Politics, Propoganda, and the Patriot Act

[Staylo]

Once again, not all is as it seems. Granted the man had bad intentions, but it would seem that his biggest success has been as an Ashcroft example :
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/09/international1345EDT0610.DTL

"If that's what he planned," physicist Oelrich said of Padilla, "it shows he doesn't know what he's talking about and hasn't done even rudimentary homework."



comments?

[nostatic]

why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

[techweenie]

Everything about the story stinks on ice. The guy was in custody for months before Ashcroft urgently announced this 'terrorists' plot and capture.

Oddly enough, the timing coincided with rising press focus on Enron and Ken Lay's close friendship with GWB.

Probably just a coincidence.

[speeder]

The whole "War on Terror" by these losers is just a steaming pile of horse*****. The most successfully terrorised people are Bush and his stooges, they are deathly afraid that the public will discover that they don't have a frikkin' clue.

I was talking to my Dad the other day about how Bush has done the impossible; he's made us liberal democrats actually miss his Dad, Reagan, etc....

"Nixon was a raging liberal next to this a-hole", was my Dad's comment. (Dad actually fought in a war).

[Hugh R]

Regarding the Padilla thing, are you saying that "Intent" doesn't count for anything. If he thought Uranium would make an effective dirty bomb, but he was wrong, does that make it OK? How about if I deliberately pour cyanuric acid a chlorine stabilizer used in swimming pools) in a drinking water supply, thinking it was another cyanide compound like sodium cyanide which is reacted with acid to produce hydrogen cyanide in the gas chamber to execute a person. Its the wrong chemical, but I "INTENDED" to kill you with it, I was wrong in my chemistry, does that make it OK? The guy should definitely be treated as a criminal. Given that he's a U.S. Citizen, he should probably be tried criminally, however, since he is also apparently one of Osama's terrorists, I say try him both ways and give him the harsher of the two sentences.

[speeder]

There is no doubt in my mind that he is a criminal, but nothing that couldn't be handled w/o tossing the constitution out the frikkin' window.

[Hugh R]

Actually, I agree with you. I think its good that the Supreme Court is getting involved. Its like that American Taliban (don't remember his name) he was fighting in a civil war in Afganistan when the U.S. troops came in. I'm not all that sure that made him a U.S. traitor.

[911pcars]

He was treated like other Iraqi prisoners - he was tortured (LA Times, 6/8 or 6/9/04).

Sherwood

[Staylo]

Originally posted by Hugh R
Its the wrong chemical, but I "INTENDED" to kill you with it, I was wrong in my chemistry, does that make it OK? The guy should definitely be treated as a criminal. Given that he's a U.S. Citizen, he should probably be tried criminally, however, since he is also apparently one of Osama's terrorists, I say try him both ways and give him the harsher of the two sentences.

Hugh,
Not to disagree with you, but I think the point is that everyone knows he's guilty. There is plenty of evidence, he has spilled all the beans, and on top if it all he's a mental midget. It has been 2 full years now since he was arrested. He has yet to be charged, or provided any legal access. (This is America, and he is a citizen.)
Charge, try, and convict him already, instead of keeping him in the closet for Ashcroft to drag out and spread timely, deliberate B.S. with.
Great stuff, keeps the fear level nice and high. Conveniently b*tch slaps the Constitution as well. Why not hold him in the closet for another four years, He's an evildoer.

[techweenie]

Hugh R: "Actually, I agree with you. I think its good that the Supreme Court is getting involved. Its like that American Taliban (don't remember his name) he was fighting in a civil war in Afganistan when the U.S. troops came in. I'm not all that sure that made him a U.S. traitor."

Yeah, that's a puzzler. When John Walker Lindh (sp?) was signing up with the Taliban, the administration was preparing to cut them a check for something like $41 million. Five months later, we changed our minds and retroactively made him a criminal.

If he fired a shot or in any way supported the Taliban against US troops, lock him up forever. But could we at least have a trial and hear some truthtelling? Or is he going to be another political pawn held until after the election so the administration's contemporaneous pro-Taliban stance isn't brought up in open court?

[rcecale]

Originally posted by techweenie
If he fired a shot or in any way supported the Taliban against US troops, lock him up forever. But could we at least have a trial and hear some truthtelling? Or is he going to be another political pawn held until after the election so the administration's contemporaneous pro-Taliban stance isn't brought up in open court?

Were you talking about Walker, or Padilla? Walker was finished almost a year ago. Click

Randy

[singpilot]

I was chuckling about the part of this discussion about him being a mental midget for picking plutonium as a bomb ingredient.

The concept of terrorism is just that.

If a crude dispersal conventional explosive device went off in downtown LA and didn't even break any windows because it was so small, but contained 'plutonium', do you think that would qualify as terrorism?

I do. Who knows how much there was? Who cares that it would have been impossible to have ever made it a fissile type device? Would you avoid downtown LA after that? Would you be nervous living downwind? Would your Los Angeles property values be affected?

What if an unknown quantity of 'plutonium' was simply dropped anywhere into the 300 mile long California Aqueduct (say from any one of the many freeway crossings on I-5)? Reguardless of the quantity, would you be suspicious of the water from your faucets in Los Angeles? Would it matter that there wasn't enough to be fissile?

Terror. That's all that counts. The intent is terror.

Funny thing, if any of the above scenarios happened, would any of us living in Los Angeles have ever heard about it?

I have a R/O watermaker on the boat. No more city water for me.

[911pcars]

RE: John Walker

"....Not to disagree with you, but I think the point is that everyone knows he's guilty. There is plenty of evidence, he has spilled all the beans."

Staylo,
I agree with your assessment he should have a speedy trial and have access to suitable representation, but his confession and others exposed to this treatment is what's currently in the news. White house legal staff drafted a lengthy rationalization legitimizing torture under wartime circumstances and circumvent current laws. Wonderful.

BTW, I'm pretty sure torture can force anyone to confess they're guilty of witchcraft. That's why US laws (up until recently anyway) forbid torture as a form of evidence gathering (besides other humanitarian reasons). Our current short-sighted rulers evidently don't care if the same treatment is afforded our captured US soldiers/civilians.

Sherwood

[techweenie]

rcecale, Randy, I'm afraid the liberal media hijacked your link to a gaudily-painted 911.

I'd love to read about the Lindh trial, though. Completely missed it!

[Staylo]

Sherwood,
My comments were in regard to Padilla, but I agree with your statement in light of recent revelations concerning the Government’s views on torture.
From everything that I read, Padilla has told his story, confessed to everything, blah blah blah. What’s left to be gained by denying him due process? However, your post brings up an interesting issue. If Padilla had been tortured for the information he provided, it could certainly taint any subsequent criminal trail. So fortunate that we have the Patriot Act to keep him on ice until after the election (or whenever) before we get to hear the actual facts. In the mean time, Ashcroft gets to say he stopped a major threat (a “dirty bomb”). True, Padilla could have been dangerous, but it’s also true he didn’t really know what he was doing. His bomb was a dud, but Ashcroft either didn’t know or wouldn’t admit it, while pimping him as the ultimate example of the DOJ at work in the war on terror, and why the Patriot Act is so important.
I’m not sure what is worse. That they didn’t know, or won’t admit it. I’m equally bothered by both. Why do I get a sinking feeling that if this guy ever gets a trial, it will probably be on the down low?

[Superman]

Mr Bush recently received a variety of questions to which he had a single response. He said his directive was to obey the law. He directed interrogators to obey the law. If the question was "Does the law permit torture?" he returned to his response. His directive was to obey the law.

Does this sound like a President, or a weasel? Clearly we have personal perception stuff getting in the way of some of our discussions, because it seems clear to me that a number of my conservative friends here consider John Kerry to somehow be wishy=washy, flakey, etc. I don't know him well, but I have not seen these characteristics. But this guy who lives in our White House, to my perception, is the worst kind of politician, the worst kind of business man and the worst kind of human being. I have no personal respect for George W. Bush, the "man." He's a liar, and a coward, and a mean-spirited opportunist, and a careless dunce. In my humble opinion. I notice that he is regarded by some as a strong leader. Some people are quite gullible, we know that. When I see him speak, it seems very clear and obvious to me that he is a cardboard tiger.

I have always been ummmm, modest-sized, and was picked on in school. Yes, I learned to defend myself but what I noticed is that bullies preferred to pick on cowards. Mr. Bush strikes me as a prime bully-target.

[911pcars]

I agree Superman.

One important tool politicians use, and the current administration has made an art of it, is to smear a person's character, whether true or not. If the masses hear it often enough, hear it rolling off the lips of politician's henchmen (talk show hosts, newspaper editorials, magazine articles, internet websites and speech writers), than the masses, or at least many of them, will believe it. That's what advertising is and does and that's what a political machine does. Why else would people buy Crest toothpaste, Charmin toilet paper and vote for unqualified candidates?

Sherwood

[Superman]

Yep, politics in our country is a beauty/marketing contest. I'm told that citizens of many of the world's other developed countries consider our elections to be two things simultaneously:

1. Hilarious
2. Frightening

[singpilot]

Supe!

I consider our presidential election process to be both hilarious and frightening!

[ubiquity0]

Well voter turnout is lower than in almost every other democracy. Less than 25% of the population will be behind the election of either the monkey-puppet or the guy that looks like he should be on a 'Just for Men' hair color commercial. The process is hilarious & the result is frightening.