In view of the recent conviction of Jose Padilla on the weight of ...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

Poll question: In view of the recent conviction of Jose Padilla on the weight of ...

...what Paul Craig Roberts calls "little, if any, supporting evidence," what's to keep our Big Brother government from doing this to you?

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

The "evidence" against Padilla consists of three items: (1) seven intercepted telephone conversations, (2) a 10-year old nonrelevant 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.

The International Herald Tribune and Associated Press reported in detail on the telephone intercepts (June 19, 2007): "Accused al-Qaida operative Jose Padilla was never overheard using purported code words for violent jihad in intercepted telephone conversations and spoke often about his difficulties in learning Arabic while studying in Egypt, the lead FBI case agent testified Tuesday. The questioning of FBI Agent James T. Kavanaugh by Padilla's attorney, Michael Caruso, focused on seven intercepted telephone calls on which Padilla's voice is heard mostly talking about his marriage and his studies but never about Islamic extremism. . . . Caruso asked Kavanaugh if Padilla ever was heard using what prosecutors say were code words for violent jihad . . . 'No, he does not,' Kavanaugh replied. . . . Caruso asked Kavanaugh if Padilla was ever overheard discussing jihad training. 'No jihad training that I've seen,' Kavanaugh said. . . . 'He's not referring to anything here but studying Arabic, correct? Study means study, right?' Caruso asked. 'That's what they're talking about,' Kavanaugh testified."

Despite the FBI's testimony that the intercepted telephone messages contained no incriminating evidence, the "patriotic" jury accepted the federal prosecutor's unsupported accusation that there were hidden code words in the message indicating that Padilla was a terrorist. After all, who but a terrorist would want to learn Arabic?

The video of bin Laden had no relevance whatsoever to the charges in the case. The video is 10 years old and makes no reference to any of the defendants. Moreover, none of the defendants were accused of ever being in contact with bin Laden. The only purpose of the video was to arouse in jurors fear, anger, and disturbing memories associated with September 11, 2001. The fact that the judge let prosecutors sway a fearful and vengeful patriotic jury with emotion and passion rather than evidence is obviously grounds for appeal.

Source: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2326.shtml

NOTE: Attention citizen: It is your duty to participate in this poll. You WILL vote, and you WILL vote correctly, and you WILL smile while voting. Failure to perform your duty will result in immediate deactivation of your RFID chip, after which you will be collected for Soylent Green recycling. You have thirty seconds to comply -- thank you for your cooperation.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

1. Kick for larger sample. nt.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

2. Kick for larger sample. nt.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

3. Kick for larger sample. nt.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

4. Kick for larger sample. nt.