Jose Padilla Competency Hearing Continued

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Trials
Posted on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 01:01:42 PM EST
Tags: Jose Padilla (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Jose Padilla's has competency hearing has been continued to February 22 due to a report from prison shrinks that he's mentally fit for trial. The defense claims there are inaccuracies in the report.

The Christian Science Monitor today examine Padilla's allegation that he was tortured while held in the South Carolina brig for four years and cannot assist his lawyers in his defense.

...federal prosecutors are expected to urge the judge to ignore everything that took place during Padilla's military detention. They say his harsh treatment is irrelevant to whether he is mentally competent to stand trial.

Padilla's lawyers disagree. They say their client was tortured by the military and they are asking the judge to order the government to fully account for its treatment of Padilla.

Here's an article from a few weeks ago examining whether Padilla's allegations meet the definition of torture.

Update: The Judge has ordered three from the S.C. military brig to testify at Padilla's competency hearing.

< The Drug War as a Military Recruitment Tool | The House Just Says No to Troop Surge >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Jose Padilla Competency Hearing Continued | 27 comments (27 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

so physical torture (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Jen M on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 03:11:00 PM EST

is different from psychological torture.

And? Whats their point?

"federal prosecutors... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Che's Lounge on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 03:33:38 PM EST

"federal prosecutors... ...say his harsh treatment is irrelevant to whether he is mentally competent to stand trial."

You lawyers just crack me up sometimes.

How can a prosecutor say (none / 0) (#3)
by Edger on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 04:06:27 PM EST

something like that, and still be able to sleep at night?

These guys need court ordered psych evaluations for them.


Lawyers (none / 0) (#4)
by Gabriel Malor on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 07:16:12 PM EST

Based on what I've read about the case, I'd say the prosecuters are arguing that despite Padilla's treatment, he is mentally competent to stand trial. The problem for them is that they don't want to delve too deeply into his treatment before he was handed over to civilian law enforcement.

The reason the defense wants to focus on his alleged torture now, while they're examining Padilla for competency, is because it otherwise might not become a part of the trial (depending on what evidence the prosecution introduces).


Oh, Bullsh*t. (none / 0) (#9)
by Edger on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:50:39 AM EST

I know what the prosecutors are trying to argue, and do.

Jose Padilla's treatment in Guantanamo Bay is the cause of his current mental state. Of course the government doesn't want the prosecutors "delving too deeply":

The case of Jose Padilla is one of the most despicable and outright un-American travesties the U.S. Government has perpetrated for a long time. It is impossible to defend that behavior, let alone engage in it, and claim with any legitimacy that one believes in the principles that have defined and guided this country since its founding. But there has been no retreat from this behavior. Quite the contrary. The atrocity known as the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is a huge leap forward to elevating the Padilla treatment from the lawless shadows into full-fledged, officially sanctioned and legally authorized policy of the U.S. Government. The case of Jose Padilla is no longer a sick aberration, but is instead a symbol of the kind of Government we have chosen to have.

And... (none / 0) (#10)
by Edger on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:53:00 AM EST

It is worth noting that throughout his captivity, none of the restrictive and inhumane conditions visited upon Mr. Padilla were brought on by his behavior or by any actions on his part. There were no incidents of Mr. Padilla violating any regulation of the Naval Brig or taking any aggressive action towards any of his captors. Mr. Padilla has always been peaceful and compliant with his captors. He was, and remains to the time of this filing, docile and resigned - a model detainee

Competency (none / 0) (#13)
by Gabriel Malor on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 10:53:06 AM EST

If he's found to be incompetent, the source of that incapacity is irrelevant; he simply cannot be tried. On the other hand, if he's mentally competent, his treatment at the hands of the government is equally irrelevant to whether or not he can be tried.

Competency can be gauged by psychological examination of the defendant. It does not require a ruling on the legality of Padilla's treatment.

I'm a little confused as to what the Lefty position on this is. I get the feeling that pieces of the Left are rooting for Padilla's incapacity because it somehow validates their beliefs about the war. That seems like an awful thing to do. If he's incompetent to proceed, he'll never get a chance to prove his innocence.


Position (none / 0) (#16)
by Edger on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 10:59:15 AM EST

Here.

I don't know about any so-called "lefty" spin labelling or about any so-called "lefty" position.

There is a torture supporting and excusing and sweeping under the rug position, and there is a torture condemning position.


: Edger (none / 0) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 02:02:04 PM EST

Your link takes us to a comment by you that definitely notes that the Left wants to make this not about this guilt or innocence, but the war.
Why is that, edger?
If he is guilty then he was trying to kill US citizens.

Edger (none / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 06:29:29 PM EST

Jose Padilla's treatment in Guantanamo Bay

Not to be picky, but was he ever sent to Gitmo??
My thinking is that he was in a naval brig in SC.


A bit of logic (none / 0) (#5)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 07:31:58 PM EST

Wouldn't the first be to determine whether or not his allegations are true??

whether Padilla's allegations meet the definition of torture.

I mean why try to define what they are if you don't know if they are real?

No. (none / 0) (#6)
by Gabriel Malor on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 08:13:37 PM EST

No, that's why this trial is already getting off track. This is not a suit from Padilla seeking remedies or justice for his treatment at the hands of the government.

Rather, this is his criminal trial. His alleged torture is irrelevant for determining whether or not he committed the crimes he is accused of unless the prosecution uses evidence garnered from torture. Then, and only then, will we see a discussion about the torture and whether any evidence against him was gained through torture.

As I said above, that's why it is important for the defense to get as much said about the torture as early as possible. Otherwise they run the risk of it never being an issue at trial.


: Gabriel (none / 0) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:23:34 AM EST

...Forget to put "Sarcasm Alert"... in the comment.

Again, no duh. (none / 0) (#11)
by Gabriel Malor on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 10:44:12 AM EST

Of course that's the case. All the prosecution is supposed to be doing is getting a guilty verdict for the crimes for which Padilla is charged. "Everything that took place during Padilla's military detention" is irrelevant to that purpose unless the prosecution enters evidence gained through illegal means.

Folks, this is not a case about the legality of Padilla's treatment. It's his criminal trial. If you want to see the former, you'll have to wait and see if he files suit (for the third time) against the government.

This is not a trial of Jose Padilla. (none / 0) (#12)
by Edger on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 10:49:10 AM EST

It is the continuing trial of the government and the Bush Administration, and more specifically it is a trial of George W. Bush, who leads that government, and of Bush's supporters.

Only from the far side of the looking glass can it be considered a trial of Jose Padilla.

You wish. (none / 0) (#14)
by Gabriel Malor on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 10:54:53 AM EST

You wish that were the case.

I'm not even sure what else to say in response to you. You know the docket in the case reads "U.S. v. Padilla", right?


And YOU know I am not talking legalities here. (none / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 10:58:04 AM EST

It is no surprise (none / 0) (#19)
by Edger on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 11:12:33 AM EST

that you don't know what to say.

If I supported, defended, and excused the kind of treatment Padilla has been subjected to, I'd be at a loss for words too when facing civilized people.


What a jerk. (none / 0) (#20)
by Gabriel Malor on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 11:54:03 AM EST

I have never "supported, defended, and excused" Padilla's treatment or anything of like kind. And it is the basest, crudest and most child-like namecalling for you to call me torture-enabler simply because you don't like my opinions. Grow up, Edger.


Want links? (none / 0) (#21)
by Edger on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 12:17:37 PM EST

Can you find them yourself? Or do you really need me do do it for you?


Just so we're clear (none / 0) (#22)
by Edger on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 02:59:29 PM EST

Gabriel Malor on Mon Nov 13, 2006:

Do you believe that the United States should live up to the Geneva Convention, to which we are signatories, which prohibits torture of any prisoners, whether or not they are considered "prisoners of war, "unlawful combatants," or any other term of convenience to the imprisoniong power"?
[GABE]: Yes, though I suspect we have very different definitions of torture.
Do you believe that prisoners at Guantanamo should be observed by international human rights organizations to assure the world that we do not torture them?
[GABE]: No. I have no problem with instituting self-administered monitoring (perhaps Congress could get off its ass and create a program), but "international human rights organizations" are not inclined to give Guantanamo objective scrutiny. I also worry that these organizations could compromise the security and safety of the facility and give aid to the prisoners.
Do you believe the president had the authority to hold American citizen Jose Padilla for several years without a trial or access to a lawyer?
[GABE]: Yes.

Thank you for making my point. (none / 0) (#23)
by Gabriel Malor on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 03:50:31 PM EST

I specifically said that the U.S. should observe the international laws against torture. I did not in any way "support, defend, or excuse" torture.


Try to concentrate, Gabe. (none / 0) (#24)
by Edger on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 04:38:02 PM EST

ME: If I supported, defended, and excused the kind of treatment Padilla has been subjected to, I'd be at a loss for words too when facing civilized people.

YOU: I have never "supported, defended, and excused" Padilla's treatment or anything of like kind

Now you say: I did not in any way "support, defend, or excuse" torture.

Try to concentrate, Gabe. You're digging yourself into another hole you can't climb out of.

Do you believe the president had the authority to hold American citizen Jose Padilla for several years without a trial or access to a lawyer?
[GABE]: Yes.

Sophistry (none / 0) (#27)
by Gabriel Malor on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 06:59:24 PM EST

Edger, your response makes use of the ambiguity of the word "treatment." I have been using the term to refer to his alleged torture for the simple (and obvious) reason that no one is alleging that the mere fact of his captivity has rendered him mentally incompetent. Rather, his treatment while captive--the alleged torture--is what is being claimed has led to his incapacity.

I note that you yourself also made reference to the torture in comment #16 when you responded to my first reference to Padilla's "treatment." It is clever sophistry for you to fall back on a broader meaning of the term now in an attempt to show that I have been inconsistent.

I have remained consistent about my opposition to torture, as you so ably document. My support for indefinite captivity has already been upheld by the courts. And, as I said already, has not been suggested as a source of Padilla's mental competency.


: You remain consistent in (none / 0) (#28)
by Edger on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 09:05:46 PM EST

having to try to explain your way out of your own comments, e.g.:
I also worry that these organizations could compromise the security and safety of the facility and give aid to the prisoners.
The security and the safety of the prison at Guantanamo Bay is more important to you than the security and the safety and the well-being of the people tortured there.
Why is that?

Whose trial? (none / 0) (#18)
by Edger on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 11:03:52 AM EST

Accessory (legal term)

Accessory (definition)

Complicity (definition)

Legalizing Torture:

THE BUSH administration assures the country, and the world, that it is complying with U.S. and international laws banning torture and maltreatment of prisoners. But, breaking with a practice of openness that had lasted for decades, it has classified as secret and refused to disclose the techniques of interrogation it is using on foreign detainees at U.S. prisons at Guantanamo Bay and in Afghanistan and Iraq.
...
Even on paper, the administration's reasoning will provide a ready excuse for dictators, especially those allied with the Bush administration, to go on torturing and killing detainees.

Accessory (moral)


Gabe (none / 0) (#17)
by Che's Lounge on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 11:01:06 AM EST

I get the feeling that pieces of the Left are rooting for Padilla's incapacity because it somehow validates their beliefs about the war.

I'm glad I'm not the only one here who sometimes forgets to edit out the really stupid parts of my comments.