I Think We’re Supposed to Feel Bad About This
NYT offers up a day in the life of Jose Padilla. You may recall he is the gentleman from Chicago who converted to Islam, hobnobbed with al Qaeda, and, our government has alleged, came back here with a plan to blow up apartment buildings, and now apparently lives in a state of virtual sensory deprivation while awaiting trial on charges of providing support to terrorists. A big day for Jose is having a root canal done.
Topics: Uncategorized
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 1:41 am Comments (11) on Monday, December 4, 2006
11 Responses to “I Think We’re Supposed to Feel Bad About This”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
December 4th, 2006 at 3:54 am
Uh.
It’s not about feeling bad.
It’s about the illegality of holding American citizens without access to counsel and in the absence of an indictment or formal charges.
Your thoughts?
December 4th, 2006 at 9:27 am
Excuse me, Jules, but can you give a cite for where “our our government has alleged” Padilla was involved with “a plan to blow up apartment buildings”?
Where does the indictment of Padilla say that?
December 4th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
The Terrorist Defense League sticks its ugly head up again.
December 4th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
What happened to innocent until proven guilty, Robert?
Do you have any arguments? Or just smug name-calling?
December 4th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
…Still waiting on a rational-legal response to the argument that the American government is constitutionally forbidden from indefinitely imprisoning an American citizen without charges and without access to counsel.
If you’re unsure of where to start, I’d recommend the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution.
Respectfully,
Oz
December 4th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
You GO, Oz.
And, no, this is not about protecting “terrorists”… it’s about protecting all of us. Any one of us could be Padilla — illegally shanghaid into a secret prison, tortured, denied counsel for years … after all, it was only Bush/Cheney’s fear of the Supreme Court’s decision in the matter that forced them to actually press (very weak) charges.
Now, it looks like the guy’s probably gonna walk, since the allegations of Padilla planning to blow up apartment buildings (per John Ashcroft) is not in the indictment, at all. In fact, nothing about bombs, per se. Just some vague charges of “terrorism” that the judge in the case is demanding more specifics about.
So… let’s wake up, Sheep. Next, it could be you taken away in the dark of night — never to be heard from again.
Thankfully Bush/Cheney only has 2-more years to do their worst. But fasten your seatbelts, anyway. They’re gonna be bumpy years.
Here’s hoping the next President (aided by the Dem Congress) can find a way to re-construct our tattered U.S. Constitution. Eight years of this administration has wrecked catastrophic damage on the foundations of American democracy, and I for one am looking forward to having America be America again.
Who’s with me?
December 4th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Where can the outrage at the unconstitutional treatment of Padilla best be vented?
I get that the wheels of justice grind slowly but Padilla’s place in history is already secure. Can we not do the right thing a little more quickly?
Seriously, adding to a Herald blogger’s comments seems, somehow, so laughably inadequate.
I hate that Padilla’s mind/spirit is so menaced by the government of the land I love.
Eagerly awaiting Jules’ response to Oz.
December 4th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
I couldn’t care less what some anonymous anti-American blog-troll has to say.
But Jules gets actual column-inches in a major metropolitan newspaper, yet he seems unconcerned with the actual facts concerning his subject.
Jules – you seem to condone Padilla’s fate. Do you know the facts behind why he’s held? Why can’t the same fate await any of us, unreviewed by any court?
You condemn AP’s “shoddy work”. What of your own?
December 4th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
Stephen: What about my comments indicates that I am “anti-American?” I’m an American citizen, asking Mr. Crittenden to explain why he endorses unconstitutional action on the part of the US government.
I just don’t understand the name calling. Why don’t you address the merits of my case? It’s not constructive to reduce this to who is more patriotic. It’s a cheap tactic used to discredit arguments that one is unable to counter.
Standing up for the constitution is the patriotic. Sitting idly by while it is violated by leaders who nullify the sacred rights of American citizens is not.
Respectfully,
Oz
December 4th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
No, no, no Oz. I was talking about “Robert”.
I am in whole-hearted agreement with you, especially the your last paragraph.
December 5th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Still waiting on a response, but not expecting one at this point. Probably because there isn’t one.