on the part of his layers, who AT ANY TIME could have had the Court direct that he be produced, and anybody who knows anything about the Federal Court System knows that when a Judge says "jump" you say "how high" (sooner or later)

Maybe they CHOSE not to pursue that issue in the hopes of being able to bootstrap the same issue into the criminal case.

Oh and if you need to check the statements yourself, tread lightly, they're on that far left site everybody hates, findlaw.com

Are you alleging that Findlaw alters court decisions to support an agenda?


WildhaveyouhuggedyourMP5todayAlaska ™

 

[Willie D]

As much as I think a trip to Pakistan automatically means nothing good...


This case sets a number of bad precedents and I dare say would have caused more of an uproar had Padilla not been brown. Why does John Walker Lindh, actually fighting in Afghanistan get to plea down? Why isn't Stephen Hatfill under detention somewhere because of the piles of circumstantial evidence indicated that he was the Anthrax attacker (you know, who killed 5people).


If the US has convincing evidence then it should be shown. Otherwise, ANYONE can be arrested and sentenced without having evidence shown at their trial.

If we don't get to see it how do we know it exists?

 

[625]

In fact, I would go so far as to say the whole issue of Mr. Padilla being held "incommunicado" was quite possibly a strategic decision on the part of his layers, who AT ANY TIME could have had the Court direct that he be produced, and anybody who knows anything about the Federal Court System knows that when a Judge says "jump" you say "how high" (sooner or later)

Maybe they CHOSE not to pursue that issue in the hopes of being able to bootstrap the same issue into the criminal case.

Quite possibly and maybe. Wonderful facts you have there.

 

[Wildalaska]

Quite possibly and maybe. Wonderful facts you have there.

Never presented as facts, but, rather, as reasonably drawn inferences based on my knowledge of legal strategy/brinkmanship...

Would you like me to explain why?

Why does John Walker Lindh, actually fighting in Afghanistan get to plea down?

Plea down? Yeah from death to life in prison.

If the US has convincing evidence then it should be shown. Otherwise, ANYONE can be arrested and sentenced without having evidence shown at their trial.

If we don't get to see it how do we know it exists?

Well the jury in the Padilla case evidently saw enough

This case sets a number of bad precedents and I dare say would have caused more of an uproar had Padilla not been brown.

That is just so silly as to beggar description.

WildhaveyouhuggedyourChineseType56todayAlaska ™

 

[625]

Would you like me to explain why?

I want you and anyone else to explain why they don't have problems with the way this case was handled, specifically, the points made in the two articles I posted above.

 

[STAGE 2]

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.

Interesting you mention facts. What facts do you have that the evidence was weak? Were you there? Did you talk to the jurors? Do you even know what the breakdown was on the jury?

You throw out BS about how the evidence was weak, and you know how prosecutors act, and yet you have no first hand knowledge of anything and have never practiced law, much less as a prosecutor. I'd say that completely prohibits you from reaching the opinion you did.

Stage 2 implies that only a Juris Doc can observe evidence and decide whether it's strong or weak.

I implied nothing. I directly said that you personally have no way to determine that the evidence was weak. It would seem that because there was a conviction the evidence most certianly wasn't weak. Beyond a reasonable doubt isn't a standard that gets hurdled with weak evidence.

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.

Ignoring the huge fallacy in this argument, you keep bringing up matters of law. Show me where Padilla was prevented from bringing up a legal argument at trial.

 

[STAGE 2]

You are wasting your time attempting any debate with some folks here. They only wish to argue for the sake of arguing.

Here are a couple of articles for some of the folks here to chew on that don't think it's frightening how a U.S. citizen was treated by the Executive branch. Let's see if you folks can debate the facts within and not attack the sources.....

Again, what facts? I've got one guy saying the evidence was weak, when he wasn't there and has no idea how the jury split, if at all. Then I have you linking to articles titled "Padilla: No Charges, No Trial, Just Jail".

Give me a break. His case went to SCOTUS and then he had his criminal trial. If thats not having access to the judicial system then I sure as hell don't know what is.

If facts are what you care about, then bring some to the table.

 

[Wildalaska]

I want you and anyone else to explain why they don't have problems with the way this case was handled, specifically, the points made in the two articles I posted above.

I never said I didn't have problems with the way the case was handled. Some of my problems have to do with the way his lawyers MAY have handled it, some with the way the Government did handle it, some with the way the Courts handled it.......

What does that have to do with my original point......??

WildhaveyouhuggedyourMP44todayAlaska ™

 

[625]

Stage 2 wrote:

Because someone's rights have been violated doesn't mean that they should not be judged for their crimes.

Wildalaska wrote:

I never said I didn't have problems with the way the case was handled.

Well I reread this thread from the beginning. After WA's last post, it appears I have no real beef with either of you. We all agree Padilla is a scumbag and the case was not handled properly. Any further discussion of this case is simply arguing semantics IMHO. Peace to all and to all a good weekend.

 

[44capnball]

Were you there? Did you talk to the jurors?

Did you?

You throw out BS about how the evidence was weak, and you know how prosecutors act, and yet you have no first hand knowledge of anything and have never practiced law, much less as a prosecutor. I'd say that completely prohibits you from reaching the opinion you did.

I'm "prohibited" from reaching an opinion? How amusing.

I never said whether I have or haven't practiced law, because answering your demand either way is to stoop to the credential contest you're trying to make it. You just keep grasping at straws in the hope of a good ad hominem broadside.

Something tells me you got so hacked off about what I said re: prosecutors that you couldn't be objective and simply ignore what as far as you know could be the opinion of some gap toothed redneck with a bias against prosecutors because of what happened to his 2nd cousin.

Now, if you want to go back and forth on what I orginally said, pay attention I'm sidetracking from the Padilla case here, you and I both know that inflammatory evidence can be admitted unless the defense moves to challenge it. They don't always move to challenge it and when they do they don't always succeed. The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that "inflammatory" photos can be admitted if they show the conditions of the victim's bodies, corroborate testimony, or what have you. Just for example. You could sail a pretty big ship thru that loophole, eh. Seeing as you like so much to win arguments on this forum, are you telling me you would never ever exploit that?

So where was I. In other words, if I'm just a know nothing as you keep asserting, then you are free to give my opinions all the attention they merit (hence, zero).

Problem is, when I state something, you take one of two courses... either you attack the messenger (ad hominem attack, assault on credentials) or you just say the equivalent of 'nyah nyah *that's* not a fact, *I* have all the facts.'

Was I on guard duty where Padilla was being held? Was I a juror? Did I try his case? Did I defend him in court? It doesn't matter, neither did you. If anybody on here was, they ain't sayin. And if they did, either of us could just say well I don't believe you, if we didn't like what was said.

Somebody brings in opinions on the case, written by a law professor, and you dismiss them. The clear implication is that no law professor could know more than you. Hey, you're the one started playing the credentials game, at least have some consistency will you?

I will admit that I respect your tenacity, though I disagree heartily with you on most of what we've talked about so far. I could just go on to say "OK Stage 2, you win", but I doubt you'd enjoy that.

But, this could go continue to go back and forth and still accomplish nothing. I think we've made our positions pretty clear. From this point on I can only agree to disagree.

 

[STAGE 2]

Was I on guard duty where Padilla was being held? Was I a juror? Did I try his case? Did I defend him in court? It doesn't matter, neither did you.

Yes it matters because I'm not the one contesting the verdict, you are. Therefore, it would behoove you to have some firsthand knowledge of the evidence before you comment on its weight. An even better question would be to ask you whether you even know what the evidence was? If not than it is silly to comment on whether it was strong or not.

The fact that there was a conviction is prima facie support that shows that the evidence was not weak. If you are going to disupute this, then you need to bring some bonafides to the table other than theory or "this is what prosecutors like to do".

As far as "ad hominem" attacks, asking you about your credentials is a legitimate question. If you indeed have no experience with criminal cases, or in law in general, then it is more than fair to say that your opinion on what goes on at trial is completely irrelevant.

you and I both know that inflammatory evidence can be admitted unless the defense moves to challenge it. They don't always move to challenge it and when they do they don't always succeed. The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that "inflammatory" photos can be admitted if they show the conditions of the victim's bodies, corroborate testimony, or what have you. Just for example. You could sail a pretty big ship thru that loophole, eh. Seeing as you like so much to win arguments on this forum, are you telling me you would never ever exploit that?

And what inflamatory evidence could have been exploited here? This was a conspiracy case. There were no bodies and no completed crime. While I fully agree that lawyers are a sneaky bunch and exploit any loophole they can find, this case doesn't lend itself to what you are implying. In fact, it has been clearly stated that a majority of Padilla's ties to al quaeda as well as anything that he said to the government while in captivity were not presented to the jury. That kind of eliminates any sort of possibility of "conviction by emotion" that you are so worried about.

 

[Wildalaska]

Now, if you want to go back and forth on what I orginally said, pay attention I'm sidetracking from the Padilla case here, you and I both know that inflammatory evidence can be admitted unless the defense moves to challenge it. They don't always move to challenge it and when they do they don't always succeed. The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that "inflammatory" photos can be admitted if they show the conditions of the victim's bodies, corroborate testimony, or what have you. Just for example. You could sail a pretty big ship thru that loophole, eh. Seeing as you like so much to win arguments on this forum, are you telling me you would never ever exploit that?

Both sides "exploit"...thats what Judges are for.

And smart Judges? Well the pretty much bend over backwards for the defense....removes appealable issues.....

WildhaveyouhuggedyourP7M13todayAlaska ™