jose pa-fucking-dilla

lol, and here i am thinking
you mean the guy that mixes
the Cafe Del Mar cd's

Wait is this the puertorrican guy who converted to islam and i don't know what else, got busted and was sent to wherever were he is treated like a terrorist without trial?

Yeah, converted in prison, went to afghanistan, trained to make dirty bombs or what not, and came home only to get sent back to prison.

Admittedly, I don't know the facts but only what I read in the papers, but I'd say Jose's rotting in solitary is pretty low on my list of concerns right about now.

EXACTLY my point Tuffs.

And Ax, no, that's not him lol.

This guy was training to kill Americans, its called TREASON. The reason he wants to be charged is simple...the easy way out...sentence of death for treason.

ugh let him suffer.

Yeah is very low at this moment in my list too. He is really from Chicago, he is from puertorrican descent.

I am only will say this, the guy who bombed the building in Oklahoma did get a trial. Maybe he should too, so that he gets sentenced and instead of rotting with his fellow islamic idiots goes to a regular prison where i am sure they would remember his ass.

I don't care really, kill him even but give him a trial, why not?

He's got an entire line of lawyers doing his legal work for free because they didn't give him a trial.

Lenny, i don't know really i am just asking where those 120,000 U.S. citizens?

[QUOTE=leonardshelby]EXACTLY my point Tuffs.

And Ax, no, that's not him lol.

This guy was training to kill Americans, its called TREASON. The reason he wants to be charged is simple...the easy way out...sentence of death for treason.

ugh let him suffer.[/QUOTE]
That is not suffering. Death is far worse, you are dead, you can't do shit. If he is in Guantanamo, he is with his fellow fanatics benting down, doing basically the same shit he would be doing in afghanistan: nothing. Eating food many other people would put to good use, and breathing air other people would use better than him. Kill him and get over with it. If you want to make him suffer, tell him before he dies that you are going to bury him wrong or do something with his body that Allah would be furious about... I don't know.

hahaha good answer. im not 100% sure on the citizenship thing, im sorry to say.

120,000 were the internment camps for japanese americans during WWII.

As for Jose. There is a really good article in this months plaboy if you want to give it a gander. The idea is that if the president can label anyone a enemy combatant, then what's going to stop him from labeling you. American terrorist's deserve a lawyer and a trial, you don't suspend someone's civil rights just becuase they might be a terrorist. Every american citzen deserves our civil rights be maintained, I don't care if they raped my mother, my daughter, my grandmother and my brother, they still have rights.

Criminals have more rights then you and I will ever have. But he does deserve a trial. I can agree with that. Did he renounce his citizenship or just leave the country for "educational" purposes?

[QUOTE=DillingerEscape] Did he renounce his citizenship or just leave the country for "educational" purposes?[/QUOTE]

Are we obligated to give a fair trial to someone who renounced his citizenship? Couldn't we just take him out back and shoot him?

[QUOTE=jane s.]Are we obligated to give a fair trial to someone who renounced his citizenship? Couldn't we just take him out back and shoot him?[/QUOTE]

That's what I'm saying... If he renounced his citizenship then he doesn't enjoy the same rights as we do. And it would be easier to drag him out back and strap him to ole sparky and have a BBQ.

I like the way you think. Like a soul-less bastard. That's rare nowadays, and I admire that.

[QUOTE=jane s.]I like the way you think. Like a soul-less bastard. That's rare nowadays, and I admire that.[/QUOTE]

I told myself i wasnt going to cry.... Thank you!

[QUOTE=DillingerEscape]That's what I'm saying... If he renounced his citizenship then he doesn't enjoy the same rights as we do. And it would be easier to drag him out back and strap him to ole sparky and have a BBQ.[/QUOTE]
That's is too expensive, if he is in Guantanamo, let's just wrap a couple of explosives and send him to Fidel.

[QUOTE=Xk3zofrenik]That's is too expensive, if he is in Guantanamo, let's just wrap a couple of explosives and send him to Fidel.[/QUOTE]

Castro will be dying any day now... But I'm all for wiring a mofo for sound.... could we send him to France...? They surrender at the very thought of a dozen 12 year olds with BB guns. hmmmm..... I call dibs on France!!!

I really hope none of you vote.

Don't worry, I won't.

[QUOTE=leonardshelby]alright well, i hate this country and moreso its people so much because of this. jose padilla deserves to be in the position he's in. the president, like it or not, has the right to declare anyone an enemy combatant at a time of war.

i mean, come on people, the liberal icon FDR did this to 120,000 INNOCENT people. why are we complaining about one GUILTY guy?[/QUOTE]
sorry matey, not entierly true. a panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 ruling barring the president from declaring a U.S. citizen an “enemy combatant” without congressional authorization. the president needs congressional authorization to declare him an enemy combatant. Attorney General Ashcroft was able to declare him enemy combatant though, despite the fact that padilla had neither the resources, the planning nor the connections to make any dirty bombs. as far as i'm concerned, this is not a matter of national security, but rather he's been talking to the wrong people, as he apparently had his whole life, which really isn't a crime now is it? it's just another one of the government's smoke and mirrors to show the american public that they're keeping us nice and safe.

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/18/padilla.case/]read it here on cnn[/url]

i guess thats perfectly reasonable, if correct. he's still going to prison and still going to suffer.

[QUOTE=leonardshelby]i guess thats perfectly reasonable, if correct. he's still going to prison and still going to suffer.[/QUOTE]
that's the thing, i don't see how he could be sent to prison. the only thing they could hold him for is being a material witness, and that's not punishable. you know, people say how important it is all the time to be able to say what you want about the country and the government. i cherish that ability. yet when it goes against the country and government, why is it people find it so easy to think that the person speaking out against the government has no rights, even if the person said they don't want citizenship? sure if the guy doesn't want to live here, he can feel free to leave, but it's his right to say he doesn't want to live here, and that he wants to make a dirty bomb, and on top of all that, to continue living here, until he actually does something illegal.

i see what you mean, however isn't it true that he was [i]trained[/i] to make dirty-bombs? this is what i gathered from listening to [conversvative] ABC Radio.

[QUOTE=leonardshelby]i see what you mean, however isn't it true that he was [i]trained[/i] to make dirty-bombs? this is what i gathered from listening to [conversvative] ABC Radio.[/QUOTE]
what i've gathered is that he talked to Abu Zubaydah who's reliability is considered to be "uncertain at best". he was supposedly shown how to wire bombs, but i've not read that he was trained on dirty bombs specifically, just that he had asked about dirty bombs.

so the fact that there was a risk that he possibly could be attepting to help al-queda or whatnot, isn't that enough a reason to detain him? he wasn't just at the wrong place at the wrong time, like you had said, rather he was [I]seeking[/I] the information himself.

i belive that's called [I]treason[/I].

[QUOTE=leonardshelby]so the fact that there was a risk that he possibly could be attepting to help al-queda or whatnot, isn't that enough a reason to detain him? he wasn't just at the wrong place at the wrong time, like you had said, rather he was [I]seeking[/I] the information himself.

i belive that's called [I]treason[/I].[/QUOTE]
nope, not treason. there's no crime involved in seeking out any organization. now if he had actually taken up arms against the US, that would be treason. unless he actually does against the country, by taking action, he still deserves and should be granted his full rights as a citizen.

Just like there is no treason in white supremacists training and running around with Guns somewhere with their dillusinal perspective on how the Goverment is controlled by minorities. They do have every intent in overthrow it.

ha ha, saw this thread, read the title quickly, and thought it was about jorge posada.

shows where my priorities are.

[QUOTE=Xk3zofrenik]Just like there is no treason in white supremacists training and running around with Guns somewhere with their dillusinal perspective on how the Goverment is controlled by minorities. They do have every intent in overthrow it.[/QUOTE]
and until they do, they can have as many of their club meetings as they want.

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]and until they do, they can have as many of their club meetings as they want.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. They can't do shit until you hijack the plane and steer it over those them towers. God i love the fucking US of A.

[QUOTE=Xk3zofrenik]Exactly. They can't do shit until you hijack the plane and steer it over those them towers. God i love the fucking US of A.[/QUOTE]
i'd rather that than having the government telling everyone what they can and cannot say, especially if they make it punishable.

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]i'd rather that than having the government telling everyone what they can and cannot say, especially if they make it punishable.[/QUOTE]
If only the goverment had the resources to really enforce what people can or cannot say, which they can't. So does tha paranoia really worth peoples lives?
If my son was in any target of a soon to be terrorist. Fuck that little right, really. What good does a right do if you are dead?

[QUOTE=Xk3zofrenik]If only the goverment had the resources to really enforce what people can or cannot say, which they can't. So does tha paranoia really worth peoples lives?
If my son was in any target of a soon to be terrorist. Fuck that little right, really. What good does a right do if you are dead?[/QUOTE]
i can see what you're saying.
i don't think much is worth a person's life. but that doesn't deny the fact that this country was founded on freedom of speech, and that freedom of speech is one of the most important issues that is promised by the constitution, and also one of the most important issues the government keeps trying to take away.
i wouldn't want any terrorist to succeed, but i keep coming back to padilla, and thinking, why then, why didn't they wait until they had something on him? evidence, a network (as most terrorist have), or even the resources to complete what his supposed mission is? they could have kept tabs on him until he led them to someone they could arrest, or something they could arrest him on, other than talking to people in an organization that america doesn't approve of.

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]i can see what you're saying.
i don't think much is worth a person's life. but that doesn't deny the fact that this country was founded on freedom of speech, and that freedom of speech is one of the most important issues that is promised by the constitution, and also one of the most important issues the government keeps trying to take away.
i wouldn't want any terrorist to succeed, but i keep coming back to padilla, and thinking, why then, why didn't they wait until they had something on him? evidence, a network (as most terrorist have), or even the resources to complete what his supposed mission is? they could have kept tabs on him until he led them to someone they could arrest, or something they could arrest him on, other than talking to people in an organization that america doesn't approve of.[/QUOTE]
The same reason why 9/11 happened and could had happened at any time. The goverment is not that all-seeing and powerful entity, not even close. It is not very efficient either. It spends a lot of money to even do small things. Like $1,407 an hour for 4 days, just to catch 6 cuban inmigrants.
Yes, freedom of speech is important, but where is it more important? Defending a fanatic who is just a timetable for death around the corner? Or in the classrooms?
Are you willing to pay his trial?
Fuck that, really. Freedom of speech has other battles and this one is not worth it. Can't let that right protect terrorists instead of protecting those who deserve to be protected.

[QUOTE=Xk3zofrenik]The same reason why 9/11 happened and could had happened at any time. The goverment is not that all-seeing and powerful entity, not even close. It is not very efficient either. It spends a lot of money to even do small things. Like $1,407 an hour for 4 days, just to catch 6 cuban inmigrants.
Yes, freedom of speech is important, but where is it more important? Defending a fanatic who is just a timetable for death around the corner? Or in the classrooms?
Are you willing to pay his trial?
Fuck that, really. Freedom of speech has other battles and this one is not worth it. Can't let that right protect terrorists instead of protecting those who deserve to be protected.[/QUOTE]
i just can't see punishing someone who might not even do anything.
it makes me think of that tom cruise movie where they can see into the future and arrest people before they commit the crime (i never saw it but i got the general gist from the previews). it just doesn't make sense to arrest someone for not doing anything yet.
the guy could be all hot wind. would you want to be sent to jail without actually doing anything illegal? that's why i immediately thought, why didn't they follow the fucker and gathered evidence? or is our government suddenly all knowing?
fact is they had nothing on this guy. fact is they only heard that he might be thinking about making a bomb. fact is they could have easily waited until he had the materials to make his bomb. fact is the guy is innocent of doing anything legally wrong, and yet he was locked away in prison, and then in military holding under the lablel "enemy combatant".

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]i just can't see punishing someone who might not even do anything.
it makes me think of that tom cruise movie where they can see into the future and arrest people before they commit the crime (i never saw it but i got the general gist from the previews). it just doesn't make sense to arrest someone for not doing anything yet.
the guy could be all hot wind. would you want to be sent to jail without actually doing anything illegal? that's why i immediately thought, why didn't they follow the fucker and gathered evidence? or is our government suddenly all knowing?
fact is they had nothing on this guy. fact is they only heard that he might be thinking about making a bomb. fact is they could have easily waited until he had the materials to make his bomb. fact is the guy is innocent of doing anything legally wrong, and yet he was locked away in prison, and then in military holding under the lablel "enemy combatant".[/QUOTE]
Minority Report.
It does make sense in a personal way. If you go by it on a political correctness way, of course it doesn't.

For example:
If i for any reason, I take your name, your address and simply watch you and your family, develop a plan and yet don't break any laws before planting a bomb with me, you and your family inside and blow us all up, how would you feel about that cop around the corner who noticed me with unusual intentions a week ago, that noticed my "I am going to kill Trypdwire tomorrow" T-Shirt and couldn't do shit about it because it would violate my rights.

Now we are not talking about a 13-year old with angst and wanting to blow up his school, that could be any kid. We are talking about a person who affiliated with a terrorist group in order to get back at the country that imprisoned him. He wasn't there to make Girl Scout Cookies. Guilty by association, intent and just having the balls to ask how to make a bomb. Fuck him. He is definitely not worth enforcing the freedom of speech right for.

Also, that movie showed why that all-knowing system didn't work, it wasn't all-knowing in the first place. It could be fooled.

If anything i like Equilibrium better.

actually that would be a stalking violation. which is legally wrong in my state. what padilla has done is not legally wrong. show me any law that says you cannot claim to want to blow something up. if so i'll have to go to jail, i've said i would like to see certain places go the way of the buffalo.

you're right, he's not worth it. but again, he's not guilty of anything. he didn't have materials to make the bomb, he didn't have anything illegal on him, he didn't break any law. what he did do was get pissed off and talk to someone about what he would like to see happen. i'd like to see people i "serve" at work come to an unpleasant end, should i be sent to jail for saying that? what about if i said i'd like to see more than half of the politicans in america come to an unpleasant end? where do you draw the line? i expect that my government cannot make that decision for me. i only expect them to enforce something if they can at least prove that he had resources, materials, or even a plan to make his intentions more than intentions. right now all they can say he's guilty of is talking, talking against a government. that's what he's been arrested for, talking. nothing more, nothing less.

trypd, the point is, he [i]is[/i] guilty by association. he had full intent to destroy.

[QUOTE=leonardshelby]trypd, the point is, he [i]is[/i] guilty by association. he had full intent to destroy.[/QUOTE]
understood.
how is it that you need proof that someone killed someone else, yet you don't need proof that jose [i]intended[/i] to make a bomb?
intent is ambigious. they have no proof that he was going to build such a bomb. so tell me, what crime did he commit? what wrong did he do?
intentions are no basis for arrest, no materials, no plans, no resources. doesn't sound to me like he was doing anything but traveling, traveling and talking.

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]understood.
how is it that you need proof that someone killed someone else, yet you don't need proof that jose [i]intended[/i] to make a bomb?
intent is ambigious. they have no proof that he was going to build such a bomb. so tell me, what crime did he commit? what wrong did he do?
intentions are no basis for arrest, no materials, no plans, no resources. doesn't sound to me like he was doing anything but traveling, traveling and talking.[/QUOTE]
Look. Jose Padilla was wrongly processed, accused and jailed illegaly. There is no hard evidence, there was no court that judged upon any evidence, there was not even an intention to bring him to a court were his innocence would be put on trial. The simply declared him a terrorist in a time where is easy to declare one.

My point is he should be declared a terrorist, even if its illegal, immoral, stupid or whatever. Without any further proof other than he was talking to the wrong people.

Why?

#1 Because he is not talking to other more passive[within this context] Islamic countries. The ones they shot their wives in the head but still like USA, mind you. He was not necessarily getting Girl Scout Cookies. Talking to Al-Qaeda.

-- Now... Didn't the president say he considered a terrorist those who support or align themselves with terrorist organizations?
Didn't he meet them in foreign soil? Wasn't the questions he asked about bombs?--

You mean to tell me that the president is ready to start a war with any country that aligns itself with Al-Qaeda, yet he cannot declare a person who aligns himself with Al-Qaeda?

Yes he can. Or at least he already did. All the people who are in Guantanamo fall into that description.

So unless you also want to free the other "terrorists", the real issue is within Padilla being U.S. citizen. In that case he should be on trial for treason on grounds of he going over to an enemy an align with them. If there is no law there should be one about it.

Why?

Because then the laws would not protect us from person like him that are free until innocent people become the "fee" to get men like him on jail. People will get killed because at the first mistake the goverment makes this guy will go off. You might say there is no proof he might do such a thing, we'll i wouldn't risk peoples lives so easily, not to a person who traveled a long way to meet public enemy #1. That should be treason in any shape or form. If not the system is a failure.

i can't say i agree. they guy hasn't done anything wrong. the president can't declare war. only congress can. so that's one reason why the president can't just declare an individual an enemy combatant. all in all, the guy hasn't DONE anything wrong. sure, he may have talked about doing someting wrong, but what people talk about and what people actually do are hardly always the same thing.