Talk:José Padilla (criminal)/Archive 1

message: 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 but she says she was earlier married to a Leonard Padilla, with no known connection
: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. (Ptah. Musta got embarassing.) Kwantus 03:59, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: See this page for further discussions of Padilla's Penecostal background. One Salient Oversight 04:26, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:List_of_Born-again_Christian_Laypeople#Padilla]] 

message: 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. 
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Padilla and John Doe 2

message: I'm going to remove this article from the categories of "Terrorists" and "Al-Qaeda members". Padilla does not meet the criteria established on those pages. Maurreen 05:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  pronunciation of name 

message: 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)
replies: text: I withdraw my suggestion above!
--Birdmessenger 17:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronuncation of Jose Padilla's last name by his own mother! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV!! 

message: Gangs have names, can we find Padilla's plz? Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 02:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it myself, you guys suck Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 17:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gang Membership

message: *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)
thread_title:  Need for cleanup 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clarifications needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually, I believe he is currently charged with a violation of , "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)
replies: text: Thanks, Timmy. Supporter of terrorism makes more sense. I'm going to make the change. --Lee Hunter 16:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to Jose Padilla (alleged "enemy combatant")?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Oklahoma City Bombing? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Synthesis in ''District Court, South Carolina'' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  German article on José Padilla 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Category:Nuclear terrorism 

message: 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  --Lee Hunter 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Your mental illness isn't relevant. -- Jibal 21:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Needs update 

message: 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)
thread_title: Is this appropriate or not?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Enemy combatant designation 

message: 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)
thread_title: Place of Confineement

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misleading sentence in introduction