Is the ACLU Anti-Christian? - Comments Page 3

Article comments

Subscribe to comment RSS

• 76 - Cao

  Sep 27, 2005 at 10:16 pm

  Oh what I say always bugs the libs. That's why you told me the name of my blog was perfect. To people who speak Gaelic, it's Cao's blog. To liberals, I make chaos in their minds...so it's Chaos' blog, lol.
  
  At any rate. The question is when is an American born citizen without rights?
  
  In the case of Padilla, it's when he's plotting to overthrow the government, covorting with members of Al Qaeda, and learning to make bombs. You know, like Richard Reid, Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh. Notice how far those guys got?
  
  In the first trial, it was found by the judge that there wasn't enough evidence to detain him.
  
  Here's the evidence that the government has on him that connects him with Al Qaeda and terrorist activities.
  

  
  According to the summary of evidence, Al Qaeda leaders had assigned Padilla and an accomplice to blow up as many as three high-rise apartment buildings by detonating natural gas explosions in two apartments rented in each building. One of his contacts, Adnan el Shukrijumah, was among seven suspects Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft asked Americans to be on the lookout for last week.
  
  During interrogation, Padilla admitted that he had been asked to target buildings in New York, Washington, D.C., or Florida, although he said he never intended to carry out the plan and it was merely a ruse so he could return to the United States, according to the Justice Department document.
  
  Other detainees interrogated about Padilla described the combination of targets as being in Chicago and Central United States, in California, or in Texas and along the Mexican border, according to the document.
  
  Padilla and an accomplice allegedly received training from an explosives expert in Afghanistan on assembling improvised detonators and timing devices. The training also included instruction on techniques for sealing an apartment so natural gas would build up inside, Comey said.
  
  When apprehended at O'Hare, Padilla was carrying more than $10,000 in cash allegedly provided by Al Qaeda and telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of alleged Al Qaeda operatives, Comey said.
  
  Padilla originally approached Al Qaeda leaders with a proposal to attack a U.S. city with a nuclear bomb that Padilla claimed he had learned how to build through the Internet, Comey said. But a skeptical Al Qaeda leader reportedly suggested Padilla build a simpler "dirty bomb" that would spread radioactive material through a conventional explosion.
  
  Al Qaeda leaders had doubts about the plots to use radioactive material and instructed Padilla to pursue the attacks against apartment buildings instead, Comey said.
  
  Padilla's intentions doubted
  
  He added that the Al Qaeda leaders were never sure whether Padilla would follow his instructions or press forward with a radioactive bomb.
  
  Comey said much of the information the government obtained on the alleged plots came from the interrogation of Padilla after he was transferred to military custody and stripped of normal protections given criminal defendants.
  
  Comey, who was the chief federal prosecutor in Manhattan when Padilla was transferred to military custody, said that at the time he would have been unable to convict Padilla without endangering intelligence sources.
  
  He added that he thought it unlikely Padilla would have provided details of the alleged plot had he been allowed access to the court system.
  
  Comey said Padilla's statements have been "heavily corroborated" by other detainees held as enemy combatants.
  
  Much of the summary outlining the case against Padilla mentions only his admissions. But the document cites statements from Al Qaeda operations chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and several other unnamed detainees corroborating elements of the alleged plot to blow up apartment buildings.
  
  The questioning of Padilla was done by the FBI and Defense Intelligence Agency, Comey said, adding, "I have great confidence that those folks did it the right way."

• 77 - Cao

  Sep 27, 2005 at 10:19 pm

  As far as I'm concerned the guy can rot in hell/jail and they can throw away the key.

• 78 - Cao

  Sep 27, 2005 at 10:23 pm

  The fact that a guy like that can be supported by the ACLU--is funny and ridiculous. Most of the folks that the ACLU defends should be rotting in prison or sitting on death row. They SUPPORT and DEFEND domestic terrorists like Padilla who are working with Al Qaeda.

  
  
  We'll see more bombings and eventually a nuke attack if this crap doesn't stop. As far as I'm concerned in the WOT, the ACLU is in collusion with the Islamists and the Americans who are converting to Islam in prisons (and there are quite a number of them) who are looking and salivating to commit these acts.

• 79 - Michael J. West

  Sep 28, 2005 at 1:06 am

  Guess what, Cao? I agree. He SHOULD rot in jail, and they SHOULD throw away the key.
  
  They should also charge him with a crime.
  
  I don't dispute that Padilla is a terrorist. I don't dispute that he was involved in truly evil plans against America. I don't dispute the evidence you put in your comment(s).
  
  What I dispute is the precedent that this case sets. If we have one American citizen who we are allowed to detain indefinitely without charging him with a crime, why not two? Or ten? Or ten million?
  
  If they don't have to charge you with a crime, they don't have to prove you committed the crime. So this sets a precdent that, in essence, allows the government to keep you incarcerated for as long as they want without having to demonstrate that you did anything to deserve it.
  
  You could be next, Cao. It doesn't even matter if you've never had anything to do with any terrorism. They can say you did, lock you up for it, and have no need to prove that you're guilty.
  
  As far as I'm concerned, Jose Padilla can (and should) go to our worst maximum security prison and die behind bars. But there's a way to go about doing that, and if they don't go by the book — by the Constitution — it undermines the very foundations of the United States of America.

• 80 - Ogre

  Sep 28, 2005 at 6:55 am

  Dave -- the reason one should care is that the primary source of funding today for the ACLU IS taxpayers -- the ACLU sues government for CASH, and the government gives it to them -- and government cannot give away money unless they first take it from taxpayers.

• 81 - Shark

  Sep 28, 2005 at 6:58 am

  nugget: "shark, your posts make me cringe."
  
  Back atcha, babe.
  
  
  BTW: nugget, of all the insane, garrulous, obnoxious people on BC, why have you picked Shark to follow around and fuck with?
  
  Thanks in advance,
  S
  
  PS: take a number and get in line.
  
  

• 82 - John Bambenek

  Sep 28, 2005 at 9:28 am

  Ok ladies, point to me one government in the history of mankind that has EVER treated people who engage in warfare against the state as criminals?
  
  It hasn't happened because it's stupid. You wage war, you get treated according to the rules of war.
  
  That's not unconstitutional, Congress approves those treaties and writes the UCMJ.

• 83 - Michael J. West

  Sep 28, 2005 at 10:20 am

  Ok ladies, point to me one government in the history of mankind that has EVER treated people who engage in warfare against the state as criminals?
  
  It hasn't happened because it's stupid. You wage war, you get treated according to the rules of war.
  
  Bambenek, the rules of war assume that the person engaged in warfare against the state is not a member of the state.
  
  When the person engaged in warfare against the state is a CITIZEN of the state, OUR government has historically treated them as criminals. Timothy McVeigh, for example. Or, if you wish, Jefferson Davis, who was tried for treason against the United States. So were Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. All of whom engaged in some form of warfare or another against the state.
  
  Jose Padilla should also be tried for treason. And convicted for treason. As a U.S. citizen.

• 84 - Sarah

  Oct 31, 2006 at 1:18 pm

  Can you imaginae a world without christians? There would be no love and compassion.

• 85 - Jason

  Oct 31, 2006 at 1:22 pm

  There was a certain court case in a certain state in which the aclu was suing because of a cross which was a war memorial. The whole city voted to keep it. The aclu won the case(because of the liberal judge) and they tore it down. The aclu doesn't even care about the people anymore. They must be stopped!

• 86 - Nancy

  Oct 31, 2006 at 1:22 pm

  Actually, yes, I can: there would be less bigotry, less smearing of non-christians, less insistence on everybody living & believing as THEY believe ... I could go on & on but I can't help but think it might be a better world without them. Or muslims, or any other organized ripoff group, come to think of it.

• 87 - uh60l

  Apr 25, 2007 at 9:43 pm

  I think John Lennon said it best:
  
  Imagine there's no Heaven
  It's easy if you try
  No hell below us
  Above us only sky
  Imagine all the people
  Living for today
  
  Imagine there's no countries
  It isn't hard to do
  Nothing to kill or die for
  And no religion too
  Imagine all the people
  Living life in peace
  
  I don't think the world will ever know peace while it still embraces religion, national or otherwise.
  
  I don't knwo much about the ACLU, but if they keep relion from being forced on me or my family, then I say more power to 'em.