4 ms·

I do! As I recall, he sort of was a terrorist though? Something about the planning or discussion of apartment house gasline bombings? They didn't even need an a

I do! As I recall, he sort of was a terrorist though? Something about the planning or discussion of apartment house gasline bombings? They didn't even need an agent provocateur to produce evidence for this one. On a semi-related note, I hope John Walker Lindh gets a hell of a party upon his release next May.

jonathanstrange 8y ago
The idea behind due process is that everyone has a right to it, not just a select class of people your government is sympathetic with.
- nerbert 8y ago
  It's incredible how a simple idea like that seems so difficult to grasp for many people.
  - Khaine 8y ago
    Just like free speach allows you to say horrible things.
StavrosK 8y ago
> As I recall, he sort of was a terrorist though? Does that matter a single iota? Does the US legal system say somewhere you can hold people in prison with no rights because "they sort of are a terrorist, though"?
- trothamel 8y ago
  The US constitution has always given the President powers as commander in chief, to detain enemy combatants as prisoners of war. It's not the same thing as criminal punishment, but the POW camps that have been set up in every war are constitutional.
dzdt 8y ago
I am less concerned with whether Padilla was actually a bad guy than whether the process was actually a bad process. If we allow a precedent that the government can remove someone's rights by saying the word "terrorist" then those rights are not worth much anymore.
- 0x445442 8y ago
  Exactly, the word "terrorist" is just another example of linguistic gamesmanship. The Gubment doesn't get to recast accusations of murder as accusations of "terrorism" just so they can circumvent the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
detaro 8y ago
So they held him from a fair trial despite having good evidence on which to win such a trial, and that somehow makes it better?
cmiles74 8y ago
In my opinion, the "maybe a terrorist" angle 100% doesn't matter. If you are a citizen then you have the right to a fair trial, due process, etc. If it was such a slam dunk, why not arrest and prosecute under existing laws? That the federal government felt they needed to take unconstitutional steps undermines their credibility in my eyes.
- phyller 8y ago
  Exactly. And if these rights are a good thing (which as a nation we have theoretically decided they are), we should be giving them to non-citizens as well. I think it is always good for a) government having to prove guilt instead of the accused proving innocence and b) the severity of the supposed crime not being a determining factor in whether or not the accused gets a fair trial in a timely manner.
DanBC 8y ago
> he sort of was a terrorist though? So what? Even terrorists have a right to a fair trial, and protection from arbitrary detention.
- phyller 8y ago
  You miss the point. The point of a trial is maybe he wasn't a terrorist after all. Someone who is in fact guilty of certain crimes does in fact lose some of their protections, they can be detained. Innocent people should be protected from arbitrary detention, therefore everyone should get a fair trial to determine if it can be proved they are guilty, while they have the ability to defend themselves. An innocent person who is wrongly accused of bombing a kindergarten is just as innocent as a person who is wrongly accused of stealing a candy bar.

jonathanstrange 8y ago

The idea behind due process is that everyone has a right to it, not just a select class of people your government is sympathetic with.

nerbert 8y ago
It's incredible how a simple idea like that seems so difficult to grasp for many people.
- Khaine 8y ago
  Just like free speach allows you to say horrible things.

StavrosK 8y ago

> As I recall, he sort of was a terrorist though? Does that matter a single iota? Does the US legal system say somewhere you can hold people in prison with no rights because "they sort of are a terrorist, though"?

trothamel 8y ago
The US constitution has always given the President powers as commander in chief, to detain enemy combatants as prisoners of war. It's not the same thing as criminal punishment, but the POW camps that have been set up in every war are constitutional.

dzdt 8y ago

I am less concerned with whether Padilla was actually a bad guy than whether the process was actually a bad process. If we allow a precedent that the government can remove someone's rights by saying the word "terrorist" then those rights are not worth much anymore.

0x445442 8y ago
Exactly, the word "terrorist" is just another example of linguistic gamesmanship. The Gubment doesn't get to recast accusations of murder as accusations of "terrorism" just so they can circumvent the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

detaro 8y ago

So they held him from a fair trial despite having good evidence on which to win such a trial, and that somehow makes it better?

cmiles74 8y ago

In my opinion, the "maybe a terrorist" angle 100% doesn't matter. If you are a citizen then you have the right to a fair trial, due process, etc. If it was such a slam dunk, why not arrest and prosecute under existing laws? That the federal government felt they needed to take unconstitutional steps undermines their credibility in my eyes.

phyller 8y ago
Exactly. And if these rights are a good thing (which as a nation we have theoretically decided they are), we should be giving them to non-citizens as well. I think it is always good for a) government having to prove guilt instead of the accused proving innocence and b) the severity of the supposed crime not being a determining factor in whether or not the accused gets a fair trial in a timely manner.

DanBC 8y ago

> he sort of was a terrorist though? So what? Even terrorists have a right to a fair trial, and protection from arbitrary detention.

phyller 8y ago
You miss the point. The point of a trial is maybe he wasn't a terrorist after all. Someone who is in fact guilty of certain crimes does in fact lose some of their protections, they can be detained. Innocent people should be protected from arbitrary detention, therefore everyone should get a fair trial to determine if it can be proved they are guilty, while they have the ability to defend themselves. An innocent person who is wrongly accused of bombing a kindergarten is just as innocent as a person who is wrongly accused of stealing a candy bar.