Infinite Menus, Copyright 2006, OpenCube Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Jose Padilla found guilty on all counts.

Per MSNBC: Jose Padilla was convicted of federal terrorism support charges Thursday after being held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant in a case that came to symbolize the Bush administrati on’s zeal to stop homegrown terror.
Both his co-defendant s were found guilty as well. More news as it becomes available.

tags: Jose Padilla


Tags: , ,  ,
Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us
  • digg
  • Fark
  • Reddit
  • YahooMyWeb

23 Responses to “Jose Padilla found guilty on all counts.”

  1. My sympathies to you Dusty.

  2. Regarding what pray tell?

  3. Just kidding. I would imagine you were hoping he wasn’t found guilty by all the previous posts about him.

  4. I was hoping that the glaring lack of evidence in a court of law would show how little the Intelligence community had on Padilla. He was found guilty largely by association since the govt had more on his co-defendant s than him.

    Remember Tos, at first, when they thought they could try him in Gitmo, they had other more serious charges against him..buildin g a dirty bomb for one.

    From Jurist:
    Padilla, a US citizen, was arrested in 2002 at Chicago’s O’Hare Internationa l Airport and subsequently detained as an “enemy combatant” at a Navy military brig in Charleston, South Carolina. Initially accused of planning to set off a “dirty bomb” in the United States, Padilla went from enemy combatant to criminal defendant when he was finally charged with other offenses in November 2005.

  5. Actually, I’ve long figured that he’d be acquitted. I don’t often second guess juries, mainly because they see and hear a whole lot more than I do and what I hear about comes filtered through a media that I trust less than most people around here trust Bush but in this case what I heard of the evidence didn’t amount to much: tape recordings of people speaking in code words that the government claimed were code for terrorist stuff but why should anyone believe that it WAS code or that, even if it were code, that the government knew what the code was for? They had video of a training camp but no video of Padilla AT the training camp. They had what they claimed was a entry form or something to an Al Qaeda training camp but, well, so what? Other than that, they didn’t appear to have any evidence that he actually attended the camp. I guess it’s possible that there was more evidence, stuff we didn’t hear about. It’s possible that the evidence was more convincing than it appeared to me as I read about it in news reports.

    Just saying, I’m surprised he was convicted.

  6. Hi Craig..good to see you..havent’ been around much lately. I think you hit the nail on the head..the evidence was spotty and almost non-existant . WHen the judge refused to allow the defense to put on anything about his torture..it really sealed the deal for me as far as him not getting a fair shake.

    It was guilt by association I think..they had a lot more evidence on the co-defendant s, what there was of it..than Padilla.

  7. Craig, Dafydd ab Hugh at Big Lizards has his take on the AP piece above (his link is not to MSNBC, but it is the same AP article). It is a bit more thorough in its dissection of the verdict.

  8. Dusty,

    Hi! Yeh, I’ve been laying off blogging for a bit, doing some reading and other stuff (I’m told that life is more than blogs but I never really believed that).

    Whether he was tortured or not really has no bearing upon what he did or did not do (or did or did not conspire to do) before his arrest and detainment, which is what he was on trial for so that had no bearing upon the trial for me (unless any of the evidence included something he said as a result of his torture, in which case, that evidence and any evidence brought to light as a result of his torture should have been rejected by the court). I mean, if the evidence the jury saw and heard was sufficiently convincing that he was guilty (and the jury seemed to think that it was), whether he was tortured or not really doesn’t effect his guilt.

    Now it would effect a law-suit against the government but that’s something else again.

  9. Torture would play a roll in what info they gleaned from him Craig..think about it..wouldn’t you admit to anything to get them to stop?

    The military had him for over 3 years at Gitmo.

  10. Dusty,

    I agree about that but, as I said in my parenthetica l, “(unless any of the evidence included something he said as a result of his torture, in which case, that evidence and any evidence brought to light as a result of his torture should have been rejected by the court).” He should not have been convicted upon ANY evidence gotten through torture. I’m assuming that the judge who excluded the testimony about Mr. Padilla’s torture was careful about excluding evidence obtained through torture. That’s what the judge is there for, to make sure the jury doesn’t hear any evidence that is obtained contrary to the Constitution  (or if it is heard, to either call a mistrial or, if he thinks it possible for the jury to do so, to instruct the jury to ignore such evidence). Since this is the case — that the jury is not supposed to ever hear evidence obtained by torture — evidence of torture is not relevant to what the government can prove without resorting to evidence obtained without torture.

    Whether I would admit to anything to get them to stop torturing me, I would have to assume that I would. I mean, my migraines have given me a pretty high threshold for pain but I’m no Jack Bauer.

  11. O I know..I am no Jack Bauer either..and I doubt many people are.

    I don’t know enough about the judges ruling on the torture aspect to say yes or no w/regards to how it affected the trial. I am waiting for several law sites to put up commentary on the ruling and the history of the court case. FindLaw has the entire history.but its all legalese stuff, aka the legal paperwork and quite boring to pour though.

  12. SteveIL,

    Hi! Thanks for the link.

  13. craig..I just wonder how the jury could digest a 42 page set of instructions AND three months of evidence in a day..don’t you??

  14. Also..this is the jury that co-ordinated their friggin clothing in a red, white and blue ensemble for the 4th of July..it just doesn’t sit well with me as far as trying to think they gave me a fair shake.

  15. Dusty,

    Yeh. As I said, I’m surprised…re served about second guessing a jury but surprised.

  16. Well, as for the color scheme, if their interest is truly being American, then they gave him a fair shake. I don’t place too much on the color of clothes they wore for the fourth. Now if they all wore those string ties tied in nooses at the ends on the day they delivered the verdict, that would trouble me. I’m rarely troubled by Americans displaying pro-American sentiments.

  17. I just don’t get a feeling he got a fair shake..I had high hopes for a decent trial since it wasn’t going to be tried at the Kangaroo court down at Gitmo..I just don’t feel the jury gave it their all..Not in basically what amounts to a day of deliberation .

  18. Well, thats where you and I part ways..I don’t think dressing patriotic during a trial about terrorism sends the message that the jury was impartial.

  19. Dusty,

    There’s no doubt that juries get it wrong sometimes, even when they’re trying to get it right. That’s why there’re appeals built into the system. This jury may not have even been all that concerned with getting it right, as you seem to be suggesting. They may have simply gotten together to deliberate, said a collective “Look, we all know these guys are guilty. Let’s fool around for a day and then deliver the verdict we all know they deserve.” I’m not to the point where a one-day color scheme gets me to that point, though. As for me, I’ve been called for jury duty a hand-full of times but have never sat upon a jury. I tend to think that people tend to take their duty seriously but that may just be two versions of “Twelve Angry Men” replaying in my mind.

  20. lol..I think of 12 Angry Men too when it comes down to juries Craig.

    I hope the appeals process is transparent. .it should be. I too have been called for JD but never served yet. And I wouldnt mind it..I would like to go through the process and I would take it very seriously.

  21. I’ve always been disappointed that I’ve never been a juror. I’m not one who would try to get out of serving.

  22. Its been good to see you, as it were, Craig. Sleep well, I am going to lay down watch the new mine disaster unfold in Utah. Another cave in..and more dead..same mine. :(

  23. Very sad stuff in Utah. Also in Peru…more than 500 dead.

    Good night, Dusty.

Leave a Reply

Fish.Travel