Appeals Court Orders Jose Padilla released in 30 Days!

FOXCNN

[Dog]

Breaking...

[jwalsh07]

Could you clarify that freepmail for me on the this thread. Not sure what your point is but I like my debate out in the open.

[Lazamataz]

OK, no answer there

No, I gave you an answer, you just didn't like it. The answer is that some times -- if the act is unintentional -- LEO's are given a pass on inflicting casualties on 'collateral targets'.

lets try this one.

I won't play yout game any more. I gave you an answer to your question. I thought I demonstrated it well in the original message, but I must not have.

[jwalsh07]

Whatever.

[Lazamataz]

Whatever.

Excellent, I'm glad you agree with my position.

[tcuoohjohn]

Jose Padilla , whether we like it or not, is a US citizen. The first thing that was said about the Patriot Act was that its special provisions do not apply to US citizens.

Apparently, that wasn't true. I am somewhat chary of a law that can be incrementally expanded at the whim of a bureaucrat particularly when it was passed with assurances that that would never happen.

Either charge Mr. Padilla or cut him loose. It's the law.

[jwalsh07]

Your position is right next to the rest of the lunatics who think Padilla should be treated like a common criminal. You won't find me anywhere near it.

[Lazamataz]

That's okay. Even anti-constitutional freaks like you are protected by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and that's the only thing that matters.

[tcuoohjohn]

Nope...in fact it is your citizenship that makes you subject to treason statutes.

Mr. Padilla is a citizen and no behavior, criminal or not can revoke your citizenship. The only way your can revoke the citizenship of a citizen is by voluntary declaration of the citizen. Period.

[jwalsh07]

The Patriot Act has nothing to do with the case. Not even mentioned in the opinions.

[John Valentine]

Mr. Padilla lost his rights as an American citizen when he decided to take up arms against the United States on behalf of a foreign "prince".

Bush should ignore this foolish court.

[mrsmith]

"Ok, lets take her for example. Say some group aggravates her. The NRA might, but they're too big to all throw in jail. Say she wants to pick on the Tyranny Response Team. They're small, unknowns with less resources so they'll do just fine.

She points her fat finger at them and says they're a bunch of terrorists. She has them rounded up in the middle of the night as domestic terrorists and traitors. The ones that live through the raid are jailed. "

Your example points out just what is wrong with this ruling.
The congress authorized military force against the Al Queda, under it's war power.

Padilla, unlike your example, is (allegedly) subject to military law by act of congress.

The court cravenly did not answer the important question that was before it- how a court should determine whether a citizen is properly held as a renegade- instead it bizarrely pretended that miltary force does not include military detention.

[sport]

No point. I believe that you stated that janet reno stated that there was no legal basis for grabbing bin ladin.

I just opined that she had plenty of legal basis to burn alive the children at Mt. carmel a/k/a Waco.

[John Valentine]

You renounce your citizenship when you take up arms against soldiers from your own country.

No, you don't.

Post your reference, as your unqualified assertion is completely contrary to my understanding.

By the way, I'm going back to research this myself, just to make certain.

[jwalsh07]

Even anti-constitutional freaks like you are protected by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and that's the only thing that matters.

LOL. Why don't you read the decision and the dissent so you can at least pretend like you know what you're talking about.

[Bogie]

#9

Yes, American citizen, right to a speedy trial. Of course, the Constitution!

[tcuoohjohn]

Ah...Federal Felony Renegade

Just where in 18 USC would I find that?

[jwalsh07]

Oh, I'm sorry, wrong thread. A terrible example of government gone crazy in direct contrast to the hysteria regarding Padilla.

[jwalsh07]

The court cravenly did not answer the important question that was before it- how a court should determine whether a citizen is properly held as a renegade- instead it bizarrely pretended that miltary force does not include military detention

There may be 3 or 4 people on this thread who understand that.

[mrsmith]

Get your mommy to help you.

[Lazamataz]

LOL. Why don't you read the decision and the dissent so you can at least pretend like you know what you're talking about.

Luckily the Justices read the Constitution, something that seems to have eluded you.