Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Breaking: Padilla verdict expected at 2 p.m.; Update: Guilty on all counts; Update: Who hates America more, the New York Times or me?

posted at 12:52 pm on August 16, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Three-month trial, “hundreds” of wiretapped conversations to sift through, and yet they’ve reached a decision after fully one day of deliberations. Anyone think they’re going to convict?

Anyone?

[P]rosecutors didn’t present any direct evidence, such as an eyewitness, to prove Padilla actually attended al Qaeda’s training camp in Afghanistan. So, they called a convicted terrorist to testify that he filled out the same Mujahedin application and completed the terror group’s training camp — one year after Padilla allegedly committed the same crime.

Although Padilla’s Mujahedin form itself appears to be solid, the overall case against him is riddled with circumstantial evidence. In other words, there’s no proverbial smoking gun.

He’s accused of conspiracy to commit murder abroad, a.k.a. jihad, and two lesser charges of providing material support for terrorism. I haven’t followed it but it sounds like the case against him hinges on whether his relationship with two AQ recruiters plus the mujahedeen application form(!) he filled out adds up to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to kill. There’s no dirty bomb charge, even though that’s what he’s famous for.

In theory, even if he’s acquitted Bush could send him back to military prison by designating him an enemy combatant, but Bush already has enough of a stench about him for doing things extrajudicially that he’s not going to disregard a jury verdict. Besides, what would be the point of putting him on trial if you’re only going to send him back to the brig?

Stand by for verdict. Exit question one: Assuming he’s acquitted, which celebrity “journalist” lands the coveted “what would you like to say to the president” Padilla interview? And exit question two: Will Sully be able to watch it through the tears?

Update: MM has a copy of Padilla’s “application form.” Why AQ would want to leave a paper trial is beyond me, but the Herald says it looks pretty solid.

Update (bp): One of the key points against Padilla all along is that he was fingered by captured al Qaeda big Abu Zubaydah, and turned up in Chicago where Zubaydah said he would on his mission to dirty bomb and blow up Chicago area apartment buildings. That’s circumstantial, but surely damning. If Padilla is innocent, how did Abu Z know where he’d be and when he’d be there?

Sullivan will surely cry that Zubaydah in all likelihood gave up Padilla after being water-boarded. I don’t consider water-boarding torture, and don’t care at all about the health and welfare of an animal like Abu Zubaydah. His head was full of al Qaeda facts, and we needed access to those facts in order to save lives. I see it as the closest thing we’ll get in the real world to the true ticking time-bomb scenario. You had a captured terrorist aggressively interrogated to give up the name and location of another, who was (allegedly) on a terrorist mission at that very moment. No water-boarding of the capture terrorist, and you don’t stop the terrorist who’s still in the field, and innocent people die.

Update: Heart-ache in nutrootsland — they got him on all three counts. Big win for Bush. A win too for Bush critics, in a sense: this will “prove” that the administration doesn’t need military tribunals to convict jihadis.

The AP salvages defeat from victory:

The charges brought in civilian court in Miami, however, were a pale shadow of those initial [dirty bomb] claims in part because Padilla, 36, was interrogated about the plot when he was held as an enemy combatant for 3 1/2 years in military custody with no lawyer present and was not read his Miranda rights.

Do they know he’s looking at an almost certain life sentence?

Update: Like the Herald said, that form was pretty solid:

The key piece of physical evidence was a five-page form Padilla supposedly filled out in July 2000 to attend an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, which would link the other two defendants as well to Usama bin Laden’s terrorist organization.

The form, recovered by the CIA in 2001 in Afghanistan, contains seven of Padilla’s fingerprints and several other personal identifiers, such as his birthdate and his ability to speak Spanish, English and Arabic.

“It was a relief operation,” said one of his co-defendants’ lawyers.

Update: A grumpy Salon reminds us that they didn’t prove jack about dirty bombs, just that he conspired to kill people for Al Qaeda. Keep moving those goalposts, wingnuts.

Update: HuffPo’s got a thread up now and the comments are piling up. My favorite thus far, from a Gutfeldesque subversive:

huffpo.png

It’s really a hell of a slow news day otherwise so I’m wondering what this verdict was meant to “distract” us from. Well, stick with HuffPo. We’ll find out soon enough.

Update: Your quote of the day:

After the decision was announced, Padilla’s mother, Estella Lebron, told CNN her son will appeal the verdict.

“I’m not surprised by anything in this place anymore,” she said. “This is a Republican city.”

Update: Another HuffPo subversive — or just a liberal who takes her own rhetoric seriously? — floats this humble suggestion to her disappointed nutroots cohorts:

forgive me…but dont we want to fight terorists and terrorism using law enforement–and not the military?

Update (bp): A blast from the past. Yeah, I’m the guy who started the Padilla/OKC John Doe #2 speculation when Padilla was first arrested. My old blog is on a new server since then and the original comparison image I did back then got lost in the transfer, but this post is where it all started.

And we never could rule Padilla out of (or in) the OKC bombing. I don’t think he was involved in that, but not being able to definitively rule him out by placing him in prison or some place else at any key moment of the OKC timeline has always bugged me.

Update: Ace mitigates the hatred of America he’s demonstrated by taking joy in the conviction of a terrorist with a conciliatory gesture.

Update (bp): Oh, the humanity! We truly lost our soul upon Zubaydah’s capture.

Update: Who hates America and/or our freedoms more? He who calls this a “big win for Bush”? Or she who calls it “a major victory for the Bush administration”?


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

And exit question two: Will Sully be able to watch it through the tears?

Only if he watches it from Baghdad in the middle of the summer at high noon when it’s 135 degrees in the shade and he is out in the sun.

doriangrey on August 16, 2007 at 12:56 PM

Next question:
Assuming he’s acquitted, where’s he going to move to? Because I’d always be looking at him funny especially after his “terrorist application” showed up on TV.

P.S. What was his answer to the question – “How much do you hate the Jews”? A Hitler-ish amount?

mjk on August 16, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Exit question one: Assuming he’s acquitted, which celebrity “journalist” lands the coveted “what would you like to say to the president” Padilla interview?

The same one who gets to ask him what’s on his iPod. I think he’ll be acquitted.

amerpundit on August 16, 2007 at 12:58 PM

Hmmm, no direct evidence? No one has ever been convicted on less? Am I the only one who wants this piece of dirt put away? Oh I forgot, if I even appear to support lessened rights to certain ” individuals” it shows my ignorance of Constitutional law.

MNDavenotPC on August 16, 2007 at 1:08 PM

Exit question one: Assuming he’s acquitted, which celebrity “journalist” lands the coveted “what would you like to say to the president” Padilla interview?

sean penn.
:)

trailortrash on August 16, 2007 at 1:09 PM

The jury will blame Bush.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 16, 2007 at 1:09 PM

‘It’s hard to show intent with circumstantial evidence,” said Stephen Vladeck, an American University law school professor, who challenged Padilla’s detention while he was a Yale University law student.

It’s not so hard if you’ve got him on tape proclaiming his intent and/or planning to kill people. What’s in the wiretaps?

Pablo on August 16, 2007 at 1:09 PM

MNDavenotPC on August 16, 2007 at 1:08 PM

No one has ever been convicted on less?

Well there was that one guy in California, zero physical or direct evidence that he killed his wife, I think his name was Scott Peterson or something…/snark

doriangrey on August 16, 2007 at 1:11 PM

Pablo on August 16, 2007 at 1:09 PM

Yea, well maybe Stephen Vladeck can explain how Scott Peterson was convicted…

doriangrey on August 16, 2007 at 1:13 PM

Assuming he’s acquitted, which celebrity “journalist” lands the coveted “what would you like to say to the president” Padilla interview?

Olberdunce.

Or Geraldo, in the event Padilla is seeking to reach an audience.

JammieWearingFool on August 16, 2007 at 1:19 PM

Or Geraldo, in the event Padilla is seeking to reach an audience.

JammieWearingFool on August 16, 2007 at 1:19 PM

Only if ICE was the outfit that busted him.

conservnut on August 16, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Only if ICE was the outfit that busted him.

conservnut on August 16, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Well, Padilla is Hispanic, so maybe Geraldo could use this to denounce America’s racism in rushing to judge a “brown” man.

Esthier on August 16, 2007 at 1:40 PM

If I remember correctly Allah the defense’s tactic was to say that Jihad was OK because these men considered themselves to be at war.

Didnt the judge tell the jury that defense doesnt fly ?

If so that could have undermined the whole defense position

William Amos on August 16, 2007 at 1:42 PM

Am I the only one who wants this piece of dirt put away?
MNDavenotPC on August 16, 2007 at 1:08 PM

Yes. The rest of us want him put in the dirt.

Hollowpoint on August 16, 2007 at 1:52 PM

William Amos on August 16, 2007 at 1:42 PM

You are correct.

common sensineer on August 16, 2007 at 1:57 PM

OT: Jenna Bush is engaged.

On Topic: The verdict is late.

amerpundit on August 16, 2007 at 2:04 PM

In time of war leaving the defence of the country in the hands of 12 people who may or may not be paying attention

This is how the democrats want to fight the WOT

William Amos on August 16, 2007 at 2:11 PM

OT: Jenna Bush is engaged.

I prefer Barbara.

JammieWearingFool on August 16, 2007 at 2:11 PM

Rope + Jihadi neck = justice for treason.

profitsbeard on August 16, 2007 at 2:15 PM

OT: Jenna Bush is engaged.

I question the timing

William Amos on August 16, 2007 at 2:15 PM

Rope + Jihadi neck = justice for treason.

profitsbeard on August 16, 2007 at 2:15 PM

Some assembly required.

amerpundit on August 16, 2007 at 2:18 PM

Jenna Bush is engaged.

I hope she has a Whitehouse wedding at Christmas. A big lavish one.

Blake on August 16, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Guilty on all counts.

amerpundit on August 16, 2007 at 2:25 PM

GUILTY!!

trailortrash on August 16, 2007 at 2:25 PM

Yeah!!!

Blake on August 16, 2007 at 2:26 PM

Easy appeal.

Nonfactor on August 16, 2007 at 2:27 PM

After he’s acquitted he goes on Herr Olbermann’s Family Fun Hour to decry McBushCo Hitlerburton, Inc, and the fake case against him. He slithers through the usual left/MSM whinning about his ordeal at the hands of the anti-muslim bigots andcriminals who run the Administration. Then he goes on the required European tour, where he is hailed as a hero for standing up to neocon Christianist Mafia. On this much-hyped tour he lets the praise and attention go to his head and in front of an adoring audience in Manchester lets loose a classic Islamist tirade filled with Jew-hatred, bizarre conspiracy theories and claims of absolute Muslim supremacy over the dirty, dirty kaffir. He confesses to the crimes he was acquitted of, a la OJ Simpson. All this is caught on video and posted on the web. After these two embarrassing debacles all his leftist supporters drop him down the memory hole and forget he ever existed or they ever defended him. He spends the rest of his life wandering the fringes of the jihadists movement living off his past celebrity.

Or someone related to a 9/11 victim kills him.

Thomas the Wraith on August 16, 2007 at 2:28 PM

I guess the jury of his peers are pro-torture, Bushitler supporters, too.

amerpundit on August 16, 2007 at 2:28 PM

Easy appeal.

Nonfactor on August 16, 2007 at 2:27 PM

Ah. Thought we’d see you around here.

amerpundit on August 16, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Wooooooo Hoooooooo!! Guilty!!! YES!!! Sanity Lives!!!

Zetterson on August 16, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Easy appeal.

Nonfactor on August 16, 2007 at 2:27 PM

To the new conservative Supreme Court ?

William Amos on August 16, 2007 at 2:30 PM

A jury without the usual p.c. poison, it seems.

ameripundit-

I was always the one putting the stuff together on Christams Eve, so I’d be glad to oblige with this assembly.

profitsbeard on August 16, 2007 at 2:30 PM

If I may be the first to paraphrase the character Lawrence from the great docu-comedy ‘Office Space’:

Jose, watch your cornhole.

thirteen28 on August 16, 2007 at 2:31 PM

Whew!

Bob's Kid on August 16, 2007 at 2:31 PM

Ah. Thought we’d see you around here.

amerpundit on August 16, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Wow! You thought right!

To the new conservative Supreme Court ?

William Amos on August 16, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Yes.

Nonfactor on August 16, 2007 at 2:31 PM

BTW I thought liberals were all for convicting and imprisioning Jihadist rather than fighting a war with them

Now you dont even want them in prison ?

Just who’s side are you on ?

William Amos on August 16, 2007 at 2:32 PM

profitsbeard on August 16, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Feel free to shoot me an email if you need help with that assembly.

To the new conservative Supreme Court ?

William Amos on August 16, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Heh.

amerpundit on August 16, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Olbermann just called in sick.

JammieWearingFool on August 16, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Easy appeal.

Nonfactor on August 16, 2007 at 2:27 PM

Hope is a good thing, and you never want to give up on your team while there’s still time on the clock. It ain’t over ’til it’s over, eh Nonfactor?

Pablo on August 16, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Easy appeal.

Nonfactor on August 16, 2007 at 2:27 PM

Care to explain that brain fart?

Miss_Anthrope on August 16, 2007 at 2:34 PM

Hope is a good thing, and you never want to give up on your team while there’s still time on the clock. It ain’t over ’til it’s over, eh Nonfactor?

Pablo on August 16, 2007 at 2:33 PM

You misread me completely.

Nonfactor on August 16, 2007 at 2:35 PM

Do you think liberals will be upset about this verdict?? If so who’s going to be the first to express their outrage??

Zetterson on August 16, 2007 at 2:35 PM

I’d like to know some Jihadist other than Osama and Zawahiri that Libs want to see in prison. Come on name just one other Jihadist that you think is guilty and should be in prison ?

or years they argued that Gitmo should be closed and trials take place. Well now one took place and they are upset that the verdict

Either you stand behind your conviction that trials are the way to go or stop your sniveling and whining when we kill Jihadists in battle.

William Amos on August 16, 2007 at 2:36 PM

Do you think liberals will be upset about this verdict?? If so who’s going to be the first to express their outrage??

Zetterson on August 16, 2007 at 2:35 PM

I know they will. Here’s a comment from someone on Miami Herald:

Please be not guilty. The man has borne witness to the worse violation of Constitutional rights in the history of our country. He is the face of the deterioration of the substance behind the former meaning of our great flag. If you pray for his guilt then you undoubtedly are only a “poser patriot.”

amerpundit on August 16, 2007 at 2:36 PM

William Amos on August 16, 2007 at 2:36 PM

Yes. They’re argument is “Try them or Free Them”. When we try them, and give them a jury of 12 of their peers, the Libs don’t like the outcome.

amerpundit on August 16, 2007 at 2:37 PM

BTW I thought liberals were all for convicting and imprisioning Jihadist rather than fighting a war with them

Now you dont even want them in prison ?

Just who’s side are you on ?

William Amos on August 16, 2007 at 2:32 PM

As if you need to ask …

thirteen28 on August 16, 2007 at 2:38 PM

You misread me completely.

Nonfactor on August 16, 2007 at 2:35 PM

OK, what grounds? Ineffective counsel?

Pablo on August 16, 2007 at 2:39 PM

A win too for Bush critics, in a sense: this will “prove” that the administration doesn’t need military tribunals to convict jihadis.

This is what frustrates me about how the left has portrayed the administration’s policy in fighting global jihad. It is multi-faceted. It includes cases like the Padilla case, but it also includes military action, and action in financial disruption, and spec. ops., etc. Because the left decides to focus only on the Iraq angle of the gwot, they then begin to believe their own characterization. Padilla being found guilty didn’t stop the plots in the UK and US last summer, but military action that yields actionable intelligence does stop things. Disruption of financial markets forces financiers to change methods, which can lead to them making mistakes, allowing us to make progress in drying up Jihadi funds. We are going to have to use all tools.

Weight of Glory on August 16, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Do you think liberals will be upset about this verdict?? If so who’s going to be the first to express their outrage??

Zetterson on August 16, 2007 at 2:35 PM

Of course they’ll be upset- now he’s not the innocent victim of Chimpy Hitlerburton. To them he’s still a victim, being as how they didn’t grant the poor disenfranchised terrorist his civil rights, but a less sympathetic guilty one.

Once their disappointment wears off, I imagine they’ll spin this as an argument as to why all enemy combatants should be tried like common criminals- “See, the system works!”

Hollowpoint on August 16, 2007 at 2:43 PM

The man has borne witness to the worse violation of Constitutional rights in the history of our country.

That guy (he’s not a real man) signed an application to join AQ, making it perfectly clear he wanted to fight to bring Islamic Law to the US…

And his detainment is a violation of the Constitution? How? Tell me, HOW?

I wished for the proper outcome…which is guilt. Explain how I am a poser patriot. I do more to voice my support of the Constitution before 9AM than they do all day.

HOW DARE THEY.

Miss_Anthrope on August 16, 2007 at 2:43 PM

Liberals are the enemy within. They’d let this guy go free and so what if he nukes a few US cities.

jdawg on August 16, 2007 at 2:43 PM

Pablo on August 16, 2007 at 2:39 PM

OK, what grounds? Ineffective counsel?

Ummm, McBushitlercheneyhaliburton conspiracy to convict an innocent man and destroy the US constitution of course.

doriangrey on August 16, 2007 at 2:45 PM

And Another Thing,

The WORST (not worse) violation of our First Amendment is the attempt to silence our criticism of the Left and Islamists.

The lawsuits in support of this statement speaks for itself.

Miss_Anthrope on August 16, 2007 at 2:46 PM

Liberals are the enemy within. They’d let this guy go free and so what if he nukes a few US cities.

jdawg on August 16, 2007 at 2:43 PM

that is explicitly not what he has been charged with.

zane on August 16, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Look out folks. During the Padillapalooza that is sure to dominate news-and-talk, the democrats in congress will probably be trying to ram through some more sneaky stealthy incrementalist legislation.

RushBaby on August 16, 2007 at 2:49 PM

Why AQ would want to leave a paper trial is beyond me, but the Herald says it looks pretty solid.

Totalitarians always leave a paper trail, it’s a primary hallmark of the psychosis.

mojo on August 16, 2007 at 2:50 PM

Oh, here we go from Kos Kids:

I admit I was hoping he would be found not guilty (0 / 0)

But by the same token, I have no idea if he is. I would not substitute my own level of knowledge on this case for that of the jurors.

It would have been nice if he was found not guilty, since it would have been another black mark against this criminal administration. But then again, some of the rationalizations provided by the defense for his involvement with al Qaeda don’t exactly inspire confidence in Padilla’s good will.

All in all a very sad, sad case.

And, from the same commenter:

And allow me to add… (0 / 0)

I am still suspicious of the verdict.

amerpundit on August 16, 2007 at 2:50 PM

You misread me completely.

Nonfactor on August 16, 2007 at 2:35 PM

You’re about as difficult to read as a traffic light.

infidel4life on August 16, 2007 at 2:50 PM

Weight of Glory…Are you a CS Lewis fan?

samuelrylander on August 16, 2007 at 2:52 PM

that is explicitly not what he has been charged with.

zane on August 16, 2007 at 2:48 PM

I think what jdawg was referring to is how you and Nonfactor would handle National Security.

infidel4life on August 16, 2007 at 2:53 PM

that is explicitly not what he has been charged with.

zane on August 16, 2007 at 2:48 PM

He was convicted of:

Count 1 – Conspiracy to Murder, Kidnap, and Maim Persons in a Foreign Country as part of a conspiracy to advance violent jihad
Count 2 – Conspiracy to Provide Material Support for Terrorists
Count 3 – Material Support for Terrorists

So, no. Maybe he wouldn’t have pushed the button. He would’ve provided the resources to do so. Either way, he’d have actively contributed to the deaths of many Americans.

amerpundit on August 16, 2007 at 2:53 PM

Easy appeal.

Nonfactor on August 16, 2007 at 2:27 PM

Everybody gets an appeal, and they should. But the chances of an appeals court overturning a jury are very slim.

Maxx on August 16, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Everybody gets an appeal, and they should. But the chances of an appeals court overturning a jury are very slim.

Maxx on August 16, 2007 at 2:56 PM

unless the case was built on circumstantial evidence, and the verdict reached on emotion. Even the conservative supreme court would have to think twice. I dont think this is over.

zane on August 16, 2007 at 3:01 PM

Wow, Allah, I followed your link over to the DKos site and those guys really are heartbroken! It’s as if…one of their own was just convicted. I’ve said for awhile that it seems like the left is entering into a peculiar and truly evil alliance with the jihadists, well now I can remove “seems like” and “entering into.” They are all the way there. A loss for the terrorists is a loss for them. It’s truly astounding. I’m sitting here and I’m just stunned. A guy who wanted to kill innocent Americans is going to prison and the American left is…sad? Wow.

Yeah, I’m gonna start calling them traitors now.

Rational Thought on August 16, 2007 at 3:02 PM

unless the case was built on circumstantial evidence, and the verdict reached on emotion. Even the conservative supreme court would have to think twice. I dont think this is over.

zane on August 16, 2007 at 3:01 PM

You don’t believe he’s guilty?

amerpundit on August 16, 2007 at 3:03 PM

Here it comes – Padilla: Prisoner of Conscience, America’s Mandela, the Muslim Solzhenitsyn, victim of the vast neocon Gulag, silenced in the Islamophobic Siberia of the US prisonplanet.

Thomas the Wraith on August 16, 2007 at 3:03 PM

unless the case was built on circumstantial evidence

You’re not a lawyer, are you? lol

Nevertheless, Ace is serving free champagne.

Blake on August 16, 2007 at 3:05 PM

JammieWearingFool

“Olbermann just called in sick.”

LMAO, Maybe he will be wearing a black arm band to show he is in mourning

BobK on August 16, 2007 at 3:06 PM

You don’t believe he’s guilty?

amerpundit on August 16, 2007 at 3:03 PM

apart from the form he filled in i think this case was very shakey, he may be guilty but i dont think the prosecution was built on sound grounds. However this is somewhat irrelevant as the jury have found him guilty, and therefore unless overturned on appeal he is guilty. I just dont think a win for the Govt on appeal is a slam dunk.

So i may believe he is guilty, i dont think the prosecution proved he was guilty, but then the jury disagree with me.

zane on August 16, 2007 at 3:07 PM

Nutroot heartache spreads… confessions of a DUmmie

I’m seething right now…
Imprisoned without charge for 3.5 years, physically and/or psychologically tortured ’til he’s half-insane, and what do we do? Convict him anyway. Now he’ll face the needle.

/Padilla Derangement Syndrome

Terp Mole on August 16, 2007 at 3:08 PM

You’re not a lawyer, are you? lol

not an american lawyer, no.

zane on August 16, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Well, Padilla is Hispanic, so maybe Geraldo could use this to denounce America’s racism in rushing to judge a “brown” man.

Esthier on August 16, 2007 at 1:40 PM

That’s a good bet.

Buy Danish on August 16, 2007 at 3:08 PM

zane on August 16, 2007 at 3:07 PM

So, apart from his application to join the most hunted terrorist group in the world.

I do, however, appreciate the fact that you say:

So i may believe he is guilty, i dont think the prosecution proved he was guilty, but then the jury disagree with me.

At least you’re being honest about it, and recognizing the jury disagreed with you/

amerpundit on August 16, 2007 at 3:10 PM

amerpundit: Jenna Bush is engaged.

Yep… and the DUmmies question the timing!

Did anyone notice the banner on cnn’s site?
It went up the moment the verdict was to come in, and it’s HUGE; Jenna Bush is engaged. Divert! Divert!

/Rove you magnificent baztad!

Terp Mole on August 16, 2007 at 3:12 PM

If only Fitzgerald had been the prosecutor, all would be right in nutsville.

Sue on August 16, 2007 at 3:12 PM

not an american lawyer, no.

Then maybe you shouldn’t offer opinions on American law and evidence? There is nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence and an appellate court is not going to reverse a verdict on those grounds.

Blake on August 16, 2007 at 3:14 PM

Have the nutroots started blaming the crazy right wing Cuban extremists in Miami yet? If not, someone get me an egg timer….

Val Prieto on August 16, 2007 at 3:15 PM

It’s really a hell of a slow news day otherwise, so I’m wondering what this was meant to distract us from. Well, stick with HuffPo. We’ll find out soon enough.

Actually, the narrative I’ve seen is that the Jenna Bush engagement is to distract from this travesty of justice.

frankj on August 16, 2007 at 3:17 PM

zane on August 16, 2007 at 3:07 PM

Padilla was fingered by captured al Qaeda terrorist Abu Zubaydah, who was his handler within the organization. Zubaydah told US investigators where Padilla would be and when he would be there, on his mission to search out the feasibility of conducting a dirty bomb strike and blowing up apartment buildings around Chicago. So what makes you think Padilla might not be guilty, since a known and captured al Qaeda terrorist knew Padilla’s travel plans to such detail?

Bryan on August 16, 2007 at 3:19 PM

He would have been acquitted if he had been tried in D.C.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 16, 2007 at 3:19 PM

This quote from the DKos site sums up the intellectual dishonesty of many on the left.

I didn’t hear all the “evidence” given to the jury, so I can’t quite judge but from all previous statements and evidence given publicly, this was a kangaroo trial.

Translation: I don’t know the facts, but that won’t stop me from ignorantly asserting what I believe is true.

jman on August 16, 2007 at 3:20 PM

How is the possibility of life in prison a pale in shadow to the previous claims?

BohicaTwentyTwo on August 16, 2007 at 3:21 PM

Blake,

Maybe Zane is a Sharia Lawyer.

Ba da bing.

Buy Danish on August 16, 2007 at 3:24 PM

Can I get a “whoot” “whoot”!! Amazing how slim the coverage has been so far about this verdict. Dare I speculate that had the verdict been guilty there would be far more coverage by the MSM? Truly amazing that American citizens no matter what their political bent would be saddened that a terrorist has been convicted.

Twoconservative on August 16, 2007 at 3:26 PM

apart from the form he filled in i think this case was very shakey, he may be guilty but i dont think the prosecution was built on sound grounds. However this is somewhat irrelevant as the jury have found him guilty, and therefore unless overturned on appeal he is guilty. I just dont think a win for the Govt on appeal is a slam dunk.

So i may believe he is guilty, i dont think the prosecution proved he was guilty, but then the jury disagree with me.

zane on August 16, 2007 at 3:07 PM

And now you’ve just proven exactly why we don’t want to try terrorists in our courts.

Easy appeal.
Nonfactor on August 16, 2007 at 2:27 PM

Were you planning on ever explaining anything here, or was that just your cheer for a convicted terrorists.

Esthier on August 16, 2007 at 3:29 PM

Then maybe you shouldn’t offer opinions on American law and evidence? There is nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence and an appellate court is not going to reverse a verdict on those grounds.

Blake on August 16, 2007 at 3:14 PM

Couldn’t have expressed that any better. May I offer this as well, I wouldn’t want any other country’s form of jurisprudence, at the end of the day.

MNDavenotPC on August 16, 2007 at 3:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.