Where did the "dirty bomb" go?

[kallend 2,146]

Apparently the government makes no mention of the alleged "dirty bomb" in the Padilla trial. Another myth from Bush & Co to justify raping the Bill of Rights?

www.suntimes.com/news/metro/384536,CST-NWS-padilla14.article

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051300626.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[masterrig 1]

Of all the pages in the indictment, not one mention of 'dirty bomb'... and that is what he was originally charged with! That's nuts!


Chuck

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Of all the pages in the indictment, not one mention of 'dirty bomb'... and that is what he was originally charged with! That's nuts!


Chuck

He was not initially charged. Remember, there was a lot of uproar about how long he could be held without being charged. The "dirty bomb" part was an allegation. It is disappointing to see its absence now that the trial is starting.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[willard 0]

Quote

"The crimes he has been charged with pale in comparison to the initial allegations," said University of Miami law professor Stephen Vladeck. "This is a far cry from being a major front in the government's war on terrorism."

Taken from the Washington Post article. It is common for prosecuters to decline to follow up on allegations with charges in order to prosecute on something they consider more serious and/or easier to get a conviction on.

It's ironic that you complain about this and yet feel a person does not have the right to carry a gun to defend themselves. Who is it that wants to rape the Bill of Rights?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

It is common for prosecuters to decline to follow up on allegations with charges in order to prosecute on something they consider more serious and/or easier to get a conviction on.

More serious than plotting to plant a dirty bomb? It is extremely uncommon, by the way, for accused persons to be held in custody for 5 years on suspicion of crimes they are not even charged with when the case reaches court. Or at least it used to be uncommon.

Quote

It's ironic that you complain about this and yet feel a person does not have the right to carry a gun to defend themselves. Who is it that wants to rape the Bill of Rights?

Right. I'm sure that not being able to carry a gun everywhere you go would be just as serious as being locked up for 5 years without the right to a trial.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

It's ironic that you complain about this and yet feel a person does not have the right to carry a gun to defend themselves.

1. You are wrong (again).
2. What do guns have to do with the Padilla trial? Try to focus.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Remster 30]

This admin has a very hard time with finding WMDs...

Remster

[ryoder 1,590]

But as they said in "Star Chamber": "He must be guilty of something!"

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

It is common for prosecuters to decline to follow up on allegations with charges in order to prosecute on something they consider more serious and/or easier to get a conviction on.

More serious than plotting to plant a dirty bomb? It is extremely uncommon, by the way, for accused persons to be held in custody for 5 years on suspicion of crimes they are not even charged with when the case reaches court. Or at least it used to be uncommon.

Quote

It's ironic that you complain about this and yet feel a person does not have the right to carry a gun to defend themselves. Who is it that wants to rape the Bill of Rights?

Right. I'm sure that not being able to carry a gun everywhere you go would be just as serious as being locked up for 5 years without the right to a trial.

Never implied that it was. Only that a violation of rights is a violation of rights. Can't decry one and not the others.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

It's ironic that you complain about this and yet feel a person does not have the right to carry a gun to defend themselves.

1. You are wrong (again).
2. What do guns have to do with the Padilla trial? Try to focus.

I was wrong? About what? Do you or do you not feel a person has the right to carry a firearm to protect themselves? If you do then yes, I was wrong. If you don't then I was.

Guns have nothing to do with the Padilla trial. I mentioned to subject to point out an irony.

Padilla being held this long is far from something only the Bush-heads have done. There is plenty of evidence to prove he was involved in a plot to harm large numbers of people. I don't feel a bit sorry for him.

[billvon 3,111]

>Can't decry one and not the others.

We seemed to have no problem decrying Saddam's violations of human rights while ignoring the vast majority of rights violations in other countries.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Of all the pages in the indictment, not one mention of 'dirty bomb'... and that is what he was originally charged with! That's nuts!


Chuck

He was not initially charged. Remember, there was a lot of uproar about how long he could be held without being charged. The "dirty bomb" part was an allegation. It is disappointing to see its absence now that the trial is starting.

______________________________________

Now, that you jog my memory... yes, I do remember. I agree with you, about it being disappointing.


Chuck

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Can't decry one and not the others.

We seemed to have no problem decrying Saddam's violations of human rights while ignoring the vast majority of rights violations in other countries.

Stop weaseling with talk of rights outside our borders.

If no American could carry a gun, it would be a lot easier for the Administration (whichever) to put people in secret jail at will. That was the point being made.

[billvon 3,111]

>Stop weaseling with talk of rights outside our borders.

OK. Then anyone who whines about second amendment rights and doesn't care about a women's right to choose is a hypocrite.

(Once again, an example of comparing two things that should not be compared.)

[mnealtx 0]

Which amendment would that be (womens' right to choose), so that we can compare apples to apples?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[willard 0]

I have a right to keep and arm bears!
And a right to silence my remains!

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

If no American could carry a gun, it would be a lot easier for the Administration (whichever) to put people in secret jail at will. That was the point being made.

Really?

So if FBI agents came to your house to arrest you, but would not tell you what you were under suspicion of, would you shoot them or threaten them with a firearm? Would you expect to remain free if you did?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It is common for prosecuters to decline to follow up on allegations with charges in order to prosecute on something they consider more serious and/or easier to get a conviction on.

More serious than plotting to plant a dirty bomb? It is extremely uncommon, by the way, for accused persons to be held in custody for 5 years on suspicion of crimes they are not even charged with when the case reaches court. Or at least it used to be uncommon.

Quote

It's ironic that you complain about this and yet feel a person does not have the right to carry a gun to defend themselves. Who is it that wants to rape the Bill of Rights?

Right. I'm sure that not being able to carry a gun everywhere you go would be just as serious as being locked up for 5 years without the right to a trial.

Never implied that it was. Only that a violation of rights is a violation of rights. Can't decry one and not the others.

You might want to search the archives back to when Padilla was first imprisoned without charge, to see how the devout Bush supporters (most of whom fervently declare their support for the 2nd amendment) rationalized the violation of Padilla's rights.

PS, did you find anyplace yet where I argued against the 2nd amendment? Thought not.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

It is common for prosecuters to decline to follow up on allegations with charges in order to prosecute on something they consider more serious and/or easier to get a conviction on.

More serious than plotting to plant a dirty bomb? It is extremely uncommon, by the way, for accused persons to be held in custody for 5 years on suspicion of crimes they are not even charged with when the case reaches court. Or at least it used to be uncommon.

Quote

It's ironic that you complain about this and yet feel a person does not have the right to carry a gun to defend themselves. Who is it that wants to rape the Bill of Rights?

Right. I'm sure that not being able to carry a gun everywhere you go would be just as serious as being locked up for 5 years without the right to a trial.

Never implied that it was. Only that a violation of rights is a violation of rights. Can't decry one and not the others.

You might want to search the archives back to when Padilla was first imprisoned without charge, to see how the devout Bush supporters (most of whom fervently declare their support for the 2nd amendment) rationalized the violation of Padilla's rights.

PS, did you find anyplace yet where I argued against the 2nd amendment? Thought not.

Never said you did. Only that you have an issue with people carrying for protection. Read a bit more carefully next time.

BTW, have you found a suitable replacement for DU? One that performs as well or better but without the health problems? Thought not.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

If no American could carry a gun, it would be a lot easier for the Administration (whichever) to put people in secret jail at will. That was the point being made.

Really?

So if FBI agents came to your house to arrest you, but would not tell you what you were under suspicion of, would you shoot them or threaten them with a firearm? Would you expect to remain free if you did?

the first X people would be carted off. After that, people would start answering the door differently. That might escalate into full out insurrection, or the Feds might learn due process again.

But without that option, they haul away as many people as they like. Think back to the Nazi related adage about not speaking up and injustice until they come for you.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

the first X people would be carted off. After that, people would start answering the door differently. That might escalate into full out insurrection, or the Feds might learn due process again.

But why would it? What would the headline read in the news - "Terrorist suspect shoots law enforcement officers." Would you feel any sympathy towards someone if you read that story in a newspaper? Would that story make you feel more or less solidarity with the government? Would the deaths of FBI agents at the hands of terrorist suspects with reported Al Qaeda connections make you more or less inclined to support tougher, less constitutional legislation?

And you did not answer my question. If FBI officers with proper ID knocked on your door and said they were here to arrest you on unspecified grounds, would you use a firearm against them?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

But why would it? What would the headline read in the news - "Terrorist suspect shoots law enforcement officers." Would you feel any sympathy towards someone if you read that story in a newspaper?

Well, there was considerable sentiment that the FBI had their share of blame in the David Koresh cookout in Waco.

Quote

And you did not answer my question. If FBI officers with proper ID knocked on your door and said they were here to arrest you on unspecified grounds, would you use a firearm against them?

Seems impossible to answer without being there. Too simplified a scenario to have a real answer. How many others you know it happened to has a big bearing on what sort of risk you're willing to take.

Realistically, odds are pretty low that one would have opportunity after being told they're under arrest for nothing. More likely you're already cuffed at that point. You'd probably have needed to refuse to open the door first.

[willard 0]

Quote

More serious than plotting to plant a dirty bomb? It is extremely uncommon, by the way, for accused persons to be held in custody for 5 years on suspicion of crimes they are not even charged with when the case reaches court. Or at least it used to be uncommon.

The seriousness of his crimes is a matter for the judge and prosecutor to determine. You may feel they are wrong, that is your right.

Padilla was held as an enemy combatant. Rules are different for enemy combatants and as such his rights were not violated no matter what you think.

Quote

Padilla, 36, a former Chicago gang member and Muslim convert, has been in federal custody since his May 2002 arrest at O'Hare International Airport. He was initially accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" inside the United States and was held for three-and-a-half years at a Navy brig as an enemy combatant, but those allegations are not part of the Miami case.

[billvon 3,111]

>Rules are different for enemy combatants and as such his rights were not
>violated no matter what you think.

The problem is that "enemy combatant" is a term created to deny a person of his rights; it has no basis in constitutional law. I mean, suppose a state created a term "unauthorized weapons carrier" and then claimed that unauthorized carriers had no right to bear arms (at least without special state authorization?) Would you support such a definition, based on the reasoning that "rules are different for unauthorized carriers?"

It has often been said that the only rights you really have are the rights that are applied to everyone, no matter how undesireable they seem. This is a good case of this. If a special class can be created for Padilla, a special class can be created for anyone.

Some have argued that US citizens alone are covered under the US constitution. This has been proven false several times by various courts, but even that doesn't apply here - Padilla _was_ a US citizen. It makes it a more clear case.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Padilla was held as an enemy combatant. Rules are different for enemy combatants and as such his rights were not violated no matter what you think.

He was an american citizen, arrested in Chicago!

I take it you would have no problem with being arrested by the FBI on suspicion of terrorism and being denied trial for 5 years because you were designated as an "Enemy combatant". I guess you would simply see it as your justice system in action?

Like Bill says, the term "enemy combatant" has absolutely zero basis in law or the constitution. It has been specifically invented to allow the gov't to bypass constitutional rights. If they can apply it to him, they can apply it to you.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?