U.S. Wins Court Ruling in 'Dirty Bomb' Case
By Richard A. Serrano Times Staff Writer2 hours, 6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court ruled Friday that Jose Padilla, held
for more than three years after federal officials said he planned to set off
radiological devices, or "dirty bombs," could be detained indefinitely
without trial.

The unanimous decision by a panel of the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
significantly boosts the Bush administration's program of jailing key Al
Qaeda and Taliban suspects without filing criminal charges or holding
trials - whether the detainees were Americans arrested in the U.S. or
citizens of other countries seized abroad - in an effort to squeeze
intelligence information from alleged terrorist operatives.

The ruling could have major implications for detainees at the U.S. naval
base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many, like Padilla, have been deemed
"enemy combatants." Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote the decision for the
three-member panel in Richmond, Va. He is considered to be on President
Bush's short list of candidates to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOYB wrote:
U.S. Wins Court Ruling in 'Dirty Bomb' Case
By Richard A. Serrano Times Staff Writer2 hours, 6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court ruled Friday that Jose Padilla, held
for more than three years after federal officials said he planned to set off
radiological devices, or "dirty bombs," could be detained indefinitely
without trial.

The unanimous decision by a panel of the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
significantly boosts the Bush administration's program of jailing key Al
Qaeda and Taliban suspects without filing criminal charges or holding
trials - whether the detainees were Americans arrested in the U.S. or
citizens of other countries seized abroad - in an effort to squeeze
intelligence information from alleged terrorist operatives.

The ruling could have major implications for detainees at the U.S. naval
base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many, like Padilla, have been deemed
"enemy combatants." Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote the decision for the
three-member panel in Richmond, Va. He is considered to be on President
Bush's short list of candidates to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------

Since this ruling supports the 'disapearing' of US citizens and denies
them the constitutional rights under a system of laws that this country
was founded on I see no great benefit from it.

If there was solid proof there should be no reason NOT to have a
criminal trial and conviction.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:04:13 +0000, NOYB wrote:



The ruling could have major implications for detainees at the U.S. naval
base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many, like Padilla, have been deemed
"enemy combatants." Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote the decision for the
three-member panel in Richmond, Va. He is considered to be on President
Bush's short list of candidates to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

The ruling *will* have major implications for all Americans. It's very
bad news for the Bill of Rights. You may want to refresh yourself on the
dying document. Pay special attention to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...cs/billeng.htm

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
U.S. Wins Court Ruling in 'Dirty Bomb' Case
By Richard A. Serrano Times Staff Writer2 hours, 6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court ruled Friday that Jose Padilla, held
for more than three years after federal officials said he planned to set
off
radiological devices, or "dirty bombs," could be detained indefinitely
without trial.

The unanimous decision by a panel of the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of
Appeals
significantly boosts the Bush administration's program of jailing key Al
Qaeda and Taliban suspects without filing criminal charges or holding
trials - whether the detainees were Americans arrested in the U.S. or
citizens of other countries seized abroad - in an effort to squeeze
intelligence information from alleged terrorist operatives.

The ruling could have major implications for detainees at the U.S. naval
base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many, like Padilla, have been deemed
"enemy combatants." Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote the decision for the
three-member panel in Richmond, Va. He is considered to be on President
Bush's short list of candidates to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------

Since this ruling supports the 'disapearing' of US citizens and denies
them the constitutional rights under a system of laws that this country
was founded on I see no great benefit from it.

If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and
terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US
citizen...you're an enemy combatant and a traitor. At that point, you have
no rights.

There was no way to fight a successful war against terrorism through our
court system. The enemy knew this, and that's precisely why they were so
successful in waging war against us without any repercussions against them.
All of that changed after 9/11 with Bush as President.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:04:13 +0000, NOYB wrote:



The ruling could have major implications for detainees at the U.S. naval
base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many, like Padilla, have been deemed
"enemy combatants." Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote the decision for the
three-member panel in Richmond, Va. He is considered to be on President
Bush's short list of candidates to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

The ruling *will* have major implications for all Americans. It's very
bad news for the Bill of Rights. You may want to refresh yourself on the
dying document. Pay special attention to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...cs/billeng.htm

Ironically, one of the Amici supporting Padilla was none other than Janet
Reno. Her name appears right alongside the ACLU, the National Association
of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the NYCLU, the CLU of SC, and other mutant,
traitorous leftie organizations.

With Reno presiding over the Justice Dept through the 90's, it's no wonder
why we were fighting an ineffective battle against terrorism before Bush
took office.

http://www.wiggin.com/db30/cgi-bin/p...%20Opinion.pdf

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:04:13 +0000, NOYB wrote:



The ruling could have major implications for detainees at the U.S. naval
base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many, like Padilla, have been deemed
"enemy combatants." Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote the decision for the
three-member panel in Richmond, Va. He is considered to be on President
Bush's short list of candidates to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

The ruling *will* have major implications for all Americans. It's very
bad news for the Bill of Rights. You may want to refresh yourself on the
dying document. Pay special attention to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...cs/billeng.htm

This ruling did nothing to infringe on the rights of US citizens who don't
take up arms against this country. Padilla was an enemy combatant.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:21:01 +0000, NOYB wrote:



If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and
terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US
citizen...you're an enemy combatant and a traitor. At that point, you
have no rights.

Ah, guilty until proven innocent. Only you can't prove your innocence
because you have been locked up for three years, without charges, without
council, without . . . Quite the new Amerika you are working on there,
NOYB.

There was no way to fight a successful war against terrorism through our
court system. The enemy knew this, and that's precisely why they were so
successful in waging war against us without any repercussions against
them. All of that changed after 9/11 with Bush as President.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
NOYB wrote:
U.S. Wins Court Ruling in 'Dirty Bomb' Case
By Richard A. Serrano Times Staff Writer2 hours, 6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court ruled Friday that Jose Padilla,
held
for more than three years after federal officials said he planned to
set off
radiological devices, or "dirty bombs," could be detained indefinitely
without trial.

The unanimous decision by a panel of the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of
Appeals
significantly boosts the Bush administration's program of jailing key
Al
Qaeda and Taliban suspects without filing criminal charges or holding
trials - whether the detainees were Americans arrested in the U.S. or
citizens of other countries seized abroad - in an effort to squeeze
intelligence information from alleged terrorist operatives.

The ruling could have major implications for detainees at the U.S.
naval
base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many, like Padilla, have been
deemed
"enemy combatants." Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote the decision for the
three-member panel in Richmond, Va. He is considered to be on President
Bush's short list of candidates to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------

Since this ruling supports the 'disapearing' of US citizens and denies
them the constitutional rights under a system of laws that this country
was founded on I see no great benefit from it.

If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and
terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US
citizen...you're an enemy combatant and a traitor. At that point, you
have no rights.




Define subversive in a way that does not nullify the constitution and bill
of rights. Be as detailed as possible.

Protections under the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not extend to enemy
combatants.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:37:40 +0000, NOYB wrote:


This ruling did nothing to infringe on the rights of US citizens who don't
take up arms against this country. Padilla was an enemy combatant.

Horse****, NOYB. Infringe on the rights of one US citizen, infringe on
the rights of all US citizens. If Padilla was an enemy combatant, charge
him. In my country, a man is innocent *until* proven guilty. There's a
country about 150 miles south of you, that disappears citizens. Perhaps,
you would be more comfortable there.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:21:01 +0000, NOYB wrote:



If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and
terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US
citizen...you're an enemy combatant and a traitor. At that point, you
have no rights.

Ah, guilty until proven innocent. Only you can't prove your innocence
because you have been locked up for three years, without charges, without
council, without . . . Quite the new Amerika you are working on there,
NOYB.

There have been thousands of alleged "enemy combatants" freed from
Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib once military intelligence and/or tribunals have
deemed that they are no longer a threat. And I have faith that the military
system of justice will provide adequate protections for the truly innocent.
But folks like Padilla are mutant scum with no hope for rehabilitation...and
detaining him indefinitely is the best way to prevent him from ever again
participating in battle against the US.





There was no way to fight a successful war against terrorism through our
court system. The enemy knew this, and that's precisely why they were so
successful in waging war against us without any repercussions against
them. All of that changed after 9/11 with Bush as President.