home

A Bumpy Road for Prosecutors in Jose Padilla Trial

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Trials
Posted on Sat May 19, 2007 at 07:11:00 AM EST
Tags: Jose Padilla (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

There were three days of testimony this week in the terrorism trial of Jose Padilla. The prosecution's evidence may or may not be what it claims.

My interest was piqued by the testimony of one the Lackawanna (formerly known as Buffalo) Six defendants. He's testifying for the Government in hopes of reducing his own ten year prison sentence. You may recall in that case there were threats to have the defendants declared enemy combatants and moved to Guantanamo if they didn't plead guilty.

The issue now: Is miltary training at a camp in Afghanistan necessarily terrorist training?

More...

Yahya Goba, 30, of Lackawanna, N.Y., who is serving a 10-year prison sentence, testified that he filled out a similar form [to the one allegedly signed by Jose Padilla]before attending the al-Farooq camp run by al-Qaeda. This was just as prosecutors had hoped because his statement linked the form to al-Qaeda.

....Then Goba testified that he attended the camp not to commit terrorism but to get military training so that someday he could possibly defend Muslims under attack in Chechnya, Kosovo and Kashmir. That stated motivation is very similar to what Padilla's defense is asserting in his case.

"This was not a terrorist training camp, was it?" asked Michael Caruso, one of Padilla's attorneys.

"No," Goba replied.

"It was just a military training camp?"

"Yes."

The Government wasn't happy with that answer and wants to introduce a video of the training camp. The Judge has refused to allow the video because it would be unduly prejudicial to the defense.

So the Prosecution has an application it says was submitted by Jose Padilla to attend the training camp, but it may be that Padilla's prints are on it because he was handed the form by interrogators during his 3 1/2 years in the Navy brig.

And Padilla's lawyers have given the same explanation of military training camps -- the training wasn't to fight the U.S., it was "to get military training so that someday he could possibly defend Muslims under attack in Chechnya, Kosovo and Kashmir."

Lewis Koch is blogging the trial for Firedoglake. Here's his take.

< Still Waiting For The Godot Republicans | Weekend Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Bumpy Road for Prosecutors in Jose Padilla Trial | 89 comments (89 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Let me get this straight (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Sailor on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:16:33 PM EST
    The Bush misgovernment claims it has a 5 page document of Padilla's application to al-Qaida. Yet the document does not have Padilla's name on it.

    The 'application' was only partially filled out ... in 2 different colors of ink. And the gov't says the document in question was delivered by an undisclosed Afghani at an undisclosed location to an undisclosed CIA agent, in the bed of a pickup truck ... along with 22 boxes and footlockers worth of other documents.

    The undisclosed CIA officer testified that he immediately realized the significance of that one folder, among that pickup truck bed full of documents ... even tho Agent Alan Smithee doesn't speak or write arabic or pashtun.

    And although the document was 'discovered' in 2001, the fbi didn't test it until August 2006 ... a year after the Bush administration successfully avoided a court showdown because they couldn't justify keeping an American citizen locked up without charges or trial.

    Then Bush et al avoided this pesky habeus corpus, a constitutional right of US citizens battle by transferring Padilla's case from the military to civilian courts.

    But only after Padilla was held for 3 1/2 years in solitary confinement in a military brig where he was tortured.

    Padilla's fingerprints are only on the front and back pages, not internal ones, and it is impossible to determine when they were placed there.

    Padilla's case was added to an already existing case, for reasons that remain unclear. And the original sensational charges against Padilla are not alleged in his current case. Even the current judge, U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke, said during a pretrial hearing the government's case was "very light on facts."

    It was evidence in a case against (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat May 19, 2007 at 11:10:38 PM EST
    PPJ, I'm sure that he'd feel he was getting a fair trial.

    [ Parent ]
    DA can't catch a clue (1.00 / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 09:15:18 AM EST
    yadda yadda

    I find your responses so intellectually dishonest that I an choosing to not repsond to them??


    [ Parent ]

    Don't ask me, PPJ (none / 0) (#71)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun May 20, 2007 at 10:01:20 AM EST
    but you are responding to them, and with a extra dose of confusion as well. Example #1:

    I an  

    That's almost Chinese,PPJ.  Is that why you have trouble expressing your thoughts here, because English isn't your first language?

    To quote Tom Cruise:

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    T!

    [ Parent ]

    DA (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 01:27:17 PM EST
    It's no fun unless I can tell everyone else.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, PPJ (none / 0) (#80)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun May 20, 2007 at 02:12:30 PM EST
    you just come here for fun and not to debate the issues.

    Thanks for acknowledging what many of us already knew in our anti-American, terrorist hugging leftist hearts.

    T!

    [ Parent ]

    DA - see what I meant when I wrote?? (1.00 / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 03:00:11 PM EST
    yadda yadda

    I find your responses so intellectually dishonest that I an choosing to not repsond to them??


    [ Parent ]
    I already know about your repsond, PPJ (none / 0) (#86)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun May 20, 2007 at 03:26:14 PM EST
    but you've shown your nuttiness here twice, three times and you're out at the old ball game.

    T!

    [ Parent ]

    Tortured information or solid evidence? (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by serena1313 on Sun May 20, 2007 at 08:53:05 AM EST
    First I want to emphasize Iam not endorsing nor do I approve the use of terrorism.

    Terrorism is simply a means to an end using unconventional methods. It is powerful because it creates fear in large numbers of people. It is not an ideology; it is not an effort to force religion on anyone; it is not used to conquer the world.

    The word "terrorism" is too loosely defined by our government. Terrorism is being exploited as an excuse to punish people who are not terrorists. Using unconventional weapons does not necessarily indicate a person is a terrorist.

    According to International law when a foreign country is occupying a sovereign country citizens have the right to pick up arms to defend their country, their homes, their families and loved ones. Iraqis do not have modern weapons to fight the strongest military in the world. So they improvise. What is the difference between dropping 500 ton bombs on a country and individuals who strap explosives to their bodies -- both result in killing civilians, both cause fear. The difference is simply the means. If America was occupied there is no doubt in my mind Americans would use any means possible to fight for their country.

    Yet Bush and his administration refer to Iraqis as terrorists. The military was instructed to do likewise. Before Bush attacked Iraq he consistently referred to Iraqis as terrorists. However it was simply a way to shore up American support. The media did likewise. So in the public's mind Iraqis were terrorists, not people. And as long as some Americans still believe we are fighting terrorists it validates Bush. Yes "al qaeda" exist in Iraq, but only a handful. Iraqis do not want them there any more than they want US -- they will deal with them when [IF] we ever leave.  

    So that brings us to Jose' Padilla. He was arrested in the Chicago O'Hare airport. Ashcroft  charged him originally with making a dirty bomb and deemed him an enemy combatant. But where's the evidence? That charge was dropped.

    The prosecution was warned not to open the door to the dirty bomb because it would allow the defense to inquire into "classified and controversial" interrogation tactics. Is Padilla a terrorist? Or are the charges simply trumped up? Apparently the prosecution does not want to discuss the controversial interrogation methods because their whole case would fall apart. Information gleaned from torture has been proved unreliable.

    Padilla's lawyer alleges his client was tortured and as a result it diminished Padilla's mental capacity. If that is the case does that invalidate the charges against him? If he did train in a military or terrorist camp in Afghanistan where is the evidence? It boils down to his intention: was it to join and fight with a militia or was he committed to causing the deaths of large numbers of civilians to purposely create a state of fear in the public? Assuming Padilla was tortured should that evidence be allowed to stand it's plausible that information given  while tortured will become the comme il faut -- accepted standard.

    Nevertheless if Padilla is found guilty based on the aforementioned finger prints and a document that may or may not be valid would be a black mark on justice.

    This is America. We are not fearful people. But Americans were and continue to be inundated with false information. The constant repetition formed a deeply impressed belief that Middle-Eastern people are terrorists, not people. Add the MSM and the administration hyping: terrorists do not deserve civil or human rights; instead they are deserving of punishment and torture; they are guilty before given a chance to prove otherwise in a court of law; and it's okay to lock them up indefinitely. While Americans were vulnerable and fearful the aforementioned were planted in the public's psyche to be acceptable. Where is the justification?

    If we allow fear to rule over common sense, logic and rational thought we lose everything that made this country unique. America cannot be destroyed from outside forces, she can be destroyed from within. Everything about Padilla's case including the way he has been treated symbolizes what we're becoming: our own worst enemy.

    serena1313 (1.00 / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 01:51:47 PM EST
    Iraqis do not have modern weapons to fight the strongest military in the world. So they improvise.

    You beg the issue. You are also 101% wrong.

    We invaded Iraq to effect a change in regimes. As part of that we would rid the world of a evil ruler who had WMD's, was rewarding suicide bombers' parents with cash money and had agreed to work with al-Qaeda on a "friend of my enemy is my friend" basis, and who, we later discovered, was trying to get back into the WMD business. In addition he had violated numerous UN sanctions.. the number 17 comes to mind.

    We used limited military sources to reduce the number of deaths, initiated a new Iraqi government with two elections and have tried to provide other help.

    The "Iraqis" you claim to be defending their "homeland" are the remnants of the Baathist party trying to regain control through killing their own people, Shia who are interested in the same thing as well as international members of al-Qaeda who want to kill Suni/Baathist. It is not the US who wants to kill Iraqis, but the afore mentioned groups.

    Note that I have excluded the Kurds who seem to have their part of the country under control to a fairly high degree.


    America cannot be destroyed from outside forces, she can be destroyed from within.

    I keep seeing this written but never a mention of the inroads already made by those who want to replace our law with Sharia  law, and never a mention that it is the terrorists intentions to have us withdraw from the world to hide behind our  own walls while the slowly gobble up the rest of the world.


    [ Parent ]

    Baath Party (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 02:14:16 PM EST
    Remnants? The Baath party in Iraq exceeded 2.4 million members. It is a largely secular party that was formed to preserve Arab identity and oppose

    Its main ideological objectives are secularism, socialism, and pan-Arab unionism....

     From its earliest development, the motivation behind Baathist political thought and its leading supporters was the need to produce a means of reasserting the Arab spirit in the face of foreign domination.

    In other words, ppj, the Baath are both sunni and shia and long time Iraqi nationalists. The "remnants" along with 90% of Iraqi's want their country back.

    In your world all the Baathists should be exterminated? Is that what you are advocating for. And the religious Shia's and Sunnis be exterminated as well. Who is left, the Kurds? Is that the plan ppj?

    BTW- Can you name who we are liberating in Iraq? Or is it that the regime change you hope for is US puppets ruling over disneyland, and to hell with the Iraqi people.

    That is the way Kissinger felt, and I am sure that the WH and neocon supporters feel the same. They had hoped that they would all kill each other during the Iraq/Iraq war, didn't they.

    [ Parent ]

    squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 02:58:44 PM EST
    In your world all the Baathists should be exterminated?

    Perhaps you should read my comment.

    In my world the Baathist, Sunis, Shia, Kurds. et al, should set down and try to govern Iraq and we would be gone in a heart beat.

    It is the Left with its continual opposition to the war that gives hope to the Baathists, radical Suni, radical Shia, radical Kurd and al-Qaeda that if they kill enough we will leave and they can defeat the others.

    [ Parent ]

    Again (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 03:24:35 PM EST
    Who are we fighting for ppj? Your list includes 90% of Iraqis.

    They cannot function with a heavy US armed presence who can not begin to sort out who is friend or foe. They are all foes as far as the US military is concerned.

    You are obviously with Kissinger on this one. Let them kill each other off. The US occupation is the incendiary device that ensures a long war.

    I get it. If you had your say we would still be in Vietnam. Shooting looters, gooks and hajis is all the same. Just cowboys and injuns, an american tradition. The weaker one loses.

    Hard to admit that you are not at the top of the food chain, isn't that what it is all about, ppj?

    [ Parent ]

    link (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 02:15:39 PM EST
    link

    [ Parent ]
    Skeptical (none / 0) (#1)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sat May 19, 2007 at 01:09:44 AM EST
    I can't find enough information to say one way or the other what the right decision about showing the training camp video should be, but I am deeply skeptical of the idea that the training camp was just for military training and not terrorism training; the video shows Goba and other recruits at the camp with Osama bin Laden.

    In that case... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 19, 2007 at 09:16:06 AM EST
    You said you didn't have enough information one way or another, and then you make the defense's point for them in terms that left the judge no choice but to throw the video out.

    the video shows Goba and other recruits at the camp with Osama bin Laden.

    If Padilla is not in the video, the video is not evidence of anything Mr. Padilla has done.  Showing a video of OBL with nothing in it connected to Padilla is clearly prejudicial and of no evidentiary value.

    [ Parent ]

    The question as presented.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sat May 19, 2007 at 11:08:37 AM EST
    The issue was whether terrorism training was going on at the camp; whether Padilla was there is a separate issue. Padilla's lawyers want to claim that he just attended "military training" (more properly "military-like training," since these folks weren't attached to an actual military). Video of Osama bin Laden at the camp, with recuits, suggests that its purposes were terrorism. The video is therefore exactly on point for the question as presented.

    [ Parent ]
    Still beg to differ (none / 0) (#14)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 19, 2007 at 11:26:23 AM EST
    the Prosecution has an application it says was submitted by Jose Padilla to attend the training camp,

    I don't see any evidence that Mr. Padilla ever attended the camp.  I see the prosecution, which has already been caught lying a number of times in this case, presenting a document that they say is an application to be there.  This application is not evidence that Mr. Padilla actually attended the camp or that he knew when (or IF) he filled it out that he knew what the nature of the camp was.  I see a guy claiming that the camp was as described by the prosecution in exchange for a sentence reduction.

    The judge was right.  The tape is not evidence of anything Mr. Padilla has done.  Its purpose is to connect Padilla in the jury's minds to OBL, but it is not evidence that any such connection existed.

    As I posted below to PPJ, our military conducts training eerily similar to, if not indistinguishable from terrorist training, despite the opposition of the trainees' own governments.  How do you feel about that?

    [ Parent ]

    RePack - This is not a game (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 19, 2007 at 11:32:17 AM EST
    and we're not down at the local pub knocking back a few brewskies. This is the real world in which real people are killed by the graduates of such training.

    Padilla clearly wanted to be trained in how to kill people. You can call it whatever. The end result was the same.

    As to your other claim, bring forth some specifics and we can chat.

    [ Parent ]

    Evidence (none / 0) (#20)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 19, 2007 at 11:51:16 AM EST
    Padilla clearly wanted to be trained in how to kill people. You can call it whatever. The end result was the same.

    How does the videotape demonstrate that if he is not in it and there is no evidence that he visited the camp?

    As to your other claim, bring forth some specifics and we can chat.

    When I took my Army medical training in 1966, I trained with the Green Berets, whose training includes combat medical procedures, and I learned something about what they do.  Their MISSION is to train "irregulars" in asymmetrical warfare (terrorism or guerilla warfare), and they did this in Laos in the sixties despite the fact that the Laotian government had not given the United States permission to do so.

    The "Contras" were trained at the School of the Americas to fight against the elected government of their own country, and the training included torture (the actual manual eventually surfaced) and terrorist techniques, such as mining harbors (essentially IEDs for boats).  How is this any different from a terrorist training camp?

    Don't get me started on Ronald Reagan's treason.  Nixon, Reagan and Bush II, three of the worst presidents ever, and all in my lifetime.

    [ Parent ]

    RePack (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:53:40 PM EST
    Again, your apparent problem is that you think the US is wrong. Period.

    Have a nice day.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 19, 2007 at 04:05:49 PM EST
    Again, your apparent problem is that you think the US is wrong. Period.

    Certainly not in every case, but in this one for sure, considering several factors.

    Padilla has been held in violation of every Consitutional standard of justice, even though he is an American citizen entitled to the same rights you probably think you are entitled to.  His prosecutors have been caught lying so many times that there is no reason to take their word for anything without a high standard of proof.  Their case has been reduced several time because the evidence to support their claims has been found to be mainly conjecture.

    In addition  to the weak case against Padilla, there is our own lengthy national history, dating back some fifty years now.  We sponsor camps no different than the one we're complaining about both inside and outside our own borders, often without the approval or knowledge of the legitimate local authority, and occasionally if not usually in order to foment armed rebellion by means of asymmetrical, i.e. "guerilla" or "terrorist" warfare.

    Why would you suggest that my "problem" is that I observe reality and that reality shows that our government is doing great harm to the rights of a citizen who has not yet been convicted of anything, while the prosecutors hypocritically condemn his alleged attendance, based on a single piece of paper, at a camp far less sophisticated in the same techniques as the School of the Americas?  Isn't recognizing reality the "goal?"

    How would one go about righting a wrong without first recognizing that wrong has been done?

    [ Parent ]

    RePack (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 19, 2007 at 05:52:26 PM EST
    Could you give me an example where you think the US was right?

    Next subject..

    at a camp far less sophisticated in the same techniques as the School of the Americas?

    Does this mean that you agree that he was there, but that the instruction was of a low quality?? Interesting.

    often without the approval or knowledge of the legitimate local authority, and occasionally if not usually in order to foment armed rebellion by means of asymmetrical, i.e. "guerilla" or "terrorist" warfare.

    Didn't you just say a few hours ago??

    legitimate local authority,

    Can you define that? Would you consider Castro "legitimate?" He took power thru a revolution. And has never had a legitimate election.

    Again, you need to quite trying to excuse our current enemies by claiming we sinned in the past.
    That has nothing to do with radical Moslems flying airplanes into the WTC.

    [ Parent ]

    PPJ is off the map (none / 0) (#74)
    by Repack Rider on Sun May 20, 2007 at 12:07:28 PM EST
    Could you give me an example where you think the US was right?

    WW II.  If you don't agree, please explain.

    Does this mean that you agree that he was there, but that the instruction was of a low quality?

    No.  It means what it said, that we operate far more sophisticated asymmetrical warfare camps than the one Padilla was alleged to have filled out an application for.

    Since I have stated repeatedly that we have seen no evidence of his attendance at such a camp, you should accept what I say as what I mean.

    Can you define [legitimate local authority]? Would you consider Castro "legitimate?" He took power thru a revolution.

    The irony here is thick.  Didn't something like that happen in our history?

    And has never had a legitimate election.

    Neither has our big trade ally, China.  Your point is apparently that we have several standards for dictatorships, dependng on how much money we are making off them.

    In practical terms, the "legitimate local authority" is the one that the military and the bureaucracy accept their orders from, and how they arrived at that degree of authority or what they do with it is not for me to judge if I don't live there.

    [ Parent ]

    Fiat justitia ruat caelum, Sweetie (none / 0) (#31)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:26:10 PM EST
    This is the real world in which real people are killed by the graduates of such training.

    Then the government has the burden of proof to show that Padilla was in fact a graduate of such training. Like many social liberals, you show that your preference is for a trial where it isn't a game in the sense that there is a pre-determined outcome.

    Padilla clearly wanted to be trained in how to kill people.

    If all the government has is the one document in question, that's a pretty thin piece of evidence by itself, PPJ.

    I would think that it would be easier to 'prove' that he wanted to kill Americans by trying him on the 'dirty bomb' plot that was the original reason for holding him in the first place.

    Don'tcha wonder why that all kind of went away, PPJ?

    It was so important that the AG had a press conference when he was in Russia to tell us all about it:

    Olbermann: "Coleen Rowley, the FBI agent who tried to alert her superiors to the specialized flight training taken by Zacarias Moussaoui, whose information suggests the government missed a chance to break up the 9/11 plot, testifies before Congress. Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Graham says Rowley's testimony has inspired similar pre-9/11 whistle-blowers. Monday, June 10, 2002. Four days later:"

    John Ashcroft, Former Attorney General: "We have disrupted an unfolding terrorist plot-"

    Olbermann: "Speaking from Russia, Attorney General John Ashcroft reveals that an American named Jose Padilla is under arrest, accused of plotting a radiation bomb attack in this country. In fact, Padilla had, by this time, already been detained for more than one month."

    Link

    [ Parent ]

    DA (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:54:31 PM EST
    See my response to nolo.


    [ Parent ]
    That's pretty funny PPJ (none / 0) (#42)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat May 19, 2007 at 01:38:04 PM EST
    You don't address my point about the dirty bomber allegations, and then you link to an article about it in response to another posters' response.

    Will you quit behaving like a social liberal and making the governments' case against Padilla look bad?

    You're not working for "The People" anymore, the USSR was effectively dissolved more than a decade ago.
    Get over it!


    [ Parent ]

    DA (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:15:15 PM EST
    yadda yadda

    Can you catch on that I find your responses so intellectually dishonest that I an choosing to not repsond to them??

    [ Parent ]

    If you could 'respond' (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat May 19, 2007 at 04:14:30 PM EST
    to the questions raised by myself and others here
    about the nature of the 'evidence' introduced by the prosecution in this case with facts and logic instead of 5th grade-insults, that would be intellectually honest, and therefore a change of pace on your part, IMHO.

    Get Sea Monkey, people won't think you're going ape whenever you can't 'help' yourself, Fliegler James.

    T!

    Oh, and to save you the typing:

    Yadda

    Yadda

    Yadaa

    [ Parent ]

    DA (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 19, 2007 at 05:55:15 PM EST
    What is it about I consider your actions unworthy of responding to that you don't understand?

    [ Parent ]
    "My response is to not repsond" (none / 0) (#58)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat May 19, 2007 at 06:33:46 PM EST
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    I understand you, PPJ.  It's your usual 'response'.

    No attempt to discuss the questions here on your part, and snark isn't a substitute for a discussion, so I guess that you're correct in a MSTS(Microsoft Tech Support).

    T!

    [ Parent ]

    DA (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 19, 2007 at 06:39:40 PM EST
    Ta ta!

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for proving my point (none / 0) (#68)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat May 19, 2007 at 11:10:48 PM EST
    while displaying your vast intellect at work(not!).

    T

    [ Parent ]

    Indeed (none / 0) (#19)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sat May 19, 2007 at 11:51:05 AM EST
    Repack Rider, you have switched to a new issue. There are now two issues here: the one that Jeralyn spent some time on and on which I originally commented and the one you just raised. Here:

    (1) Was terrorist training taking place at the camp or just "military" training?
    (2) Did Padilla actually train at the camp?

    Two issues. The video goes to the first issue because it suggests that terrorism was the purpose of the camp. You correctly note that the video says nothing about the second issue.

    My comment was directed at the fact that if the defense is claiming that so-called military training was taking place at the camp, the prosecution should be allowed to enter evidence showing that terrorist training was taking place. For example, evidence showing that bin Laden was there.

    As I posted below to PPJ, our military conducts training eerily similar to, if not indistinguishable from terrorist training, despite the opposition of the trainees' own governments.  How do you feel about that?

    Superficially, military and terrorist training may appear similar. For example, I imagine that a U.S. military shooting range looks a lot like an Al Qaeda shooting range. But that doesn't mean that the two organizations are engaged in the same activity. Calling them "eerily similar" is an example, once again, of an otherwise intelligent person refusing to make reasonable distinctions.

    My kitchen may look a lot like Lenin's did, but that doesn't mean I engage in wholesale slaughter of millions of people when I make an omelet.

    [ Parent ]

    The judge was right (none / 0) (#63)
    by LarryE on Sat May 19, 2007 at 09:30:54 PM EST
    the prosecution should be allowed to enter evidence showing that terrorist training was taking place

    No, it shouldn't. Unless your own question #2 can be answered in the affirmative, any contentions about the camp are irrelevant and what the prosecution is seeking to do is simply inflammatory.

    And I'll mention quickly that your response regarding training was disingenuous. It is not the camps (and their "shooting ranges") that are "eerily similar," it is the training received. It is simply undeniable that the US has engaged in activities and training ranging from assassination to "irregular warfare" and beyond, activities and training that if directed against us instead of by us would be labeled terrorism by our government and, I dare say, by you.

    Your faith in the perpetual purity of our motives and methods is touching but not justified by the facts.

    [ Parent ]

    But no skepticism of government credibility? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Dadler on Sat May 19, 2007 at 11:54:58 AM EST
    Slightly OT, but seriously, Gabe, give me something here: our government's conduct in this area is dubious to say the least, wretched to be more accurate.  That you haven't even mentioned Padilla's years in purposefully psychologically debilitating captivity WITHOUT CHARGES is odd and telling.  Your lack of critical capacity when it comes to the government's credibility here is quite astounding.  A witness with this kind of history would be disregarded quickly as neither credible nor truthful (and certainly not sympathetic).  Obviously intelligent people make such egregious intellectual oversights when they have one of two motivations: profit or fear.  Fear of omniscient terrorists has led many otherwise good Americans to abandon logic and decency in favor of their reactionary and destructive opposites.  As has profit, but that's another story...  

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, and Gabe... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Dadler on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:21:04 PM EST
    "My kitchen may look a lot like Lenin's did, but that doesn't mean I engage in wholesale slaughter of millions of people when I make an omelet."

    A laughably irrelevant and, frankly, rhetorically amateurish comparison.  If you don't know the history of your own nation in subverting democracy abroad, in training our own de-facto terrorists to cause mayhem and inflict torture, and that it's been done here for years in Ft. Benning, GA, then you are more green and naive than I could have ever imagined.

    Yes, Gabriel, the American base where they've trained foreign terrorists and torturers exists and the phrase "eerily similar" is sadly on the mark; but apparently not to people, as you seem to be, too afraid to really look at the difficult ironies of reality.  Soothe yourself with rationalizations, other people choose not to.  Our country has done great things AND we have sometimes done things no better than Al Qaeda.  Example?  Okay, let's go back a few years: Do you think the poor neighborhood in Panama City, called El Chorillo, deserved to be entirely destroyed (killing how many people we STILL don't know) so we could get one lousy second-rate sh*t like Noriega?  And that pales in comparison to what we are facing today.

    Do your homework.  Learn some history.  Some history you actually have to USE your freedom to dig up and discover.  

    [ Parent ]

    You're right, that is OT. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:23:09 PM EST
    Dad, it should be possible to discuss Padilla's case without giving a complete history of the man's life. You correctly note that I've said nothing about the conditions of his captivity in this post, but that is also true of Jeralyn and all the other commenters (except you) to this point. Why have you put a more onerous requirement on my participation than you have on the others?

    Even aside from the disparate treatment, you are correct to note that your comment is off topic. Simply put, the conditions of Padilla's U.S. captivity are irrelevant to the two issues that have been raised in this post:

    (1) Was it military or terrorist training at the camp in Afghanistan?
    (2) Was Padilla trained at that camp?

    To be sure, Padilla's treatment in captivity is an important issue and one which I've written about before. But it's not one that is relevant to those two questions.

    [ Parent ]

    Thx for post (none / 0) (#2)
    by Skank on Sat May 19, 2007 at 06:59:08 AM EST
    Piqued not peaked.

    Great post.

    thanks for noting the spelling error (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 19, 2007 at 06:31:15 PM EST
    I fixed it, much appreciated.

    [ Parent ]
    more to the point: (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sat May 19, 2007 at 06:59:36 AM EST
    under what law is attending terrorist training illegal? is terrorist training itself illegal, and what code section makes it so? isn't "terrorist" training just military training, by another name? technically, the US Army Special Forces (green berets) engage in "terrorist" training. isn't afghanistan outside the venue of US law?

    if i commit a crime in london, isn't that a matter for british courts to handle, not US courts? when did all this change?

    Good points cp.... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Sat May 19, 2007 at 09:03:44 AM EST
    A bunch of guys playing paintball in the woods could be described as "terrorist training" if the govt. was so inclined.

    If there was a plot to have some whackjob strap a bomb to themselves during the nyc marathon, jogging could be considered "terrorist training". And so on, and so on...

    [ Parent ]

    Terrorist training (none / 0) (#16)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sat May 19, 2007 at 11:36:52 AM EST
    under what law is attending terrorist training illegal? is terrorist training itself illegal, and what code section makes it so?

    At a glance, 18 U.S.C. § 2339A makes it illegal to attend terrorist training. Subsection (a) defines the offense (I have elided irrellevant material, but look for yourselves, if you like):

    Whoever provides material support or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of [U.S. terrorism laws] or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

    Subsection (b) goes on to define "material support or resources" as (I have highlighted the parts which Padilla may have run afoul of):

    the term "material support or resources" means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.

    isn't "terrorist" training just military training, by another name? technically, the US Army Special Forces (green berets) engage in "terrorist" training.

    The word "terrorist" denotes disregard for international and domestic law. Engaging in training exercises to break laws is explicitly different than training for military engagements. As you well know, international and domestic law provides that militaries and their members operate under the laws in a separate manner than individuals or civil groups.

    In any case, "military training" implies that these folks were a part of some military force. Since they weren't, they have at best engaged in "military-like training." That, in itself, doesn't appear to be a violation of the law. However, if the intent of such military-like training is to engage in terrorist acts then it is unquestionably illegal.

    isn't afghanistan outside the venue of US law?

    As to your first question, jurisdiction can be established if the person directs an activity at the U.S. For example, if I stand in Tijuana and shoot a gun at the U.S. side of the border, I can be prosecuted in the U.S. for breaking the law. Similarly, if I go to Afghanistan and prepare to blow up a radiological device in Chicago, I can be prosecuted for breaking the law since such planing is illegal and I directed it at the United States.

    Furthermore, "material support" for terrorism is one of those crimes for which jurisdiction is widely construed. From the above-quoted statute (emphasis added):

    A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law.

    if i commit a crime in london, isn't that a matter for british courts to handle, not US courts? when did all this change?

    This question is inapposite. It was not a crime under Afghanistan's laws to train as a terrorist.

    [ Parent ]

    Wait a minute (none / 0) (#22)
    by manys on Sat May 19, 2007 at 11:56:50 AM EST
    From the definition of "material support," is it correct to infer that "providing material support to terrorist(s)" can mean that they provided material support to themselves? Does this strike anybody as weird?

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:09:01 PM EST
    Could you clarify what you mean? Is this what you meant:

    "Is it correct to infer that "providing material support to terrorists" can mean that [terrorists] provided material support to themselves?"

    Such an interpretation of the statute is incomplete because it pre-supposes that the person giving material support to terrorists is already himself a terrorist. It may be true that one terrorist can give "material support" to another. But it's also true that an otherwise innocent person can give material support to terrorists without already being one.

    [ Parent ]

    Gabe (none / 0) (#47)
    by Sailor on Sat May 19, 2007 at 03:36:09 PM EST
    Do you have any problem with bush claiming that 'material support for terrorism' is back dated to when the groups weren't listed as terrorists?

    [ Parent ]
    Sailor OT (none / 0) (#56)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sat May 19, 2007 at 06:22:11 PM EST
    I was unaware that the president had made that claim. (I also suspect you're referring to prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, since that's the one that deals with "designated foreign terrorist organizations.")

    The statute under which Padilla has been charged has no requirement that an organization be "listed as terrorists." Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. § 2339A has a mens rea requirement that seemingly would prevent a retroactive claim of "material support." Quite simply, a person has to "know or intend" that his support will result in one of the listed terrorist acts, regardless of whether it will be perpetrated by a designated terrorist organization or independent actors.

    As far as the OT question, though I am unaware of any claims by the president that people can be criminally charged with material support for such support made before a group is designated as a terrorist organization, I would be opposed to such an interpretation of statute if it were being made.

    [ Parent ]

    No (none / 0) (#61)
    by manys on Sat May 19, 2007 at 08:55:49 PM EST
    he term "material support or resources" means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.

    From this, it seems that the prosecution could start with defining someone as a terrorist, then charge them with providing material support to a terrorist because that person was supporting themselves in some way.

    [ Parent ]

    Problems with that (none / 0) (#64)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sat May 19, 2007 at 09:36:34 PM EST
    Heh. That would be clever, but not really useful. If the prosecution could charge him with being a terrorist, they wouldn't need to bother charging him with material support. The whole point of a material support charge is that the person does not have to themselves be engaged in terrorist acts.

    [ Parent ]
    Terrorist Training (none / 0) (#4)
    by wlgriffi on Sat May 19, 2007 at 07:48:23 AM EST
    "under what law is attending terrorist training illegal? is terrorist training itself illegal, and what code section makes it so? isn't "terrorist" training just military training, by another name? technically, the US Army Special Forces (green berets) engage in "terrorist" training. isn't afghanistan outside the venue of US law?"

    Law? Don't you realize "The Decider" says what the law is.

    Military training?? (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 19, 2007 at 09:30:13 AM EST
    If you join the military a variety of things happen.

    1. You get a uniform, an ID card, a rank and are paid a specfied amount.

    2. You are a member of a company, a platoon a company... etc. You receive a speciality designination. Combat rifleman, cook, etc.. and are trained in that speciality.

    3. When you complete your training you serve a period of time. You may or may not be promoted.

    4. After that time period you are discharged. You may be required to serve in an active or inactive reserve.

    5. Your status as active or inactive is known and shown on records.

    6. If you are desiginated active reserve, you will be required to attend regular meertings.

    These guys are lying.

    I'm curious (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:35:12 AM EST
    Do all these conditions apply to those trained "in the field" by the Special Forces, such as the Montagnards and Hmong our people trained in Laos in the sixties, a country which hadn't given us permission to conduct military operations and train their citizens in "asymmetrical warfare?"

    Did each of the Hmong get a uniform, an ID card, an MOS, a serial number and a pemanent file?  Did a bunch of file clerks and supply cadre follow the Green Berets into the field to make sure the Hmong lived up to your definition of military trainees?  

    Did the "Contras" trained at the School of the Americas in the eighties meet your standards of regular military even though they were fighting against the elected government of their own country?

    Are you saying that there is a difference between the asymmetrical warfare training our forces provide "off the record" and despite the opposition of the trainees' own governments, and terrorism?

    What ARE you saying?

    [ Parent ]

    RePack (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:31:19 PM EST
    Your argument is that all governments and cultures are  equivalent. That is not true.

    Further, if you want to argue that the US was wrong to attempt to overthrow various CA governments, it does not follow that we should allow others to operate training camps on how to kill us, nor should we allow our citizens to be trained in them.

    [ Parent ]

    PPJ's knee-jerk is killing him (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Repack Rider on Sun May 20, 2007 at 11:41:48 AM EST
    Your argument is that all governments and cultures are  equivalent. That is not true.

    You wll have to show me where i said that.

    Further, if you want to argue that the US was wrong to attempt to overthrow various CA governments,

    Woulld we consider it wrong for another country to attempt overthrow OUR government by funding an internal rebellion?  Well then, there you have it.

    it does not follow that we should allow others to operate training camps on how to kill us, nor should we allow our citizens to be trained in them.

    Even though we operate camps that do exactly that, and we have no way of controlling whom our trainees might "want to kill" once they leave the camp.

    Didn't we "train" Tim McVeigh?

    What color is the sky on your planet?

    Sorry.  The snark just slipped out out of its cage.

    [ Parent ]

    RePack (1.00 / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 01:56:37 PM EST
    Yes, that is your argument.

    You show when you dance back and forth over training.. That is an attempt to make it the same.

    [ Parent ]

    PPJ so far off the map he can't find the map (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Repack Rider on Sun May 20, 2007 at 04:28:58 PM EST
    Yes, that is your argument.

    You show when you dance back and forth over training.. That is an attempt to make it the same.

    You're going to have to translate that for me, because it does not seem to address my post.

    I don't "dance back and forth over training."  If training guerilla fighters in asymmetrical warfare is a legitimate act when done by our country, we must recognize it as a legitimate act when others do it.

    If we are going to complain about others doing it, we should stop doing it ourselves.

    Perfectly consistent.  Whatever we think other countries should do, we should also do.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm curious too (none / 0) (#18)
    by nolo on Sat May 19, 2007 at 11:48:25 AM EST
    Do all those rules apply to attendees of U.S.-based private combat training schools as well?

    [ Parent ]
    Before you get too far afield... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:04:15 PM EST
    nolo, it's not illegal to teach combat skills. Rather, it is illegal to teach combat (and other) skills for the purpose of terrorism. Reasonable distinctions, yo.

    [ Parent ]
    Gabriel, (none / 0) (#26)
    by nolo on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:08:45 PM EST
    I got the point.  I was responding to ppj's suggestion that military training is, by definition, illegitimate if it goes on outside a formal enlistment context.  But thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    Aight. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:11:29 PM EST
    Yeah, I've gotta say, you've clearly shown that military-like training occurs outside the military context (with all the stuff jim listed). My issue at this point is that calling it "military training" is a misnomer. Aside from that, you've definitely made your point.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't understand (none / 0) (#32)
    by nolo on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:31:07 PM EST
    this hairsplitting over the term "military."  "Military" refers to professional soldiering of all types, not just professional soldiering done as a member of a government-run army.

    [ Parent ]
    nolo (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:32:54 PM EST
    See my response to RePack.

    [ Parent ]
    it's not responsive (none / 0) (#35)
    by nolo on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:36:59 PM EST
    but thanks anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    I got the translation (none / 0) (#62)
    by manys on Sat May 19, 2007 at 08:59:02 PM EST
    He's saying that anything sponsored by the U.S. is not terrorism, that the U.S. is fundamentally incapable of engaging in terrorism and that the very definition of terrorism precludes the U.S. being accused as such.

    [ Parent ]
    manys (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 19, 2007 at 10:34:57 PM EST
    Your abilties amaze me.

    Next thing I know you're gonna figure out that I believe this is the greatest counry on God's Green Earth.

    [ Parent ]

    I wonder if the civilians (none / 0) (#23)
    by nolo on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:01:29 PM EST
    Who receive U.S. -based training from this outfit have to do all the things you've listed?  I think not.  Still, for a fee, they can receive training in the following:

    Precision Rifle & Sniper Training
    Precision Rifle 1 (3 day)
    Focus on the fundamentals of marksmanship.  This is a very basic course with a little "attitude".   more info...>

    Precision Rifle 1 (5 day)
    Focus on the fundamentals of marksmanship.  This a basic course with a lot of "attitude".   more info...>

    Precision Rifle 2 (5 day)
    Build on skills from PR-1.  Injury / malfunction drills and stress will be a big factor in this class.   more info...>

    Precision Rifle 1&2 Combo (6 day)
    Combines PR-1 and PR-2.  A highly intensive 6 day course with a small student to instructor ratio.  You will not miss out on anything offered in PR-1 or PR-2.  We make these classes small so that every topic can be covered with plenty of shooting.    more info...>

    Precision Rifle 3&4 (6 day)
    WOW!  We will build on skills acquired in previous classes.  It will also include extreme long range shooting, more field exercises, night vision, and extreme stress!    more info...>

    Combat Carbine & Handgun
    Basic Carbine - Urban Rifle/Carbine (3 or 5 day) --->
    This course will instill confidence in the student and enable them to
    become very familiar with the weapon system at any range. more info...>

    Basic Handgun 1 (4 day, 3 day) --->
    Designed to establish a foundation in the safe, proper, and effective use of a pistol in a defensive role.   more info...>

    Combat Rifle/Handgun combo (5 or 6 day) --->
    The carbine is a very robust weapon system that can be utilized in both close and distant engagements. This five day course will instill confidence in the student and enable them to become very familiar with their weapon systems at any range. Both strengths and weaknesses of the carbine under less than ideal conditions will be explored. Teamwork, operator survivability, communication, and unconventional shooting positions are the main focus of the course.   more info...>

    Carbine Helicopter Assault (4 day) --->
    This course is designed to give a skill set that is very hard to obtain through the use of repetition and full time video, we can increase skill levels very quickly. Learning to properly utilize this asset will increase your effectiveness many fold. "Helicopter Operations" means a myriad of different skill sets in, around, and outside the asset. Effective infiltration and exfiltration with and without wounded team members is strongly stressed. Using the helicopter as a shooting platform is not easy, it takes practice.   more info...>

    Applied Combat Training Series
    Applied Combat Training (9 day) --->
    The applied combat training series will put all of the skill sets together. This will make a well-trained operator.  more info...>

    Protective Services Detail (PSD) (7 day) --->
    Class focus ranges from pre-deployment work-ups to refresher courses for returning contractors and can be custom tailored to meet client needs. The basic course is designed as a seven-day package to get new PSD and private contractor skill levels honed in preparation for deployment to a hostile zone.  more info...>

    Team Tactics (5 day) --->
    Team tactics strongly focuses on working in a multi member element. Overland movement, whether short or long, is a ever changing skill. Tactics change on a daily basis. This course is very timely and current. This course will move teams through rural and urban areas. Structural clearing methods are stressed. With the use of a professional opposing force, the skill sets are driven home.   more info...>

    Silent Approach Training (5 day) --->
    Covert and stealth actions are the focus of this course. Taught primarily during night time hours, these skill sets are invaluable in the world today.   more info...>

    Offensive Counter-Measures --->
    A hands on combatives seminar, which encompasses close range, explosive, street level skills, utilizing effective target specific striking methods.   more info...>

    Security Operations Division / Stealth Dynamics
    Geographic specific briefings
    Family threat awareness training
    Family and VIP protection services
    Security assessments
    Vehicle escort services
    Security planning for vacations
    Function security
    Overseas security detachments
    Training, selection, grading services for security companies
    Evasive / defensive driver training
    Safe house fortification
    Equipment procurement



    [ Parent ]
    nolo (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:41:23 PM EST
    You are like RePack..

    You think this is some coffee shop debate and after everyone has made their points you can stroll back to the dorm and the world is safe.

    As a noted military man, favored I am sure by the Left once said:

    Horse hockey.

    These are real people getting real training on how to kill those that the radical Moslem leadership, OBL and others, tell them. That includes the US.

    Focus on that for a while.

    [ Parent ]

    PPJ loses the thread. Again. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 19, 2007 at 04:48:37 PM EST
    after everyone has made their points you can stroll back to the dorm and the world is safe.

    I know you aren't directing this at me, because I wouldn't know about dorms.  What are they like?  Are they nice and safe?

    I didn't go off to college after high school, I went into the Army, which wasn't quite as safe.

    Did you have something to add about the vile treatment Mr. Padilla has received at our government's hands, or did you just come here to score put-down points?

    These are real people getting real training on how to kill those that the radical Moslem leadership, OBL and others, tell them. That includes the US.

    Focus on that for a while.

    I have, and it dawned on me that Bush was headed for presidential invisibility until OBL gave him the gift of 9/11.  Why should GWB hunt down the guy who rescued his presidency?  Bush and OBL have the same goal, which is to keep the US terrorized for their own political advantage.  Each can point to the other as the great Satan and whip up immediate support.  OBL and GWB now have us so conditioned that a misplaced lunchbox now shuts down air traffic on the entire Eastern Seaboard.  Terrorists don't even have to do anything as dangerous as building and smuggling bombs, when they can just buy lunchboxes and get the same effect.

    If they get me, they get me, but since 9/11 many times the number of people who died on that day have been killed by pistols held by fellow Americans, and I don't spend my life worrying about being shot even though it is statistically far more likely, nor has the government spent $400 Billion fighting a "war on handguns".  

    If OBL wants me scared and Bush wants me scared of the same thing, they are working for the same goal, and I don't care to support them by BEING scared, when the "boogieman" looks like Jose Padilla.

    Why should I fall for something that transparent?  Just because 28% of the population, yourself included, are the people you can fool all of the time?

    [ Parent ]

    RePack (1.00 / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 19, 2007 at 06:37:45 PM EST
    I have, and it dawned on me that Bush was headed for presidential invisibility until OBL gave him the gift of 9/11.

    Actually, no.

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

    The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies -- and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

    Over the course of the summer -- last point -- they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

    And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

    QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?

    CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.

    You forget that there was the USS Cole incident and many before 9/11. From the above it is obvious that Bush understood what was going on, and was moving to attack, rather than wait as Clinton had done for 8 years. That we didn't quite get there is a fact, but I'll give the guy E for effort.

    BTW - Your served, I served. I honor yours and I expect you to honor mine. I have heard some great stories about Medics. If only 10% of them are true they were special people. I regret that your life has placed us at odds.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, this *is* a debate. (none / 0) (#43)
    by nolo on Sat May 19, 2007 at 01:48:57 PM EST
    Or have you missed the fact that all we are doing here is talking -- on the Internet, no less?  I'm not drinking coffee, though.  It's too late in the day for me.  I also won't be going back to the dorm, given that I haven't set foot in one since sometime in the early 1980s.

    That being said, I haven't missed the fact that there are important issues posed here.  If Jose Padilla was, in fact, training to engage in identifiable terrorist activities against the U.S., I agree that's bad.  But I also think the government should have to prove it -- I have this quirky fondness for the Constitution, rule of law, things like that, after all.  And I have to ask what kind of case the government really has here when (a) it's taken years for them to bring any charges; (b) the charges bear little to no relationship to the originally-stated basis for his detention; and (c) much of their case seems to be based on a videotape that doesn't even feature Padilla.

    If Padilla is such a huge threat, you'd think the Feds could have mustered a better case, and done it faster.  Then again, these are the same folks that can't seem to find the Great and Powerful OBL with both hands.

    [ Parent ]

    nolo (1.00 / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:23:42 PM EST
    I have this quirky fondness for the Constitution, rule of law, things like that, after all.

    So you agree that the government should be able to show the video?? Wouldn't that help the government's case?

    Aren't you interested in finding out what the government said he did??

    What you are doing is setting around debating and trying to score lawyer points. Fine with me, and if I ever get arrested I want a good one.

    In the meantime I want people who go to Pakistan and offer to build a dirty bomb put in jail for ever.

    [ Parent ]

    you're hopeless. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by nolo on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:33:53 PM EST
    Have a good day.

    [ Parent ]
    nolo (1.00 / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 19, 2007 at 03:42:13 PM EST
    Can't answer the hard ones, eh?

    [ Parent ]
    While we're at it (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 19, 2007 at 05:02:56 PM EST
    I want people who go to Pakistan and offer to build a dirty bomb put in jail for ever.

    While we're at it, we should put all the people still claiming to be Jack the Ripper in jail too.

    That charge has been dropped, so there is currently no one accused of anything like that.  But if it makes you feel very macho and manly to make that empty statement, feel away.

    Did you have anything to say about Mr. Padilla?


    [ Parent ]

    RePack (1.00 / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 19, 2007 at 05:57:14 PM EST
    Yes. I think he is guilty.

    [ Parent ]
    Red Queen rules (none / 0) (#73)
    by Repack Rider on Sun May 20, 2007 at 11:45:18 AM EST
    Sentence first, trial later.

    I think he is guilty.

    Of what, and or what reason?

    [ Parent ]

    Heh. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sun May 20, 2007 at 12:12:48 PM EST
    I think you mean Queen of Hearts rules.

    [ Parent ]
    Off With Their Heads! (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 12:28:30 PM EST
    Plenty of time later to examine the evidence.

    [ Parent ]
    Reminds me of (none / 0) (#87)
    by Repack Rider on Sun May 20, 2007 at 04:18:49 PM EST
    The story of a semi-literate but wealthy man decidng to run for office.  His aide said, "You can't run for governor.  You spell "bird" B-U-R-D."

    "If that don't spell "bird," what DOES it spell?"

    What color is the Queen of Hearts?

    Snark aside, of course you are correct.  My Charles Dodgson reference was incomplete.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sun May 20, 2007 at 04:50:22 PM EST
    S'okay. Many people confuse the Queen of Hearts from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland with the Red Queen from Through the Looking Glass.

    [ Parent ]
    Check, mate (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Sun May 20, 2007 at 05:03:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Kafkaesque (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dulcinea on Sat May 19, 2007 at 09:52:05 AM EST
    Today's Times story on this is painful to read.  How can Goba's activities in any way be used legally against Padilla who is the person charged?  "Witness for the prosecution" usually strikes me as a real stinko and never more so than in this instance.

    I pray the prosecutors' "bumpy road" turns into a dead end and they be made to pay for their part in this travesty.

    Duclinea (