Say Anything Blog

For nearly two years – from June 9, 2002 until March 2, 2004, when the Department of Defense permitted Mr. Padilla to have contact with his lawyers – Mr. Padilla was in complete isolation. Even after he was permitted contact with counsel, his conditions of confinement remained essentially the same.

deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Well, first of all, Padilla is facing life imprisonment, not the death penalty.

Great.  Now we have to suffer interviews with all the media personalities who will no doubt paint Padilla as a victim of the Administrations ‘unconstitutional’ policy.

Hey WOOF, since when are prisoners of war entitled to lawyers, or due process of law?

Great.  Now we have to suffer interviews with all the media personalities who will no doubt paint Padilla as a victim of the Administrations ‘unconstitutional’ policy.

Let them, this asshole is going to jail…

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

The left is in full meltdown today over Jose Padilla’s conviction, pouring all their energy and passion into defending an al-Qaeda operative now convicted of planning to murder our fellow citizens with a dirty bomb.

Do you do any research or just make shit up?  Go look up what he was convicted of.

Hey WOOF, since when are prisoners of war entitled to lawyers, or due process of law?

He fits no traditional definition of Prisoner of War.

He fits no traditional definition of Prisoner of War.

He was waging war against the United States and its allies. He was indeed a prisoner of war. Now he is an inmate.

Jose Padilla…because Mumia Abu-Jamal is soooooo last year!

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

He fits no traditional definition of Prisoner of War.

Right, he is a citizen that committed treason against his country.  In days past, that crime was an automatic hanging.  Pity we have become too ‘civilized’ for that brand of justice.

One of the most important talents for success in politics is the ability to make utter nonsense sound not only plausible but inspiring. Barack Obama has that talent. We will be lucky if we escape the catastrophes into which other countries have been led by leaders with that same charismatic talent.
-Thomas Sowell

...al-Qaeda operative now convicted of planning to murder our fellow citizens with a dirty bomb.—Rob

Actually he wasn’t convicted of that at all.

Hey WOOF, since when are prisoners of war entitled to lawyers, or due process of law?—Ken McCracken

If he was a prisoner of war, then the US govt. has obligations as outlined by the Geneva Conventions. Since they failed to oblige with these conventions, then his detainees are war criminals.

And then there is the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“Keynes had located the fundamental defect of the free market system in its incapacity to distinguish between `speculation’ and `enterprise.’ Hence, it had a tendency to be dominated by speculators, interested not in the long-term yield on assets but only in the short-term appreciation in asset values. Their whims and caprices, causing sharp swings in asset prices, determined the magnitude of productive investment and, therefore, the level of aggregate demand, employment and output in the economy. The real lives of millions of people were determined by the whims of ‘a bunch of speculators’ under the free market system.”—Prabhat Patnaik

then there is the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

You’re joking aren’t you?!  The UN wouldn’t know a real human rights violation if it hit them in the face.  After all they have some of the worst human rights violators running the human rights commission.  The UN and human rights!! Bwahahaha!!!  I can’t stop laughing!!!

One of the most important talents for success in politics is the ability to make utter nonsense sound not only plausible but inspiring. Barack Obama has that talent. We will be lucky if we escape the catastrophes into which other countries have been led by leaders with that same charismatic talent.
-Thomas Sowell

I must’ve missed that al-qaeda exception in the Constitution.  Where was that again?  Y’know, the part that says the President can lock anyone up if s/he feels it appropriate?  I guess I better download your new and improved Constitution v2.0.

Docdave: The point being that the US govt. has accepted the Declaration. To sign something saying you’ll obey these rules, and then not to obey, is a little cheeky.

“Keynes had located the fundamental defect of the free market system in its incapacity to distinguish between `speculation’ and `enterprise.’ Hence, it had a tendency to be dominated by speculators, interested not in the long-term yield on assets but only in the short-term appreciation in asset values. Their whims and caprices, causing sharp swings in asset prices, determined the magnitude of productive investment and, therefore, the level of aggregate demand, employment and output in the economy. The real lives of millions of people were determined by the whims of ‘a bunch of speculators’ under the free market system.”—Prabhat Patnaik

If he was a prisoner of war, then the US govt. has obligations as outlined by the Geneva Conventions. Since they failed to oblige with these conventions, then his detainees are war criminals.

Now where in the hell did you come up with that? The Geneva Conventions does not extend protections to unlawful combatants. The whole point of the Geneva Conventions is to protect those soldiers who actually abide by its terms, which Padilla did not. The Bush administration, clearly, did not ‘fail to oblige with these conventions.’ And how do you conclude that if the Bush administration ‘fails to oblige with the conventions’ that means that detainees are therefore war criminals? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I must’ve missed that al-qaeda exception in the Constitution.  Where was that again?  Y’know, the part that says the President can lock anyone up if s/he feels it appropriate? 

There is no ‘exception’ to the Constitution at work here, the Constitution just simply does not apply to unlawful combatants. Period. As I stated, the AUMF gives the president authority to detain al-Qaeda terrorists, not just ‘anyone if s/he feels it appropriate.’

You are a victim of leftwing mythology.

Ken: You called him a “prisoner of war”. I personally disagree.

“Keynes had located the fundamental defect of the free market system in its incapacity to distinguish between `speculation’ and `enterprise.’ Hence, it had a tendency to be dominated by speculators, interested not in the long-term yield on assets but only in the short-term appreciation in asset values. Their whims and caprices, causing sharp swings in asset prices, determined the magnitude of productive investment and, therefore, the level of aggregate demand, employment and output in the economy. The real lives of millions of people were determined by the whims of ‘a bunch of speculators’ under the free market system.”—Prabhat Patnaik

There is no ‘exception’ to the Constitution at work here, the Constitution just simply does not apply to unlawful combatants.

See, I must’ve missed that part in the Constitution, where certain citizens are exempted from the protections in the Bill of Rights.  Is that section like the 7.5th floor in Being John Malkovich?  Maybe I can’t see the exception because I don’t feel it in my heart or something.

I’ll work on that.

As I stated, the AUMF gives the president authority to detain al-Qaeda terrorists, not just ‘anyone if s/he feels it appropriate.’

Even if the Congress did what you claim it did, Congressional action can’t suspend constitutional rights.  Didn’t you have to study some civics when you got your GED?

To the absolute surprise of absolutely no-one who regularly reads SayAnyThing poodle opines:

deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

which, as usual, has no direct correlation to reality.

Padilla, as in illegal combatant under the standing precedent of Ex Parte Quirin was entitled only to a military tribunal followed by a shortish drop at the end of an even shorter rope.  Far from being deprived of his “rights”, Padilla was afforded rights he forfeited when he became a member of al Qaeda and waged war against these United States.

Ah, but fear naught, for due to the difference in jurisdictions he can still be tried as a war criminal should he manage to serve his “life sentence” and remain alive at the end of it.

And poodle, stick to whatever it is you know, which most certainly does not include matters such as this.

Semi-Live from Wilmington, NC

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

lestat,

Padilla’s case does bear a striking resemblance to that of Haupt in Ex Parte Quirin et al.  It is a true pity and miscarriage of justice that his fate is other than Haupt’s.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Graves Detail, Bush declared Padilla an enemy combatant and held him inncomunicado.
Just before attorneys got to Federal court Padilla was transfered to Federal prison and charged in a civilian court.

This prevented the Supreme Court from ruling on Padilla indefinite detention without charge.

To all you leftists who just don’t understand how the law works here, you have to read Ex Parte Quirin, as Rodney Graves suggests.

You might not ‘feel’ that the law is right here, and you ‘feel’ that Padilla has constitutional rights, perhaps you guys should educate yourselves a bit and try to comprehend how the courts ruled instead of, you know, whining about things you don’t understand.

Padilla’s case does bear a striking resemblance to that of Haupt in Ex Parte Quirin et al.  It is a true pity and miscarriage of justice that his fate is other than Haupt’s.

Actually there are significant differences.  Haupt came into the US in a foreign submarine, Padilla through an airport.  Haupt was turned in by a fellow conspirator, Padilla was not.  The authorities were found the explosives that Haupt was going to use, with Padilla they did not. 

Padialla was never charged with planning any attaqck within the US.

Please explain how airport v. submarine makes any possible difference.

Also, are you saying that only those caught red-handed with explosives can possibly be considered enemy combatants?

And doesn’t the fact that Padilla was convicted of planning attacks outside the U.S. mean that he should enjoy even less constitutional protections?

Your argument cuts against the point you are trying to make.

You might not ‘feel’ that the law is right here, and you ‘feel’ that Padilla has constitutional rights, perhaps you guys should educate yourselves a bit and try to comprehend how the courts ruled instead of, you know, whining about things you don’t understand.

Perhaps you should educate yourself since you have not had the facts right in any of your posts.  Ex Parte Quirin was about a group of men who had the plans and the instrumentation to conduct sabotage within the US.  While there were accusations about Padilla being a dirty bomber, those charges never materialized.  There was no evidence that he ever had the instrumentation or ability to carry out any plan.  The government didn’t go to court to establish him as an enemy combatant, because they knew that legally it was unsustainable.

And doesn’t the fact that Padilla was convicted of planning attacks outside the U.S. mean that he should enjoy even less constitutional protections?

Every statement you make just shows that you have no clue what you are talking about.  The location of the crime does not allow you to invoke constitutional protections.  Constitutional protections are rights the government is obliged to grant because they make the charges. 

Please explain how airport v. submarine makes any possible difference.

Because he did not sneak into the country with seven other guys and materials to commit sabotage.

The location of the crime does not allow you to invoke constitutional protections.  Constitutional protections are rights the government is obliged to grant because they make the charges.

Wait, just a minute ago you said that it was important that Haupt was caught within the U.S. Now you are saying that the location of the crime does not matter.

Make up your mind. Please.

Why, again, are prisoners of war entitled to constitutional protections? You guys keep failing to come up with any authority for your claims.

Because he did not sneak into the country with seven other guys and materials to commit sabotage.

So . . . if a guy sneaks into the country by airplane and plans an attack . . . that somehow means he cannot be an enemy combatant? 

That makes no sense whatsoever. You have failed to distinguish airplane v. submarine. No wonder - there is no difference from a legal point of view.

Wait, just a minute ago you said that it was important that Haupt was caught within the U.S. Now you are saying that the location of the crime does not matter.
Make up your mind. Please.

Every court in the US is obliged to recognize the Constitutional rights of anybody charged.  I am not being inconsistent, you just don’t understand jurisdiction.

LOL jurisdiction, clearly, is not the issue here.

You just don’t understand that there are cases when U.S. citizens are not entitled to constitutional protections. Just as there are times when Fourth Amendment protections do not apply (exigent circumstances, for example).

This, obviously, is one of those cases.

I suppose you think the Fourth Circuit erred. Maybe that is why they are on the bench, and you aren’t.

Why, again, are prisoners of war entitled to constitutional protections? You guys keep failing to come up with any authority for your claims.

What is more puzzling is the lefttards that want to give the Enemy combatants habeus corpus rights. The USA has never given enemy combatants Habeus Corups rights. If they are not American’s they aren’t entitled to constitutional rights.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

Yes, they want to grant unlawful combatants rights that real POWs aren’t even entitled to!

And it completely undercuts the intent of their beloved Geneva Conventions.

Just . . . bizarre.

Just as there are times when Fourth Amendment protections do not apply (exigent circumstances, for example).

This is incorrect.  The Fourth Amendment isn’t rendered inapplicable; only the warrant exception is.  The fourth still applies, and the search still must be reasonable.

Please explain how airport v. submarine makes any possible difference.
Ken McCracken on August 16, 2007 at 07:59 pm.

Sneaking in with a sub one avoids US customs.
Coming in through the airport you have to go through customs and all the security checks enacted since 9/11.

Yes of course you are correct JPE.

Sneaking in with a sub one avoids US customs.
Coming in through the airport you have to go through customs and all the security checks enacted since 9/11.

Again, please explain what possible difference this makes.

Again, please explain what possible difference this makes.

Ken McCracken on August 17, 2007 at 06:43 am

It is different. You just refuse to see the difference.

Perhaps if you could explain the difference, I could see it.

Good points above pointing to Quirin; Padilla isn’t as easily distinguishable.  In Quirin, though, there was substitute due process (commissions / tribunals), whereas Padilla was simply held w/o any kind of due process, even of a lesser kind than the civil system would provide.

What’s galling about the Padilla affair is that the President simply refused to grant even a shadow of due process to Padilla.  Due process can be satisfied through alternate measures (so Quirin tells us), but it can’t be eliminated (see Hamdi).