Talk:José Padilla (criminal)

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I withdraw my suggestion above!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Gang Membership

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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.

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]