Brutal torture of Jose Padilla, as detailed in a brief from his legal team.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/greenwald1.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/greenwald1.html
What a joke!!
Lets call "Jose" by his real name: Abdullah al-Muhajir.
"The base ingredient in Mr. Padilla’s torture was stark isolation for a substantial portion of his captivity."
So he was isolated, and you guys are calling that torture? but that gives Al Qaida the right to chop peoples heads off?
NOW LETS LOOK AT THE FACTS:
March 2002: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, purported mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and al-Qaida's operational planner and organizer, allegedly suggests Jose Padilla target up to three high-rise buildings that use natural gas with a radiological "dirty bomb.
"May 8, 2002: Padilla arrives at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after an overseas trip, carrying $10,526, a cell phone and e-mail addresses for al-Qaida operatives. He is arrested on a material witness warrant.
How can you people so blatantly support al-Qaida?
Lets call "Jose" by his real name: Abdullah al-Muhajir.
"The base ingredient in Mr. Padilla’s torture was stark isolation for a substantial portion of his captivity."
So he was isolated, and you guys are calling that torture? but that gives Al Qaida the right to chop peoples heads off?
NOW LETS LOOK AT THE FACTS:
March 2002: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, purported mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and al-Qaida's operational planner and organizer, allegedly suggests Jose Padilla target up to three high-rise buildings that use natural gas with a radiological "dirty bomb.
"May 8, 2002: Padilla arrives at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after an overseas trip, carrying $10,526, a cell phone and e-mail addresses for al-Qaida operatives. He is arrested on a material witness warrant.
How can you people so blatantly support al-Qaida?
The govt has dropped the charges against Padilla for trying to use a "dirty bomb." It was apparently a red herring to begin with.
If the constitutional rights of any US citizen can be abridged for any reason, please do not scream and holler when the govt abridges your constitutional rights.
If the constitutional rights of any US citizen can be abridged for any reason, please do not scream and holler when the govt abridges your constitutional rights.
sd2 said:
If the "U.S. Citizen" in question is flying in from Iran and has a list of Al-Qaida members email addresses in his back pocket, it does not bother me in the least.
Let me know if this happens to someone who doesnt obviously appear to be related to terrorisists. Ill be waiting
CapNCash said:If the "U.S. Citizen" in question is flying in from Iran and has a list of Al-Qaida members email addresses in his back pocket, it does not bother me in the least.
Let me know if this happens to someone who doesnt obviously appear to be related to terrorisists. Ill be waiting
What he said.
Also, labeling Padilla as an innocent "US citizen" (be very afraid: it could happen to you!), is a bit like labeling the London tube bombers "homegrown" or the jihadists in Paris as "youths."
t2050 said:
There's nothing to be gained by executing or torturing terrorists however if I had the opportunity to prevent another terror attack preserving innocent life by dunking the bastards in water and intimidating them with German Shepherds, I'm dunking and letting the pooches growl at them all day and all night long. The "civil rights" fetishists can kiss my gulag ass.
<o
> </o>And remember, what goes on in Gitmo, stays in Gitmo.
cklennon said:
When people grow to be adults, they learn to give reasons for their statements instead of blindly attacking another person's viewpoint. Perhaps you will learn how some day.
You see adults learn that even though they explain their viewpoint they leave those points up for criticism. Adults learn to not be afraid to have other people criticize what they say.
sd2 said:
I agree with you sd2. However, it seems that the Bush Administration is trying to convince people that certain types of torture do not violate the Constitution.
In posting this link I am not necessarily agreeing that Bush is right, just that there are other viewpoints on the subject.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/10/AR2005121000934.html
"What Ms. Rice's statements concealed is that administration lawyers have concluded that waterboarding and other CIA pressure methods don't necessarily violate the Constitution. Case law, they say, doesn't offer a clear guide to what actions represent a clear breach. The standard, they say, is flexible. In the case of a terrorist who may have information that could save thousands of lives, goes the administration reasoning, extreme measures might be acceptable. That's why, when he was asked about waterboarding and a series of other abusive acts during his confirmation hearing earlier this year, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified that "some might . . . be permissible in certain circumstances."
