Where does AO lie on the Political Compass?

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
On Jose Padilla

His inconvenience and "special" treatment is a direct result of the massiveness of his crime AND his continueing usefullness at preventing further crimes. This is a case where the state has a VERY compelling interest in his detention, because there is an excellent chance his detention has, and continues to save lives.

It always annoys me that the same groups of people that do not "buy" the compelling state interest exception in this case turn around and use it as a reason to allow quotas to artificially create "diversity".

Now, good luck convincing me that Padilla's detention isn't worth it.

As for the Patriot Act as a whole, it is a very important piece of legislation that is quite needed for the new efforts against terror. It will continue to be refined and honed probably for decades, and I can surivive that. It's the first whack a new kind of war, and it isn't perfect. I frankly, don't have any problems with it that I feel are more important then it's usefullness.

And for the guys sent home for having anti-war shirts, so what? There are reports of that kind of thing all the time. For wearing pro-Bush shirts, Anti-Bush shirts, pro-war shirts, anti-war shirts, and so on. I don't like it, but I'm not ready to open ourselves to attack so people don't have to suffer T-shirt discrimination.

first, i'd love to see someone arrested for having a pro-bush or pro-war shirt on. if you're suggesting that wearing those kinds of shirts open us up to attack, you're playing into the paranoia thing a little too much. i really don't see a connection between protesting a war and attacking the country...

that's good and fine keeping padilla detained, if he has a charge. he isn't being charged. we can't make exceptions to the constitution, because then later on people will make further exceptions as they see fit. if padilla is such a horrible criminal, it should be really easy to charge him and sentence him. but it isn't. why? because they STILL haven't charged him with anything. the appeals courts aren't even saying to release him, but get him out of military custody and into a jail or prison. what's so bad about that? what's so bad about him being able to contact his lawyer? think about it. if the government even kept him where he is, but let a lawyer talk to him, how would that possibly threaten national security? the only plausible reason to deny him counsel is that it's probably extremely difficult to prove that he's guilty of anything. he's suspected of doing things, none of which has been proven. he has no crime. this is the same sort of preemptive attack mindset used against iraq.

if we, common citizens, used the preemptive mindset against eachother, we'd get arrested. if, for instance, i attacked my roommate because i think he might attack me in a few years (and he has a history of violence), i'd get expelled and arrested.

i really don't like the preemptive mindset...and it's what we're using against people like padilla, who has been charged with no crime.

1de-

Try that argument on your teacher the next time you site sources. You have to prove the validity of your on sources sonny!

first, i'm just going to correct you on something (it's cite, not site the sources). i'm really just trying to help you, so don't get mad:).

This is one instance. Please site another.

mike hawash is another example of the whole padilla-being-thought-of-as-guilty-before-innocent thing. padilla's accusation is merely that, there is no charge. because if there was a charge, he'd have to go to court, which ain't happening.

Yet wire taps and such still do REQUIRE warrants!

wiretaps require warrants, but searches and seizures don't.

Further, he had plenty of supporters willing to help foot his legal bills, so pleading guilty was not do to poverty, but to plea bargining.

i never said anything about money being a factor in hawash's plea

Uhm yes! Look at the backlogs in our court system now. How long did it take to try Malvo and Muhammed? How long to try McVeigh? Heck look at jailed mob boss Joey Merlino, they are preparing to prosecute him for a 10 year old crime.

ya there's backlog, but they were all held in prison after being CHARGED with something, and they had counsel. apples and oranges

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

a little more on Padilla

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=us&cat=terrorism

enjoy

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by impostal22

first, i'd love to see someone arrested for having a pro-bush or pro-war shirt on. if you're suggesting that wearing those kinds of shirts open us up to attack, you're playing into the paranoia thing a little too much. i really don't see a connection between protesting a war and attacking the country...

Arrested, no. Sent home from school, happens all the time. If the administrators feel their attire is disruptive, home they go. THis includes boys wearing dresses as well!

that's good and fine keeping padilla detained, if he has a charge. he isn't being charged. we can't make exceptions to the constitution, because then later on people will make further exceptions as they see fit. if padilla is such a horrible criminal, it should be really easy to charge him and sentence him. but it isn't. why? because they STILL haven't charged him with anything. the appeals courts aren't even saying to release him, but get him out of military custody and into a jail or prison. what's so bad about that? what's so bad about him being able to contact his lawyer? think about it. if the government even kept him where he is, but let a lawyer talk to him, how would that possibly threaten national security? the only plausible reason to deny him counsel is that it's probably extremely difficult to prove that he's guilty of anything. he's suspected of doing things, none of which has been proven. he has no crime. this is the same sort of preemptive attack mindset used against iraq.

He is going to get a lawyer, but is being held as an enemy combatant. He needs to be in military custody as he was planning an attack on our country!

if we, common citizens, used the preemptive mindset against eachother, we'd get arrested. if, for instance, i attacked my roommate because i think he might attack me in a few years (and he has a history of violence), i'd get expelled and arrested.

So you are against continued detention for repeat and serial sex offenders?

1de-

first, i'm just going to correct you on something (it's cite, not site the sources). i'm really just trying to help you, so don't get mad:).



mike hawash is another example of the whole padilla-being-thought-of-as-guilty-before-innocent thing. padilla's accusation is merely that, there is no charge. because if there was a charge, he'd have to go to court, which ain't happening.

Yet he pled guilty, therefore I guess he was, eh?

wiretaps require warrants, but searches and seizures don't.
Wrong. Search and seizure requires a warrant unless it falls into an exception catagory...Plain sight, during a chase, etc....

i never said anything about money being a factor in hawash's plea

He had the resources to make a stand and fight back if the charges were untrue. He did not, he pled out. So whatever you wish to say, the law says he was guilty!

ya there's backlog, but they were all held in prison after being CHARGED with something, and they had counsel. apples and oranges

Not really. I am saying that Justice takes time.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by impostal22
first, i'd love to see someone arrested for having a pro-bush or pro-war shirt on. if you're suggesting that wearing those kinds of shirts open us up to attack, you're playing into the paranoia thing a little too much. i really don't see a connection between protesting a war and attacking the country...

My point was, since you were tying the T-Shirt into the patriot act that I wasn't prepared to scrap the act because people didn't like having to change their shirt. Lot's of kids have been kicked out of schools for wearing pro Bush and War shirts. Arrested I'm not willing to say, I haven't heard of a case.

that's good and fine keeping padilla detained, if he has a charge. he isn't being charged. we can't make exceptions to the constitution, because then later on people will make further exceptions as they see fit.

Actually, the Supreme Court was very clear in the recent Michigan cases that we CAN make exceptions to the constitution, and they said as much. It's called compelling state interest, and we have a compelling state interest in a full and complete interrogation of Padilla. God forbid we should bring him into the normal legal system and someone should kill him while he's exposed and we lose valuable intel. His detention is important to our security, period.

if padilla is such a horrible criminal, it should be really easy to charge him and sentence him. but it isn't.

And I'm sure they will at some point, but as it is it's more important to hold him.

why? because they STILL haven't charged him with anything. the appeals courts aren't even saying to release him, but get him out of military custody and into a jail or prison. what's so bad about that?

Once he's out of the military prison he's out of the control of the people trying to use him to thwart terror. If the Pentagon tells me keeping this guy in their prison, as opposed to someone else's prison, has a chance at preventing attacks then I'm all for it. Don't forget, there's been a big deal about Al Queda and other factions using prisons to recruit terrorists. What happens if one of them decides that Padilla is too dangereous to be left alive? He's safer in the military prison, and we're safer for him being there.

what's so bad about him being able to contact his lawyer? think about it. if the government even kept him where he is, but let a lawyer talk to him, how would that possibly threaten national security?

Say he tells the lawyer what he's told the authorities, and then the lawyer tells the terrorists, and then they either move evidence, or recover a weapon, or who knows what? No, it's better that he be incapable of contacting those people.

the only plausible reason to deny him counsel is that it's probably extremely difficult to prove that he's guilty of anything. he's suspected of doing things, none of which has been proven. he has no crime. this is the same sort of preemptive attack mindset used against iraq.

And that pre-emptive mindset disarmed Libya and brough Syria to the table. I'm all for keeping with this mindset. And that's not the only reason to deny council.

if we, common citizens, used the preemptive mindset against eachother, we'd get arrested. if, for instance, i attacked my roommate because i think he might attack me in a few years (and he has a history of violence), i'd get expelled and arrested.

Yeah, and your not a legal authority.

i really don't like the preemptive mindset...and it's what we're using against people like padilla, who has been charged with no crime.

Wait a minute, Padilla isn't really the pre-emptive. He's been accused of crimes, the charging is just a technicality. You've even said the courts WANT to charge him, but that the military is preventing it. Just because nobody went through the motion of reading his charges in the court room doesn't mean we just arrested an innocent guy because we felt like it.