home

Thoughts on Jose Padilla Verdict

I was out of town today and missed the verdict. Since getting home, the news is all about the miners in Utah. So without benefit of having seen live coverage or later analysis, first let me say I agree with TChris:

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.

Now, let me add: I'm dismayed that a jury would come back with a guilty verdict after a day and a half of deliberation in a trial where the evidence took three months to present.

It took 12 Miami-Dade jurors just 11 hours to reach their unanimous verdicts, despite a complex body of evidence that included hundreds of FBI phone wiretaps introduced during the three-month federal trial.

It takes longer than that to comprehend the jury instructions. The instructions in Padilla's case were 42 pages long and are available here (pdf). The jury's job is to determine whether the government has proved each and every element of the charged crimes against each defendant. The elements of the crimes are contained in the jury instructions. They are to apply the law as given in the instructions to the evidence presented at trial.

More...

I doubt this jury bothered to review the evidence or the instructions. They didn't have time in a day and a half. It sounds to me like they took a straw vote shortly after picking a foreman and all were in agreement, so they went right to the verdict forms. I think they went on their gut feeling and emotion, not on the evidence or the law as instructed.

While I find the speed of the verdict abnormal and a dereliction of the jury's duty to review the evidence presented during the trial, it was probably predictable. This is a jury that coordinated their outfits in patriotic red, white and blue for the 4th of July. What more of a signal did you need? As Lew Koch at Firedoglake wrote at the time, I didn't think the defense had a chance after that.

Bottom line: I think returning a guilty verdict in a three month trial after a day and a half makes a mockery of the legal system.

Update: I'm not sure what to make of this from the New York Times:

But one juror, who asked that her name not be used, said later in a telephone interview that she had all but made up her mind before deliberations began. “We had to be sure,” the juror said in Spanish. “We wanted to make sure we went through all the evidence. But the evidence was strong, and we all agreed on that.”

Why was she interviewed in Spanish? Was she not fluent in English? If not, how much of the trial evidence did she understand?

As for a juror making their mind up before deliberations, that's a no-no. They can't begin to deliberate until after they've heard closing arguments and more importantly, the Judge's instructions on how to apply the law.

< Michael Vick's Choice | Friday Bits and Pieces and Open Thread >

Poll

Did Jose Padilla Get a Fair Trial
Yes, he had qualified defense counsel. 20%
No, the jury should have heard about his conditions of confinement and torturous tactics while in the brig 20%
No, the jury did a rush job and couldn't have reviewed 3 months of evidence against 3 defendants along with the jury insturctions in 11 hours. 25%
No, Padilla shouldn't have been tried at all on the skimpy proof presented. 33%

Votes: 24
Results | Other Polls
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    If I remember correctly (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by coigue on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:28:02 PM EST
    Padilla was pretty much driven insane by the conditions of his incarceration and his psychological and deprivation torture. Am I remembering this correctly?

    That's the point (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:47:08 AM EST
    Look how they keep him in a permanent state of sensory deprivation. Their stated aim is to convince him that his torment will never end until the day he dies.

    They didn't even tell him they were bringing him to court. Seriously. They said it might have given him hope.

    Words can't describe the contempt I have for all the Quiet Americans who support this, tacitly or actively.

    [ Parent ]

    Torture and Indefinite Detention: Never Warranted (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:19:23 PM EST
    The two posts above get it right. Read the NYT op-ed piece today and see how often the charges changed, how close the Supreme Court came to asserting jurisdiction, and how cavalier about the rights of a citizen the Bush Administration can be. Like it or not Padilla is an American citizen whose rights ought to have been unalienable. Torturing someone mad in the pursuit of security is simply wrong. Are we really to believe that in 2007 America is in more danger than 1787-90 when our Constitution was being ratified? Are we really to believe that such danger justifies an imperial presidency (Bush's "unitary executive")?  What does Bush know about the need for checks and balances that Madison, Jefferson, or Lincoln didn't?

    [ Parent ]
    furthermore (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by coigue on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 07:41:34 PM EST
    it leads to the obvious question: If he HAD been able to mount a coherent defense, would the world have seen that he was wrongfully incarcerated in the first place????

    [ Parent ]
    Agree completely. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by clio on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:39:17 PM EST
    That jury seemed just to be marking time until they could deliver their pre-ordained guilty verdict and go home.  

    What an abdication of citizen responsibility!  
    Not that they care what I think, but I would hope that someone they do care about would point out to them that they have weakened the rule of law they were chosen to uphold.

    Was there no way to chose a better jury?  Or do you think that the defense realized that they were facing a lynch-mob mentality and decided to rely on the appeal process?  If so, it's a frightening commentary on how effective Bush & Co. have been at instilling fear in ordinary Americans.

    WSWS: A travesty of justice (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Andreas on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:30:33 PM EST
    The WSWS writes:

    The Kafkaesque treatment that Padilla has suffered is a warning to all Americans. Such are the conditions that can be meted out to anyone--whether a US citizen or not. According to the legal theory developed by the administration, constitutional rights must be sacrificed in the name of "security" in the "war on terror."

    Padilla's conviction occurs within the context of a vast expansion of executive powers to spy on the population, deny basic democratic rights, and employ torture on prisoners held throughout the world.

    As with every aspect of the administration's assault on democratic rights, the treatment of Jose Padilla has provoked no serious criticism from the Democratic Party. To the extent that there have been mild complaints within the media and political establishment, it has been from the standpoint that the government has "overreached" in the "war on terror" and thereby damaged US imperialist interests around the world.

    The conviction of Padilla comes less than two weeks after the Democrats helped pass a bill gutting the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and expanding the ability of the president to spy on the American people. (...).

    Jose Padilla's personal tragedy is a manifestation of the deep and irreversible decay of American democracy.

    A travesty of justice: Jose Padilla found guilty
    By Joe Kay, 17 August 2007

    Remember there were 3 defendants---11 Hours? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by lindalawyer on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:45:21 AM EST
    Isnt this the same jury, which came in one dressed in Red white and Blue? (with one juror opting out); The juror dynamics in this case may need to be investigated.

    But also, considering the minimal evidence, this is the type of case that could not have been pursued but for the nebulous concept of a war on terror, and  a recognitionn that there is a lower burden of proof.  Three hours per defendant? In a case as flimsy as this? Absurd.

    A setup. Not an honest jury. (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 04:11:48 AM EST
    I doubt this jury bothered to review the evidence or the instructions. They didn't have time in a day and a half. It sounds to me like they took a straw vote shortly after picking a foreman and all were in agreement, so they went right to the verdict forms.

    Maybe they went on their gut feeling and emotion, not on the evidence or the law as instructed.

    I think they were corrupted. Bought off. If not with money then with with delusions pumped into their heads.

    Delusions as serious as Jose Padilla's.

    They lost. You lost. I lost. The country lost. The government lost. Padilla lost.

    And the whole world lost.

    The sellers of delusion won.

    The Power of Presumption (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Lavocat on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 05:41:15 AM EST
    It's like any other toxic label, really.  Once the label is affixed, an unspoken presumption is assumed: where there's smoke, there must be fire.

    I just had a sex offense felony trial where ALL of the evidence against my client was circumstantial at best.

    All the jury seemed to focus on were the snippets of evidence that tended to show my client to be lacking in good judgment.

    The jury was just looking for something - anything! - no matter how slight, to put my client away for a long time.  Why?  Because The People had already labeled and indicted her as a multi-count sex offender.  The jury needed only to rubberstamp the verdict of public opinion that had already been rendered.

    So toxic are some labels that a docile populace will blithely follow The People's lead and assume the worst on nothing more than misplaced trust.

    After all, where have we all been these last 6 1/2 years?

    Sadly, the Padilla verdict does NOT come as a surprise - nor should it.

    I hear ya.... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:34:37 AM EST
    but I'm still saving some anger for that jury.  They were the check on government power, and they failed to check said power.

    12 ordinary Americans had the chance to stand up for due process and liberty...but chose not to.

    I believe (none / 0) (#30)
    by Peaches on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:42:55 AM EST
    they were instructed not to.


    [ Parent ]
    They still had a choice...... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:47:42 AM EST
    Instructions can be ignored.  I ignored my share when on jury duty.

    [ Parent ]
    My time on jusry duty (none / 0) (#35)
    by Peaches on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:49:46 AM EST
    was ill-spent.

    I was never selected during jury selection. Tossed out in the first wave of questioning, probably because I would have ignored a fair share of instructions as well.

    [ Parent ]

    I loved it.... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:55:37 AM EST
    I served on a grand jury for a month a few years ago...it was awesome.  I tried my damndest to advocate for liberty when applicable, much to the chagrin of the ADA's.  

    I'm probably blacklisted now:)

    [ Parent ]

    The last jury I was on... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:34:37 AM EST
    ...was a joke.  Though the case was settled before a verdict, I ended up feeling sorry for the defendent (guilt or innocence aside) simply because he was having his fate decided by a panel made up largely of people who didn't have the rational ability to decide it.

    My experience & impression (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:33:49 PM EST
    of juries is different

    In Florida, an attorney can serve on a jury and I have. My experience was the group was very conscientious and did their best to go through the evidence.

    In my youth, in another state, I had the expeience of watching grand juries in action. I remember my first one. The first couple of days, the proverbial ham sandwhich could have been indicted, had we chosen to present it. After the jury got its feet wet, they became more inquisitive and it became harder to get a true bill. What impressed me the most, is the DA scheduled the most questionable case he had- where the police officer was obviously lying- to the middle of the the 2nd half of the session. The officer's testimony:
     

    "I was walking through X neighborhood, an area where I knew drugs were sold. I ran into suspect, whom I knew to be a drug dealer.  I asked him, if I  could search him. He said yes. I found these T's & Blues, so I read him his rights and arrested him"  

    Immdiately after the officer left the room, 3 hands shot up and the question was asked: Can you actually get a conviction based on this testimony? To which the chief ADA said, probably not. The Grand Jury declined to indict in that case.


    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    proverbial ham sandwich could have been indicted (none / 0) (#72)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 02:24:16 PM EST
    Good point, Molly.

    You get 12 jurors ALL with the same or similar prejudices (preconceived or pre-programmed notions) who all come from demographics that preclude rational thinking and fact based reasoning and they would probably convict anyone of anything they had been pre-disposed (through effective and unrelenting propaganda to disregard any and all evidence to the contrary) to believe he was guilty of - and pat themselves on the back for a job well done and "honestly" believe they had just dispensed fair "justice", thus "proving" that "the system works", so why question it....

    They would probably convict anyone of anything, and believe they had been right and honest.

    Even Jose Padilla.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (none / 0) (#32)
    by Peaches on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:45:14 AM EST
    that it seems the rational ability of our citizens sometimes appears impaired, but what is the alternative?

    Should we only let judges decide the fate of our criminals. Or government appointed juries instead of a random selection?

    Perhaps, (my view) we do not do a good enough job of preparing our citizens to live in a democratic society and our public schools have be an abysmal failure.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with your agreement (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:50:05 AM EST
    No easy answer.  It's like trying to make a test for people to pass before they can have children.  Better education in the critical thinking skills certainly would help.

    [ Parent ]
    How about 15, 20, 25 person juries.... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:49:58 AM EST
    Increase the odds that somebody in the group gives a sh*t and takes the repsponsibility of having a human life in their hands seriously.

    [ Parent ]
    Its a good suggestion (none / 0) (#37)
    by Peaches on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:53:02 AM EST
    but, it must be balanced by practicality. I mean if 15 is better than 12 and 25 is better than 15, isn't  100 better than 25 and 10,000 best of all? Or, 100,000...one million? Where do you draw the line?

    [ Parent ]
    Not practical.... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:58:17 AM EST
    I hear ya.  The crowded courts have a hard enough time filling 12 seats.

    [ Parent ]
    I can't comment on the trial (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:44:35 AM EST
    I will even refrain from commenting on the treatment Padilla received while in custody.

    What still seems incredible to me that was blithely accepted in this country was the  detention of an American citizen on American soil on the mere say so of the President.

    After that, nothing can be trusted in America.

    Along with torture, this was the sign that the nation had gone collectively insane after 9/11.

    The discussion of the trial and the jury verdict can be interesting, I don't know, but I can NEVER get past the meek acceptance of Padilla be detained indefinitely by the President.

    This is fascism, pure and simple.

    I cannot get past that either! (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Peaches on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:47:51 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Hear! Hear! (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:14:43 AM EST
    What still seems incredible to me that was blithely accepted in this country was the  detention of an American citizen on American soil on the mere say so of the President.

    After that, nothing can be trusted in America.

    Remember the Vietnam era cliche We had to destroy the village in order to save it?

    That seems to be the Bush GOP formula for governing. And I see no let up among the GOP frontrunners.


    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    BTD (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:46:58 AM EST
    It may have taken too long, but the courts forced the trial.

    DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - The Supreme Court late Wednesday granted the Bush administration's request to transfer the terrorism suspect Jose Padilla from military to civilian custody, ending an odd two-week standoff over where he should be held while the justices decide whether to hear his case. The court's order means that Mr. Padilla ...

    Looks like the system worked, although there are still some unknowns since the administration won't have to release him

    [ Parent ]

    I believe the real point here (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by locomule on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:58:36 AM EST
    is not whether the system "worked" or not but that the President Of The United States would act in such a brazen and lawless manner.

    "The system" should not have to reign in the President - he should voluntarily and deliberately act within the law, within constitutional constraints.  

    Always.

    [ Parent ]

    The Left always comes around to (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:03:39 PM EST
    crying over Bush.

    Laying all of the complaints about and support for Bush aside, the system worked.

    [ Parent ]

    If we were having this discussion.... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:12:18 PM EST
    3 years ago, then you could say the system worked and have a point.

    But it ain't 3 years ago...the system failed miserably.

    [ Parent ]

    justice delayed is justice denied ... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Sailor on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:24:15 PM EST
    ... and torture and solitary confinement for 3.5 years damaging a person to the extent that they can't help with their defense is not 'the system working.'

    Personally I think a lot of the fault lies with the judge by excluding evidence of his torture even tho she found he had mental disabilities.

    [ Parent ]

    This is fascism, pure and simple. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:31:10 AM EST
    Yes. Exactly...

    [ Parent ]
    Poll (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Peaches on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:13:21 PM EST
    I want to say No, but not specifically only for any of the options provided.

    I do think he should not have been convicted, because he was tortured and the judge should have thrown the accusations out and ordered that Padilla be immediately released and given post-traumatic care for the torture he received while in government detention.

    Charges then should have been filed against everyone involved with handling Padilla, including the President who ordered he be held indefinitely. We should be having a discussion on the jury verdicts of the alleged torturers instead of a discussion on a verdict in the Padilla case.

    Padilla lawyer on the document referenced above by Jim.

    ANDREW PATEL: That was the government's -- you know, when you actually look at this document and -- it is clear that it was -- there were two or three different kinds of inks. If you look at the handwriting on the first page and the last page, they don't match. Even things like, in the United States we will write a date, you know, month, date, year, and in Europe and the Middle East they write date, month, year. There are actually two dates on this form: one on the first page, one on the last page. One is in the European style, one is in the American style. We referred to this document as a, quote, "questioned document," unquote. The jury has spoken on that issue.
     

    on the wiretaps


    Well, there were 300,000 intercepts over a period of approximately ten years. Of those, approximately 14,000 were considered to be, quote, "pertinent." The government introduced about just under 130 conversations or parts of 130 conversations. Now, of that 300,000, Jose's voice is heard on seven. And there are an additional dozen or so conversations in which other people are talking about him. So in a massive electronic surveillance involving home phones being intercepted, cell phones being intercepted, fax machines being intercepted, bugs in people's homes, we have a grand total of twenty-one calls that have anything to do with Jose, out of a grand total of 300,000 interceptions. Your audience can do the math. The result is, you know, just barely a pin drop in this tidal wave of sound that was recorded.


    Peaches, quiting moaning about a terrorist (1.00 / 1) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 04:45:16 PM EST
    wannabe.

    If you look at the handwriting on the first page and the last page, they don't match.

    Padilla has admitted receiving help in filling out the document. I wonder why his lawyer didn't point that out??

    Well, there were 300,000...Now, of that 300,000, Jose's voice is heard on seven. And there are an additional dozen or so conversations in which other people are talking about him.

    Huh? Nice misdirection.... Why should we care? Might just as well say that in all wiretaps since the beginning of time... makes just as much sense. Fact is they got him on seven and got him being talked about on "an additional or doezen or so conversations."

    The guy was caught. He was tried. He was guilty.

    [ Parent ]

    the guy was caught ... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Sailor on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 04:54:20 PM EST
    ... tried in the media illegally by ashcrock, stuck in a hellhole where he was tortured and in solitary confinement for 3+ years, and said whatever the gov't wanted him to say.

    Then right before bush was found to be violating the constitution again they moved him into the civilian court system where he was so mentally damaged he couldn't help with his defense.

    I have serious doubt about you ability but one could hope you would feel some if you were to be locked up under similar conditions for your support for terrorism.

    [ Parent ]

    Having a dollop of gin, are you? (1.00 / 1) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 07:14:01 PM EST
    At least that's what Travis said...

    Since I do not support terrorism, why should I be concerned??

    BTW - Did you know that Rove and Bush got into a book reading contest last year and started reading John D MacDonald's mystery adventures?

    Now that's my kind of dudes. Travis McGee had more sense than almost any government type I have ever seen.

    [ Parent ]

    you contradict yourself (none / 0) (#140)
    by Sailor on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 01:15:38 PM EST
    Since I do not support terrorism, why should I be concerned??
    You've admitted several times to support for OBL and Saddam.

    [ Parent ]
    sailor loves strawmen (1.00 / 1) (#149)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 08:38:55 AM EST
    "The enemy of my enemy" is my friend is an ancient truism.

    I supported OBL when he was attacking the Soviets in Afghanistan, bleeding them white and causing political problems in Moscow.

    I supported Saddam when he was attacking Iran after they had invaded our Embassy and had declared they would put the ME under Shari law.

    Because I believe it is better to have someone else, when possible, do our fighting for us. Why? Because with out them doing that our soldiers are the ones killed.

    Now, since you seem to think this wrong, then it appears that you are not concerned with our soldiers being killed.

    How can you square that with your claim of supporting the troops?

    [ Parent ]

    I think you've slipped over the edge lately (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 09:59:32 AM EST
    have you ever supported any kind of peace process?  Do you know the meaning of detente?  Everyone wants to be employed but you are like a soldiers with guns sweatshop boss ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Lately?? (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Edger on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 10:13:22 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    situational ethics (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Sailor on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 10:28:41 AM EST
    and you conveniently left out that iran revolted because we armed and kept the shah in power.

    Another truism; chickens coming home to roost. As long as you support terrorists you will end up fighting them.

    "The enemy of my enemy" is my friend is an ancient truism.
    that is as simplistic as 'bring them on.'

    But for now I'll just leave at you admit support terrorism and terrorists, and earlier you denied it.

    Just another example of your hypocrisy.

    [ Parent ]

    Sailor loves them there strawmen (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 12:30:52 PM EST
    Many simple things are correct, many are not. Some are both.

    The sun rises in the east is a simple easy to understand statement. It serves a need to help people find a "direction." Based on that it can be said to be "correct."

    Actually though, the sun "appears" to rise in the east because the earth is rotating.

    So any attempt to make judgments on "truisms" requires some consideration, thinking and knowledge of history and related fields.

    Such is the Left's standard "truism" that Iran revolted because of our assistance to the Shah.

    The question should really be, why did we do that? And the answer is, we were in a war with the Soviets, and the Iranian government was going to provide them with a warm water port, helping them establish a true two ocean naval fleet and increasing their influence in the ME and FE.

    Now. The next question should be, did the Iranian people revolt against the Shah? No.
    The religious radicals were in a state of constant conflict with the government.  They would have revolted against any type of secular government. When Jimmy Carter stupidly withdrew our support, the government fell and Kohemani returned from France. (Thank you France.)

    So the cause was not our foreign policy for some 23-25 years, but the stupid change in that policy by Jimmy Carter. (Who, I am ashamed to admit, I voted for. Unlike you, I recognize my mistake.)

    Your claim that we should never engage in any policy that arms and helps one group against another is just as simplistic. But it does provide some evidence that you may be, or have a background in engineering/science. I say this because I have seen similar attitudes in engineers/scientists. An ability to think only in black and white, with no shades of grey.

    The world, sailor is analog, not digital.

    So understand. I would support the devil if he could help me protect the country and save the lives of our military men and women. That an uncertain future might contain other difficulties is just that. An uncertain future.

    [ Parent ]

    defend supporting terrorism all you want ... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Sailor on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 03:15:33 PM EST
    ... the fact is that is that every single terrorist you've supported turned on us ... using the weapons your kind provided.

    Let's go biblical; as ye sew, so shall ye reap.

    ppj's attitude is summed up here:

    You too, RePack! (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 08:51:58 AM EST
    Well, you tell us that you fought in Vietnam. Now if you hadn't done that the military wouldn't have been so whacked out Reagan wouldn't have had to use Iraq as a proxy army to fight Iran.
    Get that? ppj blames a vietnam war veteran, (tho ppj never served in combat) for reagan arming Iraq.

    Of course ppj always blames someone else:
    It's Clinton's fault.
    It's Carter's fault.
    It's Comey's fault.
    It's Mueller's fault.

    It couldn't possibly be bush's fault, of cheney's fault, or gonzales' fault, or rumsfeld's fault.

    [ Parent ]

    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Peaches on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 05:10:09 PM EST
    I know your views and I think they are abhorrent. I am outraged by the treatment of Padilla, because he was an American citizen. I am not knowledgeable enough about the trial to know if he was given a fair one or not or if he was rightly convicted. I do know that we were told he was being held as an enemy combatant who was planning a dirty bombing on US soil. I know that he was being held in isolation and subject to sensory deprivation techniques and this is not disputed by the gov't (that I am aware). I know he was not allowed to see lawyers nor anyone in the outside world (family) for over two years. I believe the treatment of him has led to a mental illness that is in all probability permanent. Yes, I am sickened by his treatment and feel empathy for him as a human being. However, my greater outrage is that our government did this to one of our citizens and is not being held accountable. That means it will likely happen again and there are no guarantees that who might be treated this way. You think this is a testament to our greatness. I see it exactly the opposite as evidence of our weakness and slowly eroding status around the world. What a shame, is all I can say and I am sorry you don't see the harm done to all of us in the treatment of Padilla - even if he is guilty of being a terrorist.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry Peaches, lets talk gardening (1.00 / 1) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 07:07:48 PM EST
     
    I know that he was being held in isolation and subject to sensory deprivation techniques and this is not disputed by the gov't (that I am aware).

    You know, I keep reading that, but I have yet to see a clear statement/comment that I can regard as fact. Perhaps it is, I just haven't seen it. But I would think links to it would be readily availabe.

    I have commented on this blog, that non-citizens should receive a tribunal, and citizens a full up US criminal justice system trial. I have also said that I would cut non-citizens some slack. I wouldn't for citizens. Padilla, in my opinion, is a traitor.

    I think his defense was not believeable, and that when all of the facts are piled on top of each other his guilt was undisputable. That's why the jury took only a day and a half. There was no doubt in their minds.

    Our greatness is in the fact that he received a trial rather than being hung as soon as they had obtained all the intelligence they thought he had.

    And no, I don't see the harm done to all of us. I see that his capture prevented harm being done to all of us. As for the opinion of the "rest of the world," I say to heck with'em. They only like us when we do what they want. If I have to puchase their friendship that makes them whores and me a whoremonger. Actually I don't believe that. Countries don't have "friends." They have "interests."

    [ Parent ]

    Greatness (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by glanton on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:34:47 PM EST
    Our greatness is in the fact that he received a trial rather than being hung as soon as they had obtained all the intelligence they thought he had.

    That's a bizarro comment even for you.  Nothing concerning Padilla has exemplified United States' "greatness" in any way.  

    3+ years of torture followed by a show trial, and you have the audacity to brag.    

    [ Parent ]

    Glanton (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 09:11:07 AM EST
    Kindly provide a link providing some facts regarding  torture.

    What we have are allegations of torture by a prisoner. That is a claim.

    What we have are claims by the prisoner's mental health doctors that his mental health is impaired. You know, I have never seen a defendants expert witness say, "Nope.... not correct."

    The bottom line issue we are going to have to address is this.

    Collecting intelligence is both a short and long term affair. Something can be told that can only be verified and useful much later. Plus, some information that if revealed would endanger in place sources, or destroy the usefulness of the long term information.

    How do we square this with a citizens right to a speedy trial, and the right to present evidence??

    Bush tried to address this with his "illegal combatant" claim. That works for non-citizens, but not for citizens.

    I don't have a good answer. But in trials of citizens charged with terrorist acts what we have not is not satsifcatory.

    [ Parent ]

    Taking the law into our own hands.... (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by kdog on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 12:52:46 PM EST
    Everybody says how terrible it is for people to take the law into their own hands.  I can't help but wonder why that is so terrible, considering the times we live in and the government we live under.  

    Look whose hands the law has been in the last few years....the hands of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Gates, and Gonzalez.  I'll take the law in the hands of your average American knucklehead over those bastards every day of the week.  

    If the law applied to the government it would be one thing, but the story of Jose Padilla teaches us they are above the law, it does not apply.  

    Desperate times call for desperate measures my friends....I say we need to take the law back.  So if you ever find yourself on a jury at the trial of an American held for 3 years without charge, I hope all of us ignore the judge's instructions not to consider tyranny.

    kdog (1.00 / 1) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 03:02:02 PM EST
    The French tried that about 200 years ago..

    Didn't work out too well.

    [ Parent ]

    Americans tried it about 200 years ago ... (none / 0) (#165)
    by Sailor on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 05:18:25 PM EST
    ... until recently it worked out fairly well.

    [ Parent ]
    fair trials (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by diogenes on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:12:47 PM EST
    So does that mean that you think that a military tribunal would have given a fairer trial?  :)

    Definitely not (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:22:38 PM EST
    see my first paragraph above.  In this case, I think  the prosecutors, defense lawyers and judge did their jobs and it was the jury which fell short.

    [ Parent ]
    prosecutor? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by lawstudent on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 05:28:29 AM EST
    do you really think the prosecutor did their job appropriately?  i mean was this not an overzealous prosecution to shape the public's image on the war on terror?  were the images/videos of bin laden not shown to the jury for any other reason than to arise their emotions?  i didn't follow nearly as closely as you did, but from what i read, this trial sounded like much more of a PR move than appropriate prosecutorial discretion.

    [ Parent ]
    Finger prints (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:02:00 PM EST

    When your finger prints are on an Al Qaeda application, its hard to say the jury booted it.

    Signature Song
    [ Parent ]

    Not exactly (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by LarryE on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:05:45 AM EST
    His fingerprints were on the front and the back of the form, but not on the middle pages. That's consistent with him being handed the form at some point but not with him having filled it out.

    Was there any evidence placing him actually at a training camp? Lacking that, the form is at best inconclusive.

    My own take on this is that I don't know if Padilla is guilty or not of that with which he was charged. I do know he was grossly mistreated, used as a pawn by the Bush administration, did not get a fair trial, and was convicted in a rush to judgment by a jury, as unhappily most juries today would have been, stampeded by fears of releasing "terrorists."

    [ Parent ]

    The form (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Dulcinea on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 08:25:01 AM EST
    should have been handed to one of the jurors who could then be convicted, after a show trial, of working hand in hand with Al Qaeda.

    [ Parent ]
    Bingo! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 08:51:58 AM EST
    Excellent comment...the prints prove nothing, and I have a hard time believing a shadowy terrorist organization really has American ex-cons filling out applications like they are applying to work the drive-thru at Wendy's.  

    The jury pegged him guilty from opening arguments...I'd bet my bottom dollar on it.

    [ Parent ]

    Please.......you folks are grasping at straws (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:29:34 AM EST
    The following is from an interview with James Comey, US ADA; someone who I think you will agree is no friend of the Administration:

    CNN

    In 1998, Padilla flew from Miami to Cairo, where he spent the next year and a half. He has admitted that in March of 2000, he attend the religious pilgrimage, the hajj, in Saudi Arabia. And there he met a man from Yemen who was a recruiter for al Qaeda, and they discussed the training opportunities al Qaeda offered in Afghanistan.

    Two months later, at this recruiter's request, Padilla traveled in May of 2000 to Yemen where the recruiter introduced him to a sponsor, somebody who could arrange for his training in Afghanistan by al Qaeda.

    In June of 2000, Padilla made that journey. He went to Pakistan, and then traveled overland to Kandahar, Afghanistan.

    He has admitted that there he completed an application to receive training at an al Qaeda camp, sponsored by the man he met in Yemen, who helped him fill out the paperwork.

    (Comment: This easily explains why his fingerprints were on the front and back, but not found on interuor pages.)

    The FBI found Padilla's application to the al Qaeda training camp. They found it in a binder that contained 100 other such applications, type-written each with the title at the top, "Mujahideen Identification Form/New Applicant Form."

    Padilla's application was dated July 24th of 2000 and bears one of his aliases, Abu Abdullah Muhajir (ph). It bears his date of birth, October 18th, 1970. It shows that he is an American citizen; that he speaks Spanish and English and is proficient at Arabic; that he has traveled to Afghanistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

    Padilla has admitted that after filling out his application, he attended the Al Farouq (ph) al Qaeda training camp in September and October of 2000, using the name Abdullah al-Espani (ph).

    Padilla says he went to the camp with the understanding that he would be sent to Chechnya to fight for jihad, although he recognized that the recruits of al Qaeda were offered no guarantees.

    According to Padilla, his training included weapon's instruction on AK-47, on G-3, M-16, Uzi and other machine guns; training on topography, communications, camouflage, clandestine surveillance, explosives, including C-4 plastic explosives, dynamite and mines; as well as physical fitness and religious training.

    Padilla completed this basic terrorist training successfully, and then spent three months in the fall of 2000 with other new al Qaeda recruits guarding a Taliban outpost north of Kabul, Afghanistan.

    Padilla admits that he first met al Qaeda's military commander, Abu Hafs al-Masri, better known as Mohammed Atef. He met him in Afghanistan when Atef approached this American in the Al Farouq (ph) camp, and checked him out to gauge his suitability and his commitment to the cause. Atef no doubt spotted the tremendous value this American terrorist offered because he met with him again several times, even giving Padilla money to go back to Egypt to visit his wife.

    In early 2001, Padilla walked into the American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, and said his passport had been lost in a market in Karachi and got a new one: a classic act of al Qaeda tradecraft designed to eliminate suspicious travel stamps and cover the nature of the traveler's work.

    In April 2000, having completed his basic terrorist training and having found a mentor in the military leader of al Qaeda, Mohammed Atef, Padilla departed Karachi, Pakistan, and returned to Egypt, ending his first trip to Afghanistan.

    Two months later, in June of 2001, Padilla returned to Afghanistan and sought out Mohammed Atef. He met with Atef at a safe house that was reserved for the instructors and the leaders of al Qaeda. According to Padilla, about a month later, his mentor Atef asked him a question. He asked his American disciple if he was willing to undertake a mission to blow up apartment buildings in the United States using natural gas. Padilla told him he would do it.

    Atef then sent Padilla to a training site near the Kandahar airport, where Padilla would train under the watchful eye of an al Qaeda explosives expert and be trained with the man who was to be his partner in this mission to destroy apartment buildings, another al Qaeda operative. When Padilla saw this other operative, he recognized him immediately because he had known him from Florida.....

    ...After spending a month in Egypt, Padilla traveled on and arrived at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport on May the 8th of 2002. He was carrying over $10,000 in U.S. currency given to him by his al Qaeda handlers. He was carrying the cell phone provided to him by Amar al-Beluki (ph), Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's right-hand man.

    He was carrying the names is telephone numbers of his recruiter and his sponsor, and the e-mail address for Amar al-Beluki (ph), who he was to contact upon safely reaching the United States.

    You may think that the government erred in their desigination and holding him. I do not. While much of the above was not presented at the trial because the government obviously didn't want to reveal some of it, some perhaps due to their methods, some just information about what all Padilla had revealed, there was enough to convict him by a jury of his peers after a full up US CJS trial.

    I have commented in the past that I believe in tribunals for non-citizens, and for full up US CJS trials for citizens. I have also that the penalties for the non-citizen should be less than for a citizen because a citizen bears the responsibility of not acting with the country's enemies.

    I think Padilla is lucky to have escaped with his life.

    [ Parent ]

    He has no life, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 02:12:43 PM EST
    Are you really incapable of understanding what that kind of treatment and isolation does to the human mind?

    He's been dead for years.

    [ Parent ]

    ppj advocated hanging him ... (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Sailor on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 04:46:37 PM EST
    ... before he even had a trial.

    [ Parent ]
    Let's see the comment, sailor (none / 0) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 05:02:04 PM EST
    If I remember I said citizens deserve a trial.

    Now be sure to quote all of it. You have a history of such actions.


    [ Parent ]

    I posted it twice ... (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by Sailor on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 07:02:00 PM EST
    ... but as always you rely on Jeralyn to delete comments that you disagree with.

    ppj's site, ppj's rules.

    Things just disappear.

    [ Parent ]

    sailor (1.00 / 0) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:07:47 PM EST
    So you are saying that I said hang Padilla, and TL deleted it??

    Lol.

    [ Parent ]

    Dadler (1.00 / 2) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 04:58:57 PM EST
    For a dead man he appears to be rather healthy.

    Dadler, how about less worry about a wannabee terrorist who planned and wanted to do terrible things and more worry about the people he wanted to kill.

    He deserves nothing but contempt. In most societies he would have been hung as soon as they thought they had all of the intelligence he knew.

    That we did not speaks to our greatness.

    [ Parent ]

    Again, you miss the entire point (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 05:21:08 PM EST
    I can hold more than one contradictory feeling in my brain and once, perhaps you can't.  Part of what makes like hard to live is the difficult ironies one faces.  We treated Padilla as subhuman and in the process further eroded what little moral credibility we had left.  A just society treats people better than that.  

    You act as if having a heart beat and "looking normal" means he's healthy and alive and just fine.  What you must know about mental illness could fit in a thimble.  Serial Killers all look and seem normal, Jim.  That's how they get away with it.

    No treatment this guy received is becoming a free nation.  Period.  You act as if every end justifies every means.  I thought you believed in Jesus and his teachings.  He'd be disgusted with the treatment this man received.  


    [ Parent ]

    dadler (1.00 / 1) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 06:37:31 PM EST
    Nope. Not true.

    Laying aside the appearance issue...

    We treated Padilla as Padilla treated himself, and as Padilla treated us. His actions were self destructibe, and his actions show a clear intent to kill scores of people.

    Again. This is not an attempted robbery of a 7-11, this is an attempt to conspire to kill thousands, if not hundreds of thousands.

    [ Parent ]

    That is not the standard (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 07:01:01 PM EST
    We treated Padilla as Padilla treated himself, and as Padilla treated us.


    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Heinous acts demand careful justice (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 02:55:53 PM EST
    I'm glad to see a potentially dangerous terrorist off of the streets, if indeed that's what Padilla was. But the controversy over his trial is about the miscarriage of the implementation of justice, not over whether he's a Boy Scout or not. Serious charges demand the utmost clarity in the implementation of justice. Think of the Nuremburg Trials. How much moral value or legal authority would they have had if run in the same manner as the Padilla case, with changing charges and venues as fitted the prevailing mood of the Bush Administration? Bush has no right to suspend a citizen's rights without any recourse to a neutral magistrate. Sandra Day O'Connor noted that a war is not a blank check for the executive branch. Such a fundamentally un-Constitutional power makes us all less secure, which is what this controversy is about.

    [ Parent ]
    Couple of things (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by LarryE on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 06:19:32 PM EST
    First, your link is busted. The correct link ends in .html, not .htm.

    Second, huh??

    While much of the above was not presented at the trial because the government obviously didn't want to reveal some of it

    The entire quote was from a flipping official news conference! What in heaven's name do you mean, "didn't want to reveal it?"

    Third, the government claims in effect to have a detailed confession of the worst crimes accused, but don't pursue it when they'd actually have to put up or shut up? That raises no red flags for you?

    Fourth, by your own admission, none of this was presented at trial, he wasn't even accused of it. Jurors are supposed to decide based on what they're presented with, not with what a prosecutor said somewhere else that someone said. The evidence presented at trial against Padilla was thin at best.

    So I stand by what I said: I don't know if he's guilty (and no, I place little faith in press conference statements of the prosecution which never appeared in a forum when they had to be supported and could be properly challenged). I do know he was tortured, did not get a fair trial, and was convicted in a rush to judgment.

    [ Parent ]

    Link is fixed (1.00 / 1) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 06:46:55 PM EST
    My point remains. Many of these points were not brought up in the trial. As I noted, perhaps some because they didn't want to bring up the "treatment" issue. And also perhaps they didn't want to compromise some other intelligence.

    Either way they had enough to convict.

    If you choose to believe that he is NOT guilty after all the evidence, be my guest.

    There is nothing I can do for you.

    BTW - Can you tell me what was no fair about his trial??

    [ Parent ]

    You just don't get it (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 07:21:56 PM EST
    Justice isn't revenge and it isn't a rush to the lowest possible standards of jurisprudence. In America, holding a citizen without any recourse to legal counsel is a perversion of justice, no matter what that person is accused of. Holding an accused person based on what the executive branch says without any independent magistrate to substantiate the claim is illegal, unless the eight centuries of habeas need to be discarded because as Bush never tires of saying, "they hate us for our freedom."  Torturing someone mad based on the unchallenged assertions of the executive branch is beyond despicable. It is because terrorism is serious that we need to be serious about how we prosecute terrorists. The Padilla affair is a fiasco brought about by the overreaching of the imperial presidency, which disdains such niceties as due process as a sign of weakness. I trust people who respect the law more than some chickenhawk cowboy with fanciful ideas about an unaccountable "unitary executive" whose simple word is law because of a so-called "global war on terror."

    [ Parent ]
    tnthorpe (1.00 / 1) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 08:45:53 PM EST
    Torturing someone mad based on the unchallenged assertions of the executive branch is beyond despicable.

    As I noted to Peaches, I keep hearing these claims, but I haven't seen a source about "torture" that I would consider factual. Now, since it is claimed so often, I am sure you can provide me a link or two or three.

    As for "mad," I don't believe that the Doctor who examined him said he was insane. Here again I invite a link correcting my knowledge. (DA? Are you there??)

    As I note again, I have supported full up US CJS trials for citizens. That he received.

    BTW - Are you saying that his trial was unfair? Are you saying he innocent?

    [ Parent ]

    Learn to use Google would you? (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 08:58:09 PM EST
    The main issue before U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke is not whether Padilla is sane, but whether he can assist his lawyers in mounting their defense against charges that he belonged in the 1990's to a North American Muslim extremist "jihad" cell bent on killing people.

    Two defense-hired doctors believe he is not. But prosecutors contend Padilla understands what is happening in the case and suggest he is "malingering," or in other words, faking symptoms so he does not have to face a trial, which is now scheduled for April

    "Mr. Padilla is very anxious about appearing crazy," Dr. Angela Hegarty testified.

    After Padilla was moved to Miami in November 2005, Hegarty spent 22 hours with Padilla, but none since last September.

    She said he rocks back and forth in his chair, has involuntary facial ticks, breaks out in sweat, and verbally shuts down when asked to discuss this three-and-half years in the naval brig or his telephone conversations the government wiretapped. "Please, please, please," he begged Hegarty in one session, "Don't make me do this."

    In a one sentence affidavit, Padilla asserts that allegations of abuse at the hands of his military captors are true. His lawyers say Padilla was consistently deprived of sleep, reading materials, and any companionship, always eating alone in his cell, his only respite a few hours of recreation a week in an outdoor cage. He was otherwise shielded from daylight, subjected to harsh lights 24/7, bombarded with heat and cold air and noxious fumes, according to court papers.

    Dr. Hegarty diagnoses Padilla as suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder with a small case of Stockholm Syndrome, meaning, in refusing to cooperate with his attorneys, Padilla identifies more with his captors and worries the legal proceedings are unfair to the government.

    "He lacks the capacity to assist counsel in this case," Hegarty said, adding that his current conditions of confinement in the high security unit of Miami's federal detention center - near total isolation, sensory deprivation, and lack of privacy - "exacerbate" the problems.

    That diagnosis is echoed by Dr. Patricia Zapf, a clinical forensic psychologist who developed the standard test used to determine mental fitness for trial and examined Padilla last October.
    This is from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/24/cbsnews_investigates/main2510272.shtml

    This from the Christian Science Monitor
    US terror interrogation went too far, experts say
    Reports find that Jose Padilla's solitary confinement led to mental problems.

    By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
    from the August 13, 2007 edition http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0813/p01s03-usju.html

    I can send you dozens of such links.

    As for your latter questions, please read my post carefully. I make no claims about the trial, only about what our government failed to do correctly.

    I don't know what counts for factual in your world, but the diagnosis of medical professionals suits me just fine.


    [ Parent ]

    You claimed he was "mad" (1.00 / 1) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:26:35 PM EST
    disordered in mind : INSANE

    Say what you mean.

    Here's a link

    US denies Padilla torture allegations

    In a one sentence affidavit, Padilla asserts that allegations of abuse at the hands of his military captors are true

    Well, that is a startling comment, and just so well backed up with evidence.

    Now why would he lie? To save his arse? To follow orders?

    When Al-Qaeda operatives are jailed, they are told to claim that they have been tortured. From the Al-Qaeda playbook:

    1. At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators ]before the judge.
    2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.

    3......

    And then your coup de grace (heh)

    Two psychiatrists and a psychologist who conducted detailed personal examinations of Mr. Padilla on behalf of his defense lawyers say his extended detention and interrogation at the US Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C., left him with severe mental disabilities. All three say he may never recover.

    What a surprise!!!

    Now. Do you have any facts? I mean claims are great, but I see no FACTS.

    Have a nice day. And remember what the Judge said:

    MIAMI - A Miami federal judge rejected a motion by alleged al Qaeda operative Jose Padilla to dismiss terrorism charges against him over claims he was tortured in U.S. military custody.

    Have a nice day.

    [ Parent ]

    What on earth counts as fact in your world? (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:46:25 PM EST
    You refuse any evidence that doesn't conform to your misconstrual of the controversy. Experts in the field claim that Padilla was tortured and that the torture has driven him insane.
    What about this professional testimony fails your "fact" test?
    "Dr. Hegarty diagnoses Padilla as suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder with a small case of Stockholm Syndrome, meaning, in refusing to cooperate with his attorneys, Padilla identifies more with his captors and worries the legal proceedings are unfair to the government.

    "He lacks the capacity to assist counsel in this case," Hegarty said, adding that his current conditions of confinement in the high security unit of Miami's federal detention center - near total isolation, sensory deprivation, and lack of privacy - "exacerbate" the problems."
    Are you a psychiatrist? A mental health professional? If you look in the DSM IV, that is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, you will find that PTSD is a mental disorder of that results in various incapacities. In Padilla's case it has rendered him mad, which is what I claimed and exactly what I meant.
     As for your claim about Padilla using standard AlQuaeda counter-interrogation techniques, am I supposed to believe that three highly professional and well-respected doctors are also in league with the terrorists?
    Of course, I'm sure no expert's testimony or the standard used by the mental health profession will qualify as fact. But since I can't convince you to be rational, all I can do is suggest you go out and have yourself a real nice day.

    [ Parent ]

    Nothing counts as facts in his world. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:11:19 PM EST
    He's the house troll, his purpose is to waste your time. He's been through all of this many times with others and remains in denial.

    [ Parent ]
    Facts for you to ignore. Again. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:09:06 PM EST
    The Bush Administration's Torture of U.S. Citizen Jose Padilla
    Glenn Greenwald
    He was kept in a unit comprising sixteen individual cells, eight on the upper level and eight on the lower level, where Mr. Padilla's cell was located. No other cells in the unit were occupied. His cell was electronically monitored twenty-four hours a day, eliminating the need for a guard to patrol his unit. His only contact with another person was when a guard would deliver and retrieve trays of food and when the government desired to interrogate him.

    His isolation, furthermore, was aggravated by the efforts of his captors to maintain complete sensory deprivation. His tiny cell - nine feet by seven feet - had no view to the outside world. The door to his cell had a window, however, it was covered by a magnetic sticker, depriving Mr. Padilla of even a view into the hallway and adjacent common areas of his unit. He was not given a clock or a watch and for most of the time of his captivity, he was unaware whether it was day or night, or what time of year or day it was.

    In addition to his extreme isolation, Mr. Padilla was also viciously deprived of sleep. This sleep deprivation was achieved in a variety of ways. For a substantial period of his captivity, Mr. Padilla's cell contained only a steel bunk with no mattress. The pain and discomfort of sleeping on a cold, steel bunk made it impossible for him to sleep. Mr. Padilla was not given a mattress until the tail end of his captivity. . .
    ...
     Mr. Padilla's dehumanization at the hands of his captors also took more sinister forms. Mr. Padilla was often put in stress positions for hours at a time. He would be shackled and manacled, with a belly chain, for hours in his cell. Noxious fumes would be introduced to his room causing his eyes and nose to run. The temperature of his cell would be manipulated, making his cell extremely cold for long stretches of time. Mr. Padilla was denied even the smallest, and most personal shreds of human dignity by being deprived of showering for weeks at a time, yet having to endure forced grooming at the whim of his captors.

    A substantial quantum of torture endured by Mr. Padilla came at the hands of his interrogators. In an effort to disorient Mr. Padilla, his captors would deceive him about his location and who his interrogators actually were. Mr. Padilla was threatened with being forcibly removed from the United States to another country, including U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he was threatened his fate would be even worse than in the Naval Brig.

    He was threatened with being cut with a knife and having alcohol poured on the wounds. He was also threatened with imminent execution. He was hooded and forced to stand in stress positions for long durations of time. He was forced to endure exceedingly long interrogation sessions, without adequate sleep, wherein he would be confronted with false information, scenarios, and documents to further disorient him. Often he had to endure multiple interrogators who would scream, shake, and otherwise assault Mr. Padilla.

    Additionally, Mr. Padilla was given drugs against his will, believed to be some form of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) or phencyclidine (PCP), to act as a sort of truth serum during his interrogations.

    Padilla Torture Claims Detailed
    It was someone very close to me, serving the last of several enlistments in the US Navy to include SEAL school, who initially brought the torturing of detainees to my attention back when we all first saw the photos of folks in orange jump suits kneeling behind fences at GITMO. He asked, "You know those guys are being tortured, don't you?" "Huh?!" I replied, not understanding the effects and goal of the stress position. He then went on to tell me exactly how it works, ending with, "Go kneel on your driveway like that for four hours, if you can make it that long, and see if you can even walk afterward." He also told me of the treatment of intercepted Haitian refugees at the hands of Navy personnel that I would consider torture.

    For any of you who may be interested and missed them, check out the relevant interrogation manuals available at George Washington University's National Security Archive ("Prisoner Abuse: Patterns from the Past"), especially the 1963 KUBARK* manual. The gist of the military's post-WWII/Vietnam era approach was to use advances in psychology and related fields to switch to indirect methods that force the person being tortured to fight against themself instead of having a torturer upon whom to direct their attention: self-defeat being more complete and effective than defeat by another which may include external resistance and resentment. Thus the introduction of stress positions, and other passive, non-aggressive measures instead of hot lights and rubber hoses. Apart from the more complete capitulation and destruction of the tortured, the side benefit is that to many outside observers the techniques do not look like torture or even cruel and unusual punishment (fraternity pranks, anyone?).

    *CIA, KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation
    Under the subheading, "Threats and Fears," the CIA authors note that "the threat of coercion usually weakens or destroys resistance more effectively than coercion itself. The threat to inflict pain, for example, can trigger fears more damaging than the immediate sensation of pain." Under the subheading "Pain," the guidelines discuss the theories behind various thresholds of pain, and recommend that a subject's "resistance is likelier to be sapped by pain which he seems to inflict upon himself" such rather than by direct torture. The report suggests forcing the detainee to stand at attention for long periods of time.
    More that you've ignored at Talkleft: here and here.

    [ Parent ]
    And you would deny it is torture, ppj (3.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:26:02 PM EST
    right up until it was done to you, then you would scream bloody murder.
    --Jen M, replying to you, ppj, Dec 04, 2006 - which you also ignored.

    [