Talk:José Padilla (criminal)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Untitled

Much is made in some circles of his resemblance to OKC's John Doe 2...I think what's remarkable is that a police sketch was finally found to resemble a human being (McVeigh didn't look a lot like JD1 IMO). It's true that Terry Nichols' first wife was a Lana Padilla[1] but she says she was earlier married to a Leonard Padilla, with no known connection[2]

I've since found there's long been someone witnesses insist was John Doe 2 - an acquaintance of McVeigh's named Michael William Brescia. The FBI arrested him as a bank robber one day after denying there ever was a John Doe 2, in the midst of the revelations they'd fudged their evidence to suit the pet theory.[3] (Ptah. Musta got embarassing.) Kwantus 03:59, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Date typo

The article refers to a decision on 28th July, 2004 - this date is in the future.

Talk:List_of_Born-again_Christian_Laypeople#Padilla

See this page for further discussions of Padilla's Penecostal background. One Salient Oversight 04:26, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Padilla and John Doe 2

I am removing this:

A number of web and media outlets have pointed to the uncanny resemblance between Padilla and police sketches of an Oklahoma City Bombing suspect known as "John Doe Two." Some claim he was likely a CIA agent and that his being held as a enemy combatant is part of a coverup of his involvement in the Oklahoma City bombings while a CIA agant. [4]

The paragraph uses a weasel phrases (my highlight) to introduce the subject. Two in one paragraph are two too many. Most people working on Wikipedia project are trying to make it a credible source. To do that it should not be selective not collective in the sources it uses. Please put in a source which would be quoted by other credible sources before re-inserting the allegations. By credible source I mean something like the Washington Post or the BBC or a accredited university or accepted academic journal. If there is any credence in this assertion then one of those sources should be available. Philip Baird Shearer 09:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I restored the content on john doe 2 after making an effort to remove the langauge. I believe the content is relevent. Since other conspiricy theories are included in Wikipedia I believe this one is fair game. Generally it is not neccesarilly for this kind of claim to sited by a mainstream news source before it is included in Wikipedia. Since where dealing with strictly opinion we can mention that some hold this opinion and let the readers form their own conclusion as to the soundness of such claims. --Cab88 11:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation

As a Wikipedia novice, I am uncertain whether a disambiguation page is in order here. The Jose Padilla I am familiar with is a DJ known for (among other things) his Cafe del Mar albums. See his website for more details. Advice from a more experienced editor would be appreciated. Slicer 06:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Added disambiguation notice at top, created page José Padilla (disambiguation) with links to this and José Padilla (musician). Perhaps the main page José Padilla should go straight to the disambiguation page? I'm not sure about redirect policies. --dinomite 20:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

pronunciation of name

I propose that this information and link be removed. Even if his attorney pronounces his name pah-DILL-uh 1) I've never heard anyone else say it that way and 2) in the audio, she stumbles over the name as if she's never encountered the Spanish double-l. It's entirely possible that she's never met her client and has no idea how he says his name. --Birdmessenger 16:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Pronuncation of Jose Padilla's last name by his own mother!

Please see this report for a reference by one of his newer attorneys that his very own mother told him that the name is pronounced in such a way that is "americanized" and not like the Spanish double 'L'. Granted, his own mother may be making a mistake, but this is highly unlikely, and it could even be sufficiently argued that she makes the determination of how she wishes her own name to by said:

 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/23/152219

Holon67 17:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Listen to these lines in this report, sounds like puh-DILL-ah, which considering its very unusual pronunciation, is important to get right and share with the others in the public:

AMY GOODMAN: Can you outline what exactly this indictment says? It seems more to talk about the other men than it does your client. And his name is pronounced Jose Padilla?

ANDREW PATEL: That's what his mother tells me.

 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/23/152219
 http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2005/nov/audio/dn20051123.ra&proto=rtsp&start=8:12

Holon67 17:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I withdraw my suggestion above!

--Birdmessenger 17:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV!!

I protest calling Padilla a terrorist in the very title of this page! He has, after all, only been ACCUSED. He has not had an opportunity to defend himself. He may, very well, be a terrorist, but there are plenty of other examples of people accused by the present administration that were later exonerated, or against whom charges were dropped. James Yee, Yasser Hamdi, Dr Stephen Hatfill, and others were all previously accused. How does one make a formal protest? Please help me. Too Old 14:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It should be changed. I believe the easiet way to do so would be to click the move tab at the top of the page and replace "terrorist" with something more appropriate.--Birdmessenger 15:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Done! Too Old 05:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Gang Membership

~~Gangs have names, can we find Padilla's plz?~~ Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I did it myself, you guys suck Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Still Not NPOV

Has anyone read the intro to this article?

I have to go now but it should be fixed and made NPOV, can someone please do it?

Need for cleanup

There are many links within the text to external links that are not spelled out in words. Since there are so many I suggest that these should be converted to foot/end notes. Too Old 21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There is one referemce without a corresponding note and one note without a correspomding reference. Too Old 04:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Article title

I wonder why it contain such this word alleged terrorist ! and if it is alleged why you wrote it ! the title should have his name only exactly like any other article a and done let some people using wikipedia to write their Personal view.Qatarson 11:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is there to distinguish this article from articles about other people named Jose Padilla. Fumblebruschi 02:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Access?

I'm not happy with the recent chop by 139.139.193.12, but probably the body of the article needs to be clarified regarding these first two years.

Some of this could be helpful:

http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2004/vol8n19/TerrorSuspect.shtml 
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2004/02/padilla_0204.html

Biased?

Could this article be anymore one sided in favor of Padilla? Especially the Habeas Corpus satisfied section.

Clarifications needed

1) the term "best friend" is used. By clicking on this, I came to a discussion of this concept in BRITISH law (which a further linking did not seem to indicate that BL includes US law). If this concept is the same in US law as in British law, then the definition of BF should be changed (or the text for JP should be written to indicate thus.

American useage is Next Friend, I'll check the article. Ohwilleke 20:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

2) "Two weeks after upbraiding prosecutors for being "light on facts" in its conspiracy allegations, [19], one of the the three charges against Padilla was dismissed and another was dismissed in part." Where is the upbraider in this sentence? Fixed. Ohwilleke 20:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to Jose Padilla (alleged "enemy combatant")?

I'd like to propose we change the title to reflect the actual allegations against him. He was never specifically charged with being a "terrorist" per se, and now that the charges have been considerably reduced and less specific, the "enemy combatant" label would seem to both better fit the government's case and would also be a less pejorative term. I'd also suggest having the words "enemy combatant" in quotation marks to maintain NPOV (it's a little different than saying "alleged murderer") --Lee Hunter 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe he is currently charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339A, "Providing material support to terrorists". So it would probably be more correct to call the article "José Padilla (alledged supporter of terrorism)". The governement (well, technically the President and the then Secretary of Defense), had initially accused him of being an enemy combatant, but later relented and charged him with his current charges. It should be noted that being an illegal enemy combatant is a fancy term for being a combatant in violation of the Geneva conventions, essentially calling him a war criminal. He was never charged as such. -- Timmmy! 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Timmy. Supporter of terrorism makes more sense. I'm going to make the change. --Lee Hunter 16:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma City Bombing?

There are no credible citations to indicate Padilla is linked to the Oklahoma city bombings. All citations are private web pages and all reference Glen Beck for evidence. Wikipedia is not for unsubstantiated opinions led by a single person (Glen Beck). Every single sentence in this block needs to be cited with independent (newspaper, not private speculation, not Glen Beck related) sources or scrapped. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.150.94.14 (talk • contribs).

I'd have to agree with this comment. The FBI says there was no John Doe no.2 and other than the one Beck show from several years ago I find nothing worth noting on the web. I am tempted to remove this section now, but will wait a few days to see if there is more talk first.

Gandydancer 08:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. It was totally un-productive hearsay from a source with an axe to grind, nothing more. Bacrito 03:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Gross bias

I did something about the weasel-like treatment of Adham Amin Hassoun, who is accused of a lot more than overstaying his visa, and likewise Benevolence International, which is now known to be a Qaeda front. But there is still a ton of sanctimonious bias in this piece. It even quotes some nonentity at the Guardian insinuating that the big bad Americans destroyed Padilla's mind. The truth is that Padilla was a violent halfwit before he ever even heard of al-Qaeda, and his record proves it. LDH 06:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Truly, we should be thankful that there are people like you out here capable of seeing proven facts in the haze surrounding this issue. We were drowning in a sea of relativism until you came along. --Saforrest 13:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also I just trimmed this talk page of material from 2005 and earlier. LDH 06:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You should archive old comments, rather than just "trim" (delete) them. I've gone back and done this: the old comments are at Talk:José Padilla (prisoner)/Archive 1. --Saforrest 14:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"Overstaying his visa"? WTF? The guy was born in Brooklyn, for God's sake. Bacrito 03:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hassoun overstayed his visa, not Padilla.

Synthesis in District Court, South Carolina

There's something fishy in the District Court, South Carolina section, starting with the paragraph "But as the Congressional military authorization" and following with the next two. I'm calling it synthesis, though there might be another more appropriate label for it: there's a list of arguments, an 'others say' without references, and what look like unsourced arguments for why certain laws do or don't apply. The prior two sections have better focus: the petition said X, the government argued Y, the court decided Z. Bhudson 19:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Image

The image is reportedly here by fair use. There is no fair use rationale provided. More importnatly, a free image would be better. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added his mugshot. Since it is from the DoJ it is Public Domain. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Title

I think we can come up with a much better, less awkward title. There has got to be something better than (alleged supporter of terrorism). hbdragon88 04:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it to (prisoner), which a) adequately differentiates him from all the others; b) is accurate; and c) is far less clumsily worded. "alleged supporter of terrorism" is just excessive, mealy-mouthed, and damns by implication. "Detainee" would be another option, but I think we may as well stick to the most simple term... Shimgray | talk | 23:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. Alleged in a title. NO.--Doc^g 23:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The current title imo is weak and weasely. How does "alleged supporter of terrorism" damn by implication? "Alleged" is perfectly neutral, and it is only the man's alleged connection to terrorist activities, and the controversy over the circumstances of his detention, that accounts for his notability. The title should reflect - with either the word "alleged" or "accused" - whatever the US governments' accusation du jour happens to be. I realize that might require frequent moving, but it would have the virtue of putting the current ostensible reason for the man's continued detention front and center, in a neutral manner. Eh, whatever - I realize it's pointless for me to try to reignite an issue that's apparently been dormant for months. (But man, this "prisoner" thing just makes me think of Patrick McGoohan ;-) Bacrito 03:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of the title is not to reflect US government views or state the current ostensible reason for his detention, but simply to distinguish this article from other articles, and "prisoner" is the most straightforward factual neutral way to do that. If you want to introduce "terrorist" into the title, then you should also allow "torture victim" on NPOV grounds. -- Jibal 08:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

So now with a guilty verdict, this should be changed to José Padilla (terrorist)? — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. Convicted of Supporting Terrorism. Unsure whether or not he should be labeled "Terrorist" as he hadn't committed any outright violent acts (yet). However, I feel the label is more accurate than not. Pyrex238 22:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest any of:

Jose Padilla (Convicted Supporter of Terrorism)
Jose Padilla (Convicted Terrorism Supporter)
Jose Padilla (Supporter of Terrorism)
Jose Padilla (Terrorism Conspirator)
Jose Padilla (Convicted Terrorism Conspiracy Supporter)

Kevinp2 06:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Jose Padilla (torture victim) is just as valid. -- Jibal 08:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The current title is neutral and just fine, probably the best possible.John Z 09:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

German article on José Padilla

There is a corresponding article in the German Wiki. It would be great if someone could add the link. The URL is: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28Vereinigte_Staaten%29 Thanks in advance 62.72.87.2 09:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Nuclear terrorism

I have removed the category for the following reasons:

Wikipedia:Categorization: "Generally, the relationship between an article and its categories should be definable as '(Article) is (category)'."
Wikipedia:Categorization: "An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories. Avoid including categories in an article if the article itself doesn't adequately show it belongs there."
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear by the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced."

Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Needs update

This article is missing recent developments in the case, specifically the writ to dismiss based on outrageous government conduct (torture and other harsh and inhumane treatment). More information here Motion to dismiss for outrageous government conduct and the text of the motion is here [6] --Lee Hunter 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I fully support the "torture and other harsh and inhumane treatment" of enemy terrorist combatants to save american lives. I would certainly torture Muhammad Atta to save 3,100 lives on Sept. 11th. 66.142.251.253 21:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your mental illness isn't relevant. -- Jibal 21:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel so sorry for this poor soul. Serial murderers and rapists get treated better than Jose Padilla, and all he did was become Muslim. If the US government had actual evidence, they would try him and splash his "terrorist" activities all over the nightly news. Instead, they keep his case quiet, only bringing Jose Padilla up when they need to "warn" the public not to get too huffy over the crimes being committed. The Bush criminals are trying to drag all of humanity down, just as we are on the cusp of the next human evolution.

This page is for facts not opinions. Noha307 18:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Get educated. "All he did was become Muslim"... no, actually among the many treasonous things he did was mail an Al Qaeda Terrorist application denouncing his citizenship, and proclaiming to kill and maim U.S. Citizens. His fingerprints are on it, his handwriting and signature match, and he admitted it. "Oh, the poor muslim.. his only crime", Please. 66.142.251.253 21:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also agreed. The evidence against Padilla is substantial, at what point do the conspiracy theories end? Never.. that's why you need to just ignore this kind of ridiculous liberal bias.. Everything in the world is Bush's fault.. let's all blame Bush, and not supply a single shred of our own solutions.. that isn't constructive criticism, that's baseless propaganda. Have you ever heard of a Jury of your peers? They convicted him, just as the previous jury convicted him to kicking some kids head in and killing him. Pyrex238 23:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The judge in this case told the prosecution in open court that their evidence was "light". Previously, conservative judge Luttig quit the case in disgust over the Bush administration's travesties. The jury of "peers" came into the courtroom dressed in red, white, and blue. -- Jibal 21:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The jury wore red, white and blue on the 4th of July as many patriotic Americans do on that holiday. Most Americans are not leftist US-bashers and are patriotic supporters of their own country. Thus it seems that Padilla in fact received a jury of his peers. Tough luck for him, eh? Although you may have a point - it is possible to argue that his true peers are Al-Qaeda terrorists who he applied to join. Perhaps his trial should have been conducted in Gitmo instead? This could be an interesting legal argument. Kevinp2 22:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You must think people are rather stupid, to imagine that they would believe that the jury coordinating their clothing color is not a clear indication of bias, regardless of the date. P.S. No right winger is an American patriot -- not the America of our founders. -- Jibal 08:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hah, you assume that I am a right winger. I am not. And I wonder why you so loathe your own country, that you would attack your own countrymen who wear the colors on Independence Day when performing their civic duty as jurors. Perhaps the judge should have removed the US flag from the courtroom as well to keep the proceedings neutral? Kevinp2 14:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

How droll; you say you aren't a right winger and then express very right wing sentiments. -- Jibal (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article should not list José Padilla as a terrorist nor should it list him as an alleged terrorist. Either of these markings favor or disfavors, respectively, Mr. Padilla. This type of marking is used in few if any Wikipedia pages.TCPWIKI 05:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand your concern. The problem is we need some way (ideally neutral) to distinguish him from other jose padilla's out there. Maybe we could go with: Jose Padilla (detained American citizen). I don't really know how to solve this to everyone's satisfaction, but we should get a consensus. Looking over the discussion page, this issue seems to pop up a bit too often. R. Baley 06:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

How in the world does "alleged terrorist" favor Padilla? I don't understand that contention at all. "Alleged" does not mean or even imply "falsely accused", it simply means alleged. Allegations may be true or false, and "alleged" is the commonly accepted term to designate a charge that has not been (at least by some process of law) proven or held to be proven in a legal sense. Bacrito 03:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There are may be other point that I wish to make concerning the POV of this article but right now I am concerned with the title. How about we differentiate him by say "Accused of Supporting Terrorism" instead of "alleged supporter of terrorism". Use of the word Alleged to me takes a side of saying the charges are without merit. This (taking sides) is not our job as editor here at wikipedia.TCPWIKI 13:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The only "side" that "alleged terrorist" takes is that of basic accuracy. It says the charges have not (yet) been proven. It is absurd to equate "not proven" with "without merit." Check a dictionary. Bacrito 03:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word "alleged" is typical in court proceedings prior to a finding of guilt or innocence. Changing "alleged" to "accused" seems minor and not deserving of a NPOV tag. I would not support a change in the title to this effect. R. Baley 17:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And of course not only in court proceedings but also in media reports, presumably to avoid exposure to suits for libel. Bacrito 03:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

When they changed it as mentioned above it was also minor but they still did. That isn't really much of an argument against changing it.TCPWIKI 03:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Jose Padilla is believed by those who have the most knowledge of him as being a terrorist. Like it or not he is known as a terrorist. He may in fact not be a terrorist, time may tell, but as of right now he is noteworthy as a terrorist. True he is a prisoner and I have no problem with the title, yet terrorist would clearly be better. Al Capone was a known gangster and bootlegger, some did view him as a hero and gave him much support and praise. Though his crimes were well known and plenty of evidence existed, a conviction of his crimes were unlikely. The government only course was to charge him with 22 counts of Tax evasion of which only 5 were proven in court. Though responsible for many violent crimes, he never openly admitted to them nor was he ever charged or convicted of them. Still, people who had actual knowledge of him knew with out a doubt that he was a gangster, bootlegger and crime syndicate boss. To that end the public knew him as and labeled him as such. His punishment will be decided in a court of law. The title he given has been decided in the court of public opinion. Those that are experts on the man call him a terrorist. Though his supporters may deny this, he is still known to be a terrorist. Yes he is not as well known as Al Capone, his life style as a terrorist does allow much grandstanding, yet reliable and valid sources who have much knowledge of the man, call him a terrorist. We in turn should do the same. I don't think the FBI agents had a personal beef with the guy and made everything up.. Maybe you do.. If you want to call him a suspected terrorist that is fine, but refusing to admit he is a terrorist is irresponsible. You can't blame bush, he was targeted by the FBI in 1996, he wasn't targeted for what he is currently being charged with..... Al Capone, Nuff said.Mantion 13:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Those who are experts on the man"? Jeez Louise, this is a bizarre line of argument. We have no way of knowing what the people making (conveniently changing) accusations about the man actually "believe" about him, as opposed to what they are charging him with. Please, if you in fact really do care about the apprehension of terrorists, don't make the puerile mistake of assuming that those who expect a minimal level of evidentiary standards be observed are somehow "pro-terrorist" -- remember that every moment and every dollar spent on dubious detentions and prosecutions - or dubious refusals to either charge and prosecute or release for lack of evidence, as with Guantanamo - represents that much time and resources less that can be directed toward more rationally selected targets. Bacrito 03:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Mantion I find your certainty over Padilla's role disturbing. I think your comments about the similarities with Al Capone are exaggerated. I invite you, instead, to think about Richard Jewell. Jewell was a hero, which Padilla is not. What they share is an early certainty that they were both terrorists, based on flimsy and unreliable evidence. Is the FBI (or other justice and counter-terrorism agencies) capable of targeting individuals, and publicly pilloring them, when under pressure to find terrorists? Let me suggest that Jewell's example shows that this kind of public pilloring is not evidence of guilt. You noted that Padilla was a suspect in 1996? Jewell was also a suspect in 1996.

Note how many times the official or semi-official assertions of Padilla's crimes have morphed. This morphing is not like the charges against Al Capone. Federal agents had a hard time finding charges that would stick against Al Capone because he was a wily master-mind. Counter-terrorism experts charges, or unofficial charges, against Padilla keep morphing because they are based on the confessions of alleged co-conspirators that were extracted under torture.

You see the same kind of rough-shod treatment of evidence when you read the transcripts from the Guantanamo captive's Combatant Status Review Tribunals.

In the USA, when combing one's hair, or brushing one's teeth, or doing other personal grooming one does it before a bathroom mirror, or other large wall mounted mirror. Afghanistan is a poverty-stricken, backward country. Afghans trim their beards, or perform other personal grooming, using little hand-held mirrors. Half a dozen Afghan captives in Guantanamo faced the allegation that when their homes were searched "signalling mirrors" were found. Every mirror becomes a "signalling mirror".

Many of the Guantanamo captives are being held solely because they knew someone whose name resembled that of someone whose name was on a watchlist. Consider Mohamed Rahim. An involuntary conscript, with an ulcer, who escaped being sent to the front lines, back in the 1990s, because of his health. Instead he ends up working, intermittently, in the Taliban's equivalent of the Old Age Security Department. He worked under a guy named Muhammid Abraham, as a buyer for a co-op store for pensioners. The allegations against him call his boss a "logistics chief". But they also call him the Taliban's Deputy Minister of Intelligence. The senior buyer and the Deputy Minister of Intelligence, having shared a name. Take a look at the allegations Mohamed Rahim faced during his Administrative Review Board hearing. It certainly sounds to me as if all the meaingful allegations hinge on the notion that the Huhammid Abraham or Mohammed Ibrahim that he worked under, when buying stock for the pensioner's store was the same Mullah Abraham who was the Deputy Minister of Intelligence. All the high-level Taliban meetings he is accused of attending? JTF-GTHO analysts are just guessing that if Mullah Abraham was there, his deputy was there too, and since this guy worked for a Mohamed Abrahim, he must have attended these meetings.

This kind of mixed up allegation is typical of the allegations the Guantanamo captives faced -- there seems to have been zero sanity-checking. Hello. Chief buyer and Taliban Deputy Minister of Intelligence are almost certainly both full-time jobs.

But weren't Guantanamo captives allowed to call for the testimony of any witnesses they wanted, when their Combatant Status Review Tribuansl were finally instantiated? Why didn't Homamed Rahim call for the testimony of his former boss Mohamed Ibrahim? Well, he did call for the testimony of his former boss, but as the No-hearing hearings study documented, the Tribunals failed to produce the testimony of a single "off-island" witness. Further, the Tribunals frequently told captives that the witnesses they requested were unavailable "off-island" witnesses, when, in fact, their witnesses were also held in Guantanamo.

You think it is far fetched to imagine that American intelligence efforts could fail so badly that guys could be detained, for years, in instances of mistaken identity -- easily corrected mistaken identity? Go look at the case of Abdullah Khan. Denounced, for a bounty, by crooks who claimed he was really Khirullah Khairkhwa. His American interrogators in Afghanistan keep insisting they know he is lying about his identity, that he is really Khirullah Khairkhwa. Now Khairkhwa was probably one of the half dozen most easiliy identified Afghans. He read the Taliban's Press releases to the BBC and VOA. So their libraries should have contained lots of footage of him. No member of the American intelligence establishment in Afghanistan takes the obvious step of actually checking to see whether he really is Khairkhwa before they pay the bounty. In fact the real Khairkhwa was captured a year and a half earlier. When Khan is transferred to Guantanamo his Guantanamo interrogators keep insisting he is lying about his identity too. But the other captives have told him that the real Khirullah Khairkhwa is also a captive in Guantanamo. You would think it would be trivial for him to prove that he is telling the truth about his identity. He pleads with his interrogators to check the Prison roster, so they can see he is not Khairkhwa. Yet, for a year and a half, none of his interrogators, or the analysts who compile the captive's records, rises to the challenge of taking to obvious step of checking the roster. It is only the discipline forced on JTF-GTMO, to compile the allegations for his CSRT that forced the JTF-GTMO analysts to realize he had been telling the truth about his identity all along.

Does the secrecy the Bush administration wants to surround Guantanamo, and other captives in the GWOT, like Padilla, really protect National Security? Or does it only hide how incompetently the GWOT is being conducted from the public?

It is the same counter-terrorism establishment who is conducting the intelligence analysis in Guantanamo who dreamed up the far-fetched allegations against Padilla.

The GWOT has caused the Bush administration to rewind the last 1000 years of progress in the administration of justice. The Bush administration has rewound back to the days of trial by ordeal and guilty until proven innocent.

Benyam Mohammed, was one of the few other GWOT captives who spoke English. Let me suggest that the notion that he and Padilla conspired to plant dirty bombs in the USA never grew from any real evidence other thant that their paths may have crossed, but, instead, was sparked merely from speculation on the part of counter-terrorism analysts -- "...if these guys were co-conspirators, what is the worst they could do to the USA..." Then they subjected them to years of "extended interrogation techniques" until they confessed. Note: neither of them face the dirty bomb allegations any more -- let me suggest that this is a tacit acknowledgment that it is now realized that confessions to that plot were unreliable false confessions induced through torture.

So please, keep a more open mind over Padilla's guilt. Geo Swan 15:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The guy was convicted. This may be disappointing to some, but the case is now closed. Kevinp2 23:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: Padilla was convicted of lesser charges -- the charges that he was involved in a "dirty bomb plot" were dropped. The charges that Benyam Mohammed was invovled in the same "dirty bomb plot" were also dropped. Geo Swan (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this appropriate or not?

One of his early religious instructors was an Islamic teacher who professed a nonviolent philosophy, and Padilla appeared at the time to be faithful to his mentor's teachings.

This statement is going under the presumption that Jose Padilla was involved in a violent activities in one point or another after becoming a Muslim which he was neither convicted of + there no evidence to support any such claim. does it violate any point of view rules? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiiraan (talk • contribs) 10:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Enemy combatant designation

Please note that the main page refers to Padilla's designation as an enemy combatant (and subsequent transfer to military custody) as done by President Bush pursuant to the Joint Resolution on the use of force for Iraq. This is not the case. The Order was made on June 9, 2002 and was done pursuant to the the Authorization for the use of Military Force (AUMF) for those associated with 9/11, namely Taliban and al-Qaeda affiliates. It is Public Law 107-40. This can be confirmed through Padilla v. Rumsfeld 352 F.2d 695 (2d Cir. 2003) I do not believe that the Iraq resolution would provide any basis for the enemy combatant declaration, whereas the 9/11/Afghanistan resolution has been held to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.115.4 (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Place of Confineement

This Wiki has "Padilla is serving his sentence at the Charleston,(SC) Naval Weapons Station Brig." According to http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/05/reid-helps-gop-go-nimby, "Jose Padilla, accused of plotting a dirty bomb attack (before those particular charges were dropped), is in Florence." They had already explained that "Florence" refers to the supermax federal prison in Florence, Colorado. This begs to be clarified. Dick Kimball (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

September 16, 2011, Jose Padilla of terrorist fame had received a sentence of 17 years 3 months to be served in the maximum security prison in Colorado. His appeal ajuduication was returned to the trial court with instructions to INCREASE Mr. Padilla's incarceration sentence. Ya gotta love it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.244.205 (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Misleading sentence in introduction

The sentence "Padilla was held for three and a half years as an "enemy combatant" until, after pressure from civil liberties groups, the charge was dropped and his case was moved to a civilian court" is misleading. It seems to indicate that civil liberties groups directly petitioned the Bush administration, which then acquiesced and moved his case to a civilian court, whereas what actually happened was, the case was about to be heard in the Supreme Court, which caused the Bush Administration to charge Padilla in a civilian court.

Nada (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)