home

Padilla Convicted

The sorry saga of Jose Padilla's prosecution has ended with a guilty verdict. Had the government prosecuted Padilla as a criminal from the start, instead of insisting that he was an "enemy combatant" before flip-flopping to avoid Supreme Court review of its claim, it would not have taken 3-1/2 years to reach this point.

[Padilla] was finally added to the Miami terrorism support indictment in late 2005 just as the U.S. Supreme Court was poised to consider President Bush's authority to continue detaining him.

Padilla's co-defendants were also convicted. Whether or not the verdict is correct, the prosecution proves that violations of the law can be addressed in criminal courts. It was never necessary to treat Padilla as an "enemy combatant" or to attempt to deny his right to a jury and to all the other rights that should attend a criminal prosecution.

TalkLeft background on the Padilla case is collected here.

< Class Action May Proceed on Behalf of NYC Homeless | FBI Director's Notes Contradict Gonzales >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Convicting Padilla in court was an afterthought (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by janinsanfran on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 02:59:03 PM EST
    ...ass covering actually. They wanted to experiment with public torture of an American -- who better than a jail-bird Puerto Rican Muslim?

    The crime here was committed by the Bush Administration, especially its Justice Department, and the military officers who carried out the immoral and illegal orders of their superiors.

    The ::crimes:: here (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Edger on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 03:15:36 PM EST
    The techniques used to break Padilla have been standard operating procedure at Guantánamo Bay since the first prisoners arrived five years ago.
    ...
    Many have suffered the same symptoms as Padilla. According to James Yee, former Army Muslim chaplain at Guantánamo, there is an entire section of the prison called Delta Block for detainees who have been reduced to a delusional state. "They would respond to me in a childlike voice, talking complete nonsense. Many of them would loudly sing childish songs, repeating the song over and over." All of Delta Block was on twenty-four-hour suicide watch.
    ...
    These standard mind-breaking techniques have never faced scrutiny in a US court because the prisoners in the jails are foreigners and have been stripped of the right of habeas corpus--a denial that, scandalously, was just upheld by a federal appeals court in Washington, DC. There is only one reason Padilla's case is different: He is a US citizen... He is the only victim of the post-9/11 legal netherworld to face an ordinary US trial.

    Now that Padilla's mental state is the central issue in the case, the government prosecutors have a problem. The CIA and the military have known since the early 1960s that extreme sensory deprivation and sensory overload cause personality disintegration--that's the whole point. "The deprivation of stimuli induces regression by depriving the subject's mind of contact with an outer world and thus forcing it in upon itself. At the same time, the calculated provision of stimuli during interrogation tends to make the regressed subject view the interrogator as a father-figure." That comes from Kubark Counterintelligence Interrogation, a 1963 declassified CIA manual for interrogating "resistant sources."

    Naomi Klein, The Nation

    Parent
    Unbelievable (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by SeanSatori on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 07:33:54 PM EST
    That a jury couldn't find reasonable doubt in this flimsy case.

    It's going to be an interesting set of appeals.  I for one hope that the federal court system will finally stop shirking its duty to uphold the Constitution.  There is no excuse in the way this was handled.

    Is this a victory in the GWOT? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by tnthorpe on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 07:55:59 PM EST
    Does this court decision make anyone feel that justice has been done? Sure, there's a verdict, and all the formal trappings of a trial, but the sorry path to this result has rendered the whole process a sham. This is a shame, because all we are left with now is the operation of state power, more or less dolled up for the MSM press.  All I see in this case is torture and the damge done to both Padilla and to our nation's credibility. From what I can tell, Padilla had competent counsel for the trial and the trial judge was also fair and competent. The problem remains that an American citizen had his rights stripped from him and no subsequent trial can resolve such fundamental lawlessness. Padilla may have been dangerous, but the precedent set by the Bush Administration with this case is even more damaging than anything Padilla could have done.

    sore loser (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by diogenes on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:19:06 PM EST
    If the judge was fair, then doesn't this mean that future defendents should waive the right to trial by jury?  Or that a military tribunal made up of several judges would have been more fair?
    In any case, unlike Padilla, most GITMO folks are charged for "crimes" committed abroad and were apprehended abroad; what jurisdiction would an American criminal court have over a Saudi citizen (for example)apprehended in Afghanistan for things he did there.

    The only loser here is justice (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 05:43:42 AM EST
    I don't see the logic in your comment. This judge was fair therefore no one else ought to be accorded a jury? Do you seriously believe that the same military that tortured Padilla into virtual insanity is capable of providing the neutral and detached magistrate necessary to determine guilt or innocence? That is why the judicial branch tries cases and the executive branch enforces law, so that judge and jury are distinct from and have interests apart from those of the police or armed forces.  The US pursues criminals globally and asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction routinely in the pursuit of terrorists, bank fraud, or other crimes. You might enjoy the article at the Harvard International Law Journal: http://www.harvardilj.org/print/101.

    Parent