CNN reports: "Jose Padilla is found guilty on charges he conspired to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism."
The jury in the Jose Padilla terror trial has convicted the American on charges of conspiracy to support Islamic terrorism overseas.
Jose Padilla was originally accused of planning a "dirty bomb" attack in the U.S.
The verdict came after less than two days of deliberations, according to a U.S. District Court official.
Padilla and two co-defendants were convicted on all counts.
Padilla pleaded not guilty. At his trial, defense attorneys argued Padilla went overseas only to study Islam.
IN THIS CASE, What does "studying Islam" mean?
Learning effective ways to kill infidels?
That's how the jury saw it.
17 comments:
Quit screwing around, "dakotaboy."
You note my link supporting Israel, but you miss the Christian blogger link right under it?
You claim to be familiar with my blog entries, yet you're clueless about my religious beliefs.
You're a fraud. Take your troll talk somewhere else.
Apology accepted.
Let's leave it at that.
It doesn't sound to me like they are trying to make a martyr out of him. It sounds like they are describing the case how it happened. By the way, stop portraying the "liberal media," there is very little liberal media. The only real one I have read in the last decade was the Boston Phoenix. Almost all media is owned by conservatives. Many reporters may be liberal, but the media is not.
Stop reading conspiracies into all these things.
Thanks for the link, and I hope your readers follow it and read everything I said, not just what you chose to quote.
I care not whether Padilla is guilty or innocent. I care that he was denied his basic rights as a US Citizen. The "conservative" Supreme Court is on my side on this issue.
Just ponder this... what happens when a "liberal" is President. Would you want them to do what our current President has done? Think about who a "liberal" might want to lock up indefinitely.
When a lib is president, and someday one is bound to be, I most definitely would want that person to protect me and my family from terrorists.
You have totally missed the point of my post. I am not commenting on terrorism. I am commenting on the President not following the rule of law. Padilla should have been charged with his crimes back in 2002, not in 2005. Instead he was illegally held in a military prison for three and a half years.
My post is about civil liberties not about terrorism. Can you see the distinction?
Yes, I see the distinction. I understand that you're focusing on civil liberties.
I can also see that you don't view the U.S. to be at war.
You're of the "terrorism is a crime, not an act of war" mentality.
That 9/11 was a hell of a crime, wasn't it?
No you can not see what I think.
The US is at war. Invading Afghanistan can be justified. Invading Iraq can not. Our war in Iraq is creating more terrorists, not vanquishing them.
Padilla was not part of the 9/11 plot. And yes, as a US citizen his actions were a crime. Just as Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma City bombing was a crime. What about someone that calls in a bomb threat to a grade school? Crime or Terrorism?
Should McVeigh have been locked up for three years without access to a lawyer? Should President Clinton have done that? Just as McVeigh was brought to trial following our rules of law, so should have Padilla.
We have laws. The President should not be allowed to break them regardless of the political or terrorist leanings of the suspect. Especially if that suspect is a US Citizen.
It's clear that you don't understand the nature of the war and the enemy.
This is a different sort of war. It doesn't have traditional borders. We're not dealing with distinct territories. We're at war with a mindset.
Al Qaeda and its sympathizers weren't just in Afghanistan in the mid-90s when the 9/11 plot was hatched. They weren't just in Afghanistan when the attacks were carried out. There were cells throughout the world. Zarqawi was in Iraq BEFORE the U.S. invaded in March of 2003.
Regarding McVeigh--
(Disclaimer: I'm not defending McVeigh and his actions in any way.)
Padilla's case is different from that of McVeigh's in that Padilla was aiding and abetting a hostile foreign entity that had attacked the U.S. and vowed to continue its war.
I acknowledge that it's a bit of a gray area because of Padilla's American citizenship and his rights as a citizen.
In the case of this war, the enemy can be a citizen living in the U.S. -- a very different sort of enemy from past wars against defined countries and their populations intent on doing harm to the U.S. and its citizens.
What sort of "American citizen" works with avowed foreign enemies of America during wartime to wreak havoc on the country and murder fellow citizens?
I understand what is going on very well, thank you. Please stop claiming to know how I view things or what I understand. I do not fit into a box with a label on it.
The war on terrorism is a different war. In which case, why did we invade a sovereign nation with traditional borders and distinct territory? I agree that we are at war with a mindset. My opinion is our president has made that mindset more determined by invading Iraq and staying there for over four years.
But again I must say that my post was not about terrorism. It was about civil liberties. You admit that it is a gray area and that Padilla had rights. Those rights were trampled on by our President. You ask "What sort of "American citizen" works with avowed foreign enemies of America during wartime to wreak havoc on the country and murder fellow citizens?"
The answer is a criminal, a likely treasonous criminal. A criminal that has the right to a trial by jury, not to torture in a Navy brig.
It is precisely because it is a gray area that it is even more important that our rule of law be followed. The John Walker Lindh case would have been a better example on my part. He was tried and convicted in a timely manner.
Padilla was presumed guilty before he was proven guilty by a jury. He was tortured. These are facts not in dispute. What was done to him was illegal-- illegal as defined by our nation's laws and as confirmed on June 11, 2007 by the conservative US Supreme Court. This is not my opinion; it is fact.
BTW, I really like the Lincoln quote at the top of your blog. I have parted with President Bush because he went wrong. His trampling of the civil liberties of US Citizens is just one of the wrongs that I see.
I'm merely commenting on what you've written. I'm not labeling you.
But if you prefer, I will assume that what you write is NOT a reflection of your views or what you understand.
That said, some people believe that it's best to deal with the sort of terrorism that we witnessed on 9/11 as a criminal, police matter.
Some people consider that terrorism to be a battle in a war. That's how I view it -- an act of war.
I don't believe that Padilla was "kidnapped" by the U.S. government. I believe he is an enemy of the United States.
BTW, I would do a check on the "facts" regarding the June 11, 2007 decision "by the conservative US Supreme Court."
Yep. I had a lapse in memory. It was the 4th US Circut Court that ruled “in the United States, the military cannot seize and imprison civilians — let alone imprison them indefinitely.”
It was the Padilla case that was brought before the Supreme Court on the same issue, but the President did an end run and abruptly changed Padilla's status to "non-enemy combatant".
Regardless, I am sorry for getting this incorrect in my replies here. I apologize to your readers as well.
You said, "But if you prefer, I will assume that what you write is NOT a reflection of your views or what you understand."
I say, "How rude."
Typical right wing blog, typical of you r stance on civil liberties and not to mention a black man obviously hasno voice on this blog as I see you deleted my comments.
I'll just addit to my list of anti freedom right wing blogs I'm creating.
LOL....Typical Bushwacker
Playing the race card on my post on Padilla's conviction is pathetic.
Anyone can see that the author of the posts deleted his comments, not me, the blog administrator.
If I had deleted the comments, the message would read, "removed by a blog administrator," or something to that effect.
Try harder next time.
Post a Comment