Jose Padilla sentenced to 17 years of prison
TheVoiceInside
Posts: 361
Padilla's case. Victory in the fight against terrorism or a great injustice? what do you all think.
Padilla Jury Opens Pandora’s Box
by Paul Craig Roberts
José Padilla’s conviction on terrorism charges on August 16 was a victory, not for justice, but for the US Justice (sic) Department’s theory that a US citizen can be convicted, not because he committed a terrorist act but for allegedly harboring aspirations to commit such an act. By agreeing with the Justice (sic) Department’s theory, the incompetent Padilla Jury delivered a deadly blow to the rule of law and opened Pandora’s box.
Anglo-American law is a human achievement 800 years in the making. Over centuries law was transformed from a weapon in the hands of government into a shield of the people from unaccountable power. The Padilla Jury’s verdict turned law back into a weapon.
The jury, of course, had no idea of what was at stake. It was a patriotic jury that appeared in court with one row of jurors dressed in red, one in white, and one in blue (Peter Whoriskey, Washington Post, August 17, 2007). It was a jury primed to be psychologically and emotionally manipulated by federal prosecutors desperate for a conviction for which there was little, if any, supporting evidence. For the jury, patriotism required that they strike a blow for America against terrorism. No member of this jury was going to return home to accusations of letting off a person who has been portrayed as a terrorist in the US media for five years.
The "evidence" against Padilla consists of three items: (1) seven intercepted telephone conversations, (2) a 10-year old non-relevant video of Osama bin Laden, and (3) an alleged application to a mujahideen (not terrorist) training camp with Padilla’s fingerprints. We will examine each in turn.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts219.html
Padilla Jury Opens Pandora’s Box
by Paul Craig Roberts
José Padilla’s conviction on terrorism charges on August 16 was a victory, not for justice, but for the US Justice (sic) Department’s theory that a US citizen can be convicted, not because he committed a terrorist act but for allegedly harboring aspirations to commit such an act. By agreeing with the Justice (sic) Department’s theory, the incompetent Padilla Jury delivered a deadly blow to the rule of law and opened Pandora’s box.
Anglo-American law is a human achievement 800 years in the making. Over centuries law was transformed from a weapon in the hands of government into a shield of the people from unaccountable power. The Padilla Jury’s verdict turned law back into a weapon.
The jury, of course, had no idea of what was at stake. It was a patriotic jury that appeared in court with one row of jurors dressed in red, one in white, and one in blue (Peter Whoriskey, Washington Post, August 17, 2007). It was a jury primed to be psychologically and emotionally manipulated by federal prosecutors desperate for a conviction for which there was little, if any, supporting evidence. For the jury, patriotism required that they strike a blow for America against terrorism. No member of this jury was going to return home to accusations of letting off a person who has been portrayed as a terrorist in the US media for five years.
The "evidence" against Padilla consists of three items: (1) seven intercepted telephone conversations, (2) a 10-year old non-relevant video of Osama bin Laden, and (3) an alleged application to a mujahideen (not terrorist) training camp with Padilla’s fingerprints. We will examine each in turn.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts219.html
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
key evidence is his el qaeda application...
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3170794
in english...
http://abcnews.go.com/images/TheLaw/padilladoc.pdf
if this was his only crime, does the crime fit the punishment? he hasnt actually done anything....but wanting to does justify some time but how much?
The jury, of course, had no idea of what was at stake. It was a patriotic jury that appeared in court with one row of jurors dressed in red, one in white, and one in blue (Peter Whoriskey, Washington Post, August 17, 2007).
This guy was a major scapegoat.