Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (40363)	8/27/2002 5:58:56 PM
From: kumar	Respond to of 281500

Thanks for the explanation. Whilst I personally find the situation "illogical", I am willing to accept the law of the land. cheers, kumar

To: Ilaine who wrote (40363)	8/27/2002 6:01:24 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"The allegations against Padilla, if true, are that he intended to assist Al Qaeda in deploying a dirty bomb within the United States. That is both mens rea and actus reus. Further, he formed the specific intent after 9/11, and was aware that Congress authorized the use of force against Al Qaeda and those who assist it. These are the major distinctions between the men's cases. I can surmise that they are being treated differently for other reasons, as well. Padilla probably knows much more about Al Qaeda's present intentions and configuration than Lindh did. Lindh was a foot soldier, a grunt who carried a rifle. He was not engaged in planning a terrorist act in the US. Further, Lindh is the type of guy who would roll over easily, while Padilla is a hard case." He's never been charged. No evidence has been presented. How do you know all this? Oh and he has no lawyer.