Where did the "dirty bomb" go?

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

How do you know he wasn't?

I've never said that I know he wasn't.

All through this discussion I have been questioning your assertion that you know that Padilla did plot to plant a dirty bomb. An assertion you have not retracted even though you have no idea what evidence (or lack of) there is against him, and an assertion that you have supported by saying "but he was arrested, he must be guilty!!"

You are hanging on to a completely untenable position. There is simply no way that you can assert that Padilla is guilty, and asserting that you know he was guilty because he was arrested is naive in the extreme.

1: I never said he was guilty because he was arrested. You want to think I did. I said he was arrested because there was evidence of some kind. Big difference there in case you need that pointed out. I also said the evidence neede to arrest is much less than the evidence needed to take to trial and even that is much less than the amount needed to convict.

2: The prosecution has on hand an application to attend a terrorist training camp. The app. has Padilla's fingerprints on it and he is known to have attended. That is the hard evidence. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence indicating the rest.

Not enough for you? Again, too bad. You aren't the one making the decisions in the case are you? So, as far as this case concerning Padilla, your opinion means about the same as mine....diddly squat.

In your opinion I am naive to think he is guilty. In my opinion I think you are naive to believe he wasn't planning to do anything.

[willard 0]

Quote

Why don't you spell out for us in detail the conditions under which you think it OK for the government to rape the Constitution? It would save a lot of bickering.

Why don't you instead spell out for us the instances where you don't think the government is raping the Constitution.
I'll save you the trouble...the answer is "none". Why don't you bitch about something else for a change? Better yet, why don't you spend your time doing something constructive instead of bitching about what other people are doing?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

1: I never said he was guilty because he was arrested.

Hah!

"Padilla DID conspire with known terrorists to build and detonate a "dirty bomb" here in the U.S."

"I, unlike you, have at least a moderate amount of faith in our government and trust that they have enough evidence to prove those charges."

Anyway, do you now want to admit that when you said "Padilla DID conspire to build a dirty bomb" you were asserting something you couldn't possibly know?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Better yet, why don't you spend your time doing something constructive instead of bitching about what other people are doing?

Yeah guys, everyone stop investigating and discussing the bad things Willard's heros do. Keep your eyes down. Don't involve yourself in the affairs of your government (when it's republican). That's the american way.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

1: I never said he was guilty because he was arrested.

Hah!

"Padilla DID conspire with known terrorists to build and detonate a "dirty bomb" here in the U.S."

"I, unlike you, have at least a moderate amount of faith in our government and trust that they have enough evidence to prove those charges."

Anyway, do you now want to admit that when you said "Padilla DID conspire to build a dirty bomb" you were asserting something you couldn't possibly know?

Good job at evading the question. What part of "I never said he was guilty because he was arrested" don't you understand? I've explained to you TWICE now that I am fully aware of the relation between evidence needed to arest vs try vs convict. Evidently you don't understand that simple concept.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Better yet, why don't you spend your time doing something constructive instead of bitching about what other people are doing?

Yeah guys, everyone stop investigating and discussing the bad things Willard's heros do. Keep your eyes down. Don't involve yourself in the affairs of your government (when it's republican). That's the american way.

That's just the problem...they don't want to investigate. They automatically make the assumption that if the Bush administration did it, then it has to be against the Constitution. I suspect you fall right in there with them.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Good job at evading the question. What part of "I never said he was guilty because he was arrested" don't you understand? I've explained to you TWICE now that I am fully aware of the relation between evidence needed to arest vs try vs convict.

Anyone can say that they understand something, demonstrating that understanding is a different thing.

Lets examine - you stated that Padilla DID (your emphasis) conspire to plant a dirty bomb. I said prove it. You said "what makes you think the government can't prove it?" I said "You said he DID it, prove it." You said "The government must have enough evidence to prove it because they arrested him."

So do you see that when you say that you are sure that Padilla DID it, and that you are sure that the government has enough evidence to prove his guilt "because they went to the trouble of arresting him" it makes it very difficult for me to believe that you do understand the standards of evidence?

Finally, do you admit that when you said "Padilla DID it" that you were asserting something you could not possibly know?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Good job at evading the question. What part of "I never said he was guilty because he was arrested" don't you understand? I've explained to you TWICE now that I am fully aware of the relation between evidence needed to arest vs try vs convict.

Anyone can say that they understand something, demonstrating that understanding is a different thing.

Lets examine - you stated that Padilla DID (your emphasis) conspire to plant a dirty bomb. I said prove it. You said "what makes you think the government can't prove it?" I said "You said he DID it, prove it." You said "The government must have enough evidence to prove it because they arrested him."

So do you see that when you say that you are sure that Padilla DID it, and that you are sure that the government has enough evidence to prove his guilt "because they went to the trouble of arresting him" it makes it very difficult for me to believe that you do understand the standards of evidence?

Finally, do you admit that when you said "Padilla DID it" that you were asserting something you could not possibly know?

Oh for crying out loud.

The Government had sufficient evidence to take Padilla into custody for conspiring to build and use a "dirty bomb"

Does that make you feel better? Did it really change anything? Padilla is still in costody, I still feel he belongs there, you still feel sorry for him and want him turned loose, and my neighbors dog still barks too much.

I have no obligation to justify my opinion to you and even less to justify why my government takes one of it's own citizens into custody for suspicion of plotting mass murder.

Now you can go back to Jakee-World where everything is peaches & cream, where perfect harmony is disrupted only by the sounds of butterflies fluttering in the air.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Now you can go back to Jakee-World where everything is peaches & cream, where perfect harmony is disrupted only by the sounds of butterflies fluttering in the air.

If I had my choice I'd pick Jakee-World over Willard-World where the government ignores its own defining document's limitations on its power, destroys people's lives in secret, and hides information about its actions to prevent the peepul from learning enough to piss them off. In Willard-World, King Willard lectures the peepul to keep quiet, stop noticing problems with the government, and just let them do whatever they want without limits.

I like peaches & cream a lot more.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 3,111]

>The Government had sufficient evidence to take Padilla into custody
>for conspiring to build and use a "dirty bomb"

No. All we know is that the government did in fact take him into custody. As we know, many people have been taken into custody on false, imagined or fabricated charges.

>I still feel he belongs there

-----------------------------
Section. 9.

. . . .

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
----------------------------------------------

[airdvr 210]

One plausible reason for waiting so long to charge him is the possibility that taking him, or any of these people to trial would require revealing souce information and blowing a valuable intelligence asset.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[airdvr 210]

unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

It does allow for exceptions. In my book 9/11 was an invasion...an act of war on our own soil

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Now you can go back to Jakee-World where everything is peaches & cream, where perfect harmony is disrupted only by the sounds of butterflies fluttering in the air.

If I had my choice I'd pick Jakee-World over Willard-World where the government ignores its own defining document's limitations on its power, destroys people's lives in secret, and hides information about its actions to prevent the peepul from learning enough to piss them off. In Willard-World, King Willard lectures the peepul to keep quiet, stop noticing problems with the government, and just let them do whatever they want without limits.

I like peaches & cream a lot more.

See, you're confused again. Your country has the monarchy, not mine. We got rid of them over 200 years ago.
In Willard-World people can't always do what they want. If they are a threat to others we lock 'em up. Don't like it? Tough. You don't have to. After all, you have Jakee-World where nobody ever does bad things.

[billvon 3,111]

>In my book 9/11 was an invasion...an act of war on our own sole.

So was World War II and the Cold War (many people considered Russian presence in Cuba an invasion of our territory.) And indeed during that time the same sort of abuses (McCarthyism, Japanese internment) were seen. And in both cases we realized we screwed up later.

We'll eventually realize we screwed up here, too. I hope that realization comes sooner rather than later.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

See, you're confused again. Your country has the monarchy, not mine. We got rid of them over 200 years ago.

Maybe a little canadian history would be useful here. Let me educate you. The monarchy here is symbolic only, has none of those characteristics I know well from the U.S., and this country by and large doesn't ...

nah... forget it.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[willard 0]

Nice of you to post that, but you know how much of that is in Padillas corner since we are at war with terrorism and he was cooperating with the enemy?

None of it. Nada. Zilch.

I stand by my view that he is exactly where he should be until determined to be of no threat.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

See, you're confused again. Your country has the monarchy, not mine. We got rid of them over 200 years ago.

Maybe a little canadian history would be useful here. Let me educate you. The monarchy here is symbolic only, has none of those characteristics I know well from the U.S., and this country by and large doesn't ...

nah... forget it.

You are quite right. I meant to address that response to Jakee but you got it instead. My bad.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Now you can go back to Jakee-World where everything is peaches & cream, where perfect harmony is disrupted only by the sounds of butterflies fluttering in the air.

Oh I see. So simply because I point out that you cannot possibly know that Padilla is guilty of trying to build a nuclear device (a crime that he has never been charged with) simply because he was arrested and that accusation was given as one (of several) justifications..... then I must live in a world with no bad guys or anything in it?

You are really with it today, aren't you?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Quote

Quote

See, you're confused again. Your country has the monarchy, not mine. We got rid of them over 200 years ago.

Maybe a little canadian history would be useful here. Let me educate you. The monarchy here is symbolic only, has none of those characteristics I know well from the U.S., and this country by and large doesn't ...

nah... forget it.

You are quite right. I meant to address that response to Jakee but you got it instead. My bad.

We have the same monarchy

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

You are quite right. I meant to address that response to Jakee but you got it instead. My bad.

We have the same monarchy

True, although dear Betty is even more hands-off here than she is at home. It's incomprehensible to me how someone could complain that the british monarchy leads to any significant problems any more. She's a wealthy historical curiosity with no political power whatsoever. The british monarchy is structurally absolutely harmless.

Do you think willard believes her guards behead dissidents or something?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 3,111]

>I stand by my view that he is exactly where he should be until determined
>to be of no threat.

And I will stand by the US constitution. Too many people have fought and died to protect it to throw it away when we become scared.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

2: The prosecution has on hand an application to attend a terrorist training camp. The app. has Padilla's fingerprints on it and he is known to have attended. That is the hard evidence. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence indicating the rest.

I've never seen an application for terrorist training camp. Do they have to write essays?

So does this mean that you would also support the indefinite holding of people who attending tactical gun training courses like the ones near Vegas?

I wasn't aware we had a law against going to camp in the first place.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

2: The prosecution has on hand an application to attend a terrorist training camp. The app. has Padilla's fingerprints on it and he is known to have attended. That is the hard evidence. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence indicating the rest.

I've never seen an application for terrorist training camp. Do they have to write essays?

So does this mean that you would also support the indefinite holding of people who attending tactical gun training courses like the ones near Vegas?

I wasn't aware we had a law against going to camp in the first place.

Maybe you should pose those questions to someone else. Read the articles Kallend supplied links to. The info is there.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Maybe you should pose those questions to someone else. Read the articles Kallend supplied links to. The info is there.

Yeah, there's really no point posing the questions to you. I posted it largely as a rhetorical one.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

2: The prosecution has on hand an application to attend a terrorist training camp. The app. has Padilla's fingerprints on it and he is known to have attended. That is the hard evidence. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence indicating the rest.

I've never seen an application for terrorist training camp. Do they have to write essays?

So does this mean that you would also support the indefinite holding of people who attending tactical gun training courses like the ones near Vegas?

I wasn't aware we had a law against going to camp in the first place.

I wonder how many pieces of paper in this world have my fingerprints on them.

I bet if I had willard imprisoned for several years without access to a lawyer I could produce quite a lot of things with his fingerprints on them.

...

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