Reply With Quote
so does kitty-nip........
Partisanship makes one stupid.
so does kitty-nip........
we eat cats in Mississippi
And if that evidence is as weak as we seem to think, then Padilla has a wonderful appeal that might actually result in reversal of the conviction. That the jury was inclined to side with the government is: (1) not surprising; and (2) perhaps evidenced by the jury's willingness to convict on apparently weak evidence. But none of that has anything to do with the conditions of Padilla's incarceration, and Dan still has yet to demonstrate in any fashion how the conditions of Padilla's incarceration had anything to do with the conviction. Padilla can't win an appeal based on the cons utional issues without such proof.
Again, there's a difference between finding justifiable bases to make principled arguments and being a partisan screecher.
First of all, this isn't a 'partisan issue', it's a cons utional issue...second of all, I find it hard to believe that you think that a person can be incarcerated for 2 years without a lawyer, without formal charges, without evidence presented against him to a Grand Jury, allegedly tortured, but at the very least psychologically deprived, and this isn't a basis for a 'principled argument'......perhaps evidenced by the jury's willingness to convict on apparently weak evidence. But none of that has anything to do with the conditions of Padilla's incarceration, and Dan still has yet to demonstrate in any fashion how the conditions of Padilla's incarceration had anything to do with the conviction. Padilla can't win an appeal based on the cons utional issues without such proof.
Again, there's a difference between finding justifiable bases to make principled arguments and being a partisan screecher.
I don't think it's a principled basis for an argument to overturn this conviction. You've yet to show me how those factors could have resulted in a conviction. I absolutely agree that Padilla has a great 1983 case, but I don't think there's a principled basis for citing those things as a means to reverse this conviction.
And I do think that this is a lot of partisan yammering, mostly because I don't see a principled basis to make an argument for reversal based on the cons utional issues.
How long will Nbadan go before actually addressing FWD's point?
Apparently, at least a full day.
I don't always address opinions....FWDT and I disagree.....if he can't see how denying an accused American Citizen incarcerated for 2 years legal representation, habeus corpus rights, depriving him of food, water, reading material, and type of outside communication and all that on top of alleged torture....there's just no hope....he is the lost partisan who would have likely also justified the treatment at Abu Gharib.....
You should know better than that by now. I didn't say that the Administration's actions were justifiable, dan. I've said in this thread and elsewhere that these tactics are indefensible and have repeatedly mentioned in this thread that Padilla has sound legal alternatives to remedy those harms. It's curious to me, though that rather than address my points, you turn to ad hominem and attack me. That's generally the surest sign of someone who can't actually address the question presented.
What I have also said, though, is that they won't (and shouldn't) result in the reversal of this conviction -- that's not opinion; that's the law. If you can't see that distinction -- and since you continue to refuse to address that point, I presume that you are either unwilling or unable to make the distinction.
You're right about this much: it is quite difficult to have a meaningful discussion of anything when one side is making arguments rooted in opinions and the other is making arguments grounded in fact.
see how denying . . . what? There's something missing at the end of that assertion.
Leonard Pitts: Memo to Bush: The system works
Web Posted: 08/22/2007 05:21 PM CDT
Tribune Media
Real men don't go to court.
For years, that was pretty much the White House stand with regard to Jose Padilla, the American citizen arrested in 2002 for allegedly conspiring to set off a radiological device, a so-called “dirty bomb,” on U.S. soil. It was a serious charge, and it cried out for courtroom resolution.
Except that real men don't go to court. The Bush administration, easily the manliest in recent American history, believed only weaklings, traitors and other liberal Democrats could be so naive as to believe you deal with a captured terrorist by reading him his Miranda rights. That, they told us, was evidence of “pre-9-11 thinking.” But everything changed, they said, on that day and the old rules, which had stood the nation through revolution, the Civil War, the Great Depression and social upheaval, no longer applied.
So they threw Padilla into a Navy brig instead. He was charged with no crime and, according to his lawyers, was drugged and left chained in painful positions in a tiny cell under a light that never went out. No clock, no windows, no bedding, no mattress and, for the first two years, no lawyer.
When civil libertarians demanded to know how you could justify such treatment of a man who had never been charged with a crime, they were told President Bush did not have to bother with such niceties. By declaring Padilla an “enemy combatant,” Bush could imprison him indefinitely and never have to explain himself to anyone.
That bears repeating. The president arrogated unto himself a power ordinarily associated with tyrants, to impose indefinite detention on anyone he chose. And from the people there arose only the sound of crickets chirping in midnight woods.
But three months ago, the real men finally went to court, rather than make their dubious case before a U.S. Supreme Court that seemed ready to take up the question of whether indefinite detention without trial is cons utional. Last week, Padilla was convicted of terrorism conspiracy charges.
We should be glad prosecutors bagged a bad man. But the irony is that this victory utterly destroys the government's claim that we have to shred the Cons ution in order to save it.
Don't take that as an argument for prosecuting all terrorist trials in the criminal courts system. The administration makes a valid point when it says the courts, with their rules of evidence and open proceedings, are ill-suited to handle at least some terrorism cases. One need only conjure the image of Osama bin Laden putting his hand on a Koran and swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but to appreciate the absurdity of trying to process certain terrorist masterminds through the same system that handles carjackers and drug dealers.
But is that image really the only alternative to the image of Padilla chained in isolation under an unblinking light? Is obscenity really the only alternative to absurdity?
I don't buy that. Why could we not ins ute a special judicial panel that would allow a terrorism suspect to defend himself as in criminal court, yet be sufficiently opaque to safeguard sensitive evidence from public disclosure?
Thing is, ultimately it wasn't the justice system the White House sought to avoid. Rather, it was accountability, oversight, anybody who could tell them no. They said, trust us, because we said so.
And too many of us, scared spitless and willing to trade the Cons ution itself for the fool's gold of security, were shamefully willing to do just that.
So the headline here isn't the vindication of the Bush Team. It is, rather, that that team, having spent years trying to cir vent the system, ignore the system, emasculate the system, was finally forced to go through the system.
And what do you know? It worked.
[email protected]
bird VP
JD Vance refers to Sen. Alex Padilla as "Jose" Padilla
You and all the other leftists are nothing but dramaqueens.
no, the danger is very real
Lmao "the danger"
Damn you dudes are pathetic. Faint some more over absolutely nothing and absolutely nothing dangerous, as usual.
You leftist males are weaker than your women counterparts.
But you want us dead.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
