It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Charge Jose Padilla or set him free!

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 02:03 AM
For those of you who don't know, Jose Padilla was arrested after being accused of planning to plant a dirty bomb in the US. He is a US citizen. He has been detained for over 2 years now with no chargers and no access to a lawyer.

This is bull. Jose Padilla, regardless of what he believes or who he supports, is an American citizen and is thus entitled to rights granted to US Citizens in the consitution. If the government is so sure Padilla was planning to do this and they have evidence, then charge the man, give him access to his lawyer, and start court proceedings.

How can they possibly justify holding a US Citizen without charges if they're so sure he was planning what they say?

Amendment 6: Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Notice the phrase, "In ALL criminal prosecutions..." not just ones that Bush feels like taking care of.

Amendment 8:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

What kind of bail is more excessive then not being given a chance at a bail hearing? How more cruel and unusual can you get by punishing a man who hasn't even been on trial?

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

Sorry if this topic has been covered, it's 3 AM and I didn't search. Feel free to lock/move.

posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 02:06 AM
Personally I think its a disgrace to do that to a citizen. If you give him a trial and he is convicted by a jury then by all means lock that b**sard in a room and throw away the room. But to hold him like that in my opinion is a crime itself. What? Kidnapping? Since its an attack on our constitution like that would it be considered an act of war against our own country? Input would be nice on this subject. I am sure there are many mixed feelings. But remember this. He has only been accused. Nothing else. You could be accused tomorrow. You really want to be locked up like that without charges, access to a lawyer or a trial?

posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 02:07 AM
I think the legal loophole for this is that by conspiring against the government implies a revokation of citizenship status and then you are reduced to an illegal enemy combatant. But then again, I'm not sure. I always thought we had treason to take care of such cases.

posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 02:10 AM
What the U.S. is doing, IMO, is a good method of making a threat such as terrorism seem more real. By taking somebody off the streets and holding them indefinitely under purported claims of terrorism, yet not charging them with anything, you can alter public perception to think that terrorism really is a big deal that is being dealt with. Since there is no charges being brought against Padilla and others, doubts have got to arise in your mind as to how much of a threat these suspects really are.

posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 02:11 AM
Exactly. And even for cases of treason there are proceedures. This is just the typical law breaking I have come to expect from the Bush administration.

posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 02:49 AM
Personally, I think he brought his troubles on himself.

posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 07:21 AM
[edit on 13-6-2004 by Mspc]

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 02:30 AM
Anyone else notice J Padilla's uncanny resemblance to John Doe #2 of OKC fame? Just wondering...

top topics


log in