Perfect Union banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok, we've got this Padilla guy suspected of planning to plant a bomb on US territory. Instead of trying the guy in a federal court for treason, they put him in military custody and we get this quote:

"Our interest is not in trying him and punishing him," Rumsfeld told reporters during a stopover in Qatar on his way to India. "Our interest is in finding out what he knows."

Why isn't our interest in trying and punishing him? I find it incredibly scary that the government can pick this guy, a US citizen, up and hold him indefinately without trial. Give him a trial. If he's guilty, hang him. If he's not, let him go.

The real confusing part to me is that John Walker was captured on a foreign battle field by the military, and he's getting a civilian trial. This wannabe bomber guy is captured by civilians, not on a battle field, and he's in military custody. What sense does that make?

I say try them both for treason in a federal court, and seek the death penalty against them both.

Those who beat their swords into plow shares often end up plowing for those who did not. - unknown, often attributed to Ben Franklin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
As far as I can tell, they're both soldiers of Al Quaeda (Padilla and Walker).

That said, they're either prisoners of war or spies. What do we normally do with spies?

With spies, we try them and execute them. With prisoners of war, we keep them locked away for the duration of the war. Then we either let them go or throw away the key.

Either choice is good for me. See? I am pro-choice.

KC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
I think officials were saying that they were not interested in prosecuting him RIGHT NOW. First they want to get as much info out of as they can so they track down his comrades. That's why they want him in military custody where he can be... er, questioned at length.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,071 Posts
I heard on the news that the ACLU commie lawyers are falling all over themselves to run to this traitor's defense. I think we should take a page out of WW2 and intern leftist lawyers for the duration of the war. Or they could be used to clear mine fields using the step, step, boom!!! method. At least they would be doing something useful, instead of defending and aiding the enemies of liberty.


TC
:cannon:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I'll third that.This guy,unlike Tim McVeigh,is more valuable alive than dead.Think we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg....
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I can understand a military trial for Walker. He was captured on a foreign battle field by US military troops. I can't understand the ability to hold a US citizen indefinately without trial.

Most people on this forum talk about the abilty to defend themselves against the tyranny of government. But, if they tell you its for your own safety, you'll applaud as you give them the ultimate tryannical power. The ability to just declare someone a criminal and detain them indefinately.

Can't you see the huge potential for abuse? The government could declare anyone a terrorist, for any reason, and bye-bye, your making big rocks into little rocks in Kansas. Forever. That's a huge chunk of power to hand the government.

It's not even about safety, as trying him for treason and hanging him if he's guilty is just as effective, its about grabbing more and more power for a bigger and bigger government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,071 Posts
Doc, you make a good point it is a governmental assualt on an Americans rights to hold this guy this way. I just feel that the ACLU lawyers pick and choose which persons rights they will fight for. If a conservative has his rights threatened he is on his own. But if a minority, leftist, murder or terrorist is in jeopardy they are on it like stink on SH*T. Why? shouldn't they defend all breaches of peoples rights with equal vigor.

A point to ponder when other US citizens were caught in time of war commiting treason how were they dealt with?

TC

:cannon:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
This same debate is going on at gunboards.com
One thing I know is, complete info. on this subject seems to be a little hard to get. I mean exactly what is going on seems a bit cloudy.
AU2
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Tank: Yes, they should. Limited resources means they can't fight every battle, and I think they pick many of the ones they do because no one else wants to go to bat for the accused. Also, not everyone appeals for their help. Some people just pay their own legal team or use other organizations. The ACLU does team up with conservative organizations when they share a common goal. The most recent example I can think of off the top of my head is teaming with the Eagle Forum to oppose a National ID card, which both deem a threat to privacy.

Innocent until proven guilty, the right to a fair trial, protection from illegal search and seizure, etc. are basic rights of any American, no matter what crime they stand accused of.

Punishment and imprisonment without a trial is the tool of tyrants and dictators, not a democracy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,071 Posts
Doc you are right. Who knows the guy could be innocent its not as if the feds haven't made mistakes before. When all this stuff started it was said that it wouldn't apply to Americans only foreign
nationals. Well I guess that got some overspill. My guess is the feds want to question this guy without a lawyer around. If he is an enemy of our country I can see why. When they do charge him anything they get would be inadmissable. But it could lead to getting more terrs.
Its a fine line that is beening tread, how soon could this spillover into regular law enforcement and errode all of our rights. Once the camel gets his nose in the tent the rest will try to follow.

As a gun owner I see the 2nd Ammendment as my major flash point and I see the lack of action by the ACLU or even a neutral stance as beening an anti-gun stand. If someone is drowning and you can help but remain neutral aren't you just as guilty as the person who pushed them in.

The ACLU may not be able to get involved in all debates but they should get involved in major constitutional issues.

TC:cannon:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
I can't repeat this often enough, it seems that regular folks have been duped into thinking the ACLU is a good organization. Their mission, as judged by the cases they take 99% of the time is to use the laws of America against America. They'll take a high-profile "just" issue about 1% of the time so people will think they do justice.

The ACLU lawyers are a pack of courtroom terrorists, in my opinion and it's based on all the harm they've done to traditional American values.

Damn the ACLU. Give your donations to the Young America Foundation or just keep it in your pocket, or give it to your dog, or your brother-in-law. Just don't fund the destruction of our American justice system by giving to the ACLU.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Tank: He will still get a lawyer in military custody, but I'd guess the rules are much less stringent. A JAG soldier must be present whenever a interrogator is questioning the subject.

Kalifornia: Demanding a trial isn't destroying the American justice system, its what the system is founded on. Allowing the government to just declare someone guilty and lock them away forever is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
There you go again, Doc, you just don't get it.

Of all the people in the war, which one does the ACLU pick as their 1 out of 100 "just" causes? It's the poor boy from Brooklyn, I think it was Brooklyn, who worked hard at Taco Bell. He grew up in gangs, and he and his buddies knifed someone to death when he was 15.

But the poor latino downtrodden boy was not at fault. You see, it was his environment. He wanted more out of life, so he became religious. Islam became his shining light. He only wanted to do good on this earth, so he went to the holyland to learn from the masters of illumination.

The masters of illumination are avery good at what they do. With mercury and nitric acid, they make wonderful devices of illumination. And these devices are just perfect to use against the infidels (non-believers).

Your wonderful protectors of liberty chose the poster boy of terrorism! Are you starting to understand the ACLU mind?
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
It's immaterial who he is or what crime he stand's accused of. He's a US Citizen. The Bill of Rights applies to everyone, or no one. That's what you fail to get.

If they can declare this man guilty and lock him away without a trial, they can do the same to you. They can put out the word that you had a massive cache of arms, anti-government writings, and a plot to destroy a federal building. They'll "leak" the word survivalist, which immediately conjures negative images for most of the public. Once that hits the papers, who's going to support you? No one, as the public will blindly except the media/executive branch conviction, just as you are, and say you got what you deserved.

It keeps expanding as well, as the see how much people will stand for. No one complained when they said non-citizens only. Now, people are supporting them doing it to citizens.

You talk about a slave class, there you go. Who else can be locked away forever without a trial? The US sheep-izens apparently. But don't worry, its for your own safety.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
This is exactly the question we as a nation are struggling with right now. We are a country based on laws and rights but how far to we extend those rights to non-citizens and how much do we curtail them for everyone to fight terrorism? We could create a police state and empower the authorities to search and seize at will, hold prisoners without bail or trial, give up all of our rights and liberties but what would we be left with in the end? If this is what America becomes in its effort to survive, then who really won the war?

I think too many people gave their lives to establish our way of life to simply throw it all away now in the quest for security. Prisons are fairly secure, but would you want to live in one? I prefer to be as free as possible, with all of the inherent risks involved in living in a free society. Apparently I am in the minority opinion on this as polls indicate 70% of Americans will sacrifice freedom for security. Sad. They don't seem to understand that it is the freedom that we need to secure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
139 Posts
Saxon, you are right! I continue to see these polls, where the masses will give up freedoms for security. I would ask them how much security they had before and was it any better??? Doubtful!

Much like any other thing given up, it rarely returns. This won`t be "take it back, we`re done" Once applied, as other laws....it will be twisted to meet someone else`s needs, then perverted further. Where are the killing zones in America???? Every place guns are banned or restricted, a fact that too many ignore.....for the "if it could save just one" Well it could have saved around three thousand a several months back. Lets not admit that! LTS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,071 Posts
I just read on Yahoo news that they are holding this guy as an enemy combatant. Not a POW said it was based on a WW2 USSC ruling applied to US citizens working for the Nazis. It said he would be held for the duration of the war without trial. The Gov.
executed the Nazi agent in 46.

Doc they don't need a JAG officer present to interegate EPWs.
So they side step the issue of his rights.

If this was King George instead of George W. doing this I think we would feel a lot differently.

We all need to be concered about were this is going. Thankfully we have instant communication and can share the news.

I don't feel this guy is worth 2 cents but its the preccident this could set that has me concerned. Under the guise of fighting the war the expanding government could start rounding up other "hostile" groups ie gun owners.

TC:cannon:
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top