The NY Times has a lengthy story about the treatment Jose Padilla while in captivity as an enemy combatant:
Now lawyers for Mr. Padilla, 36, suggest that he is unfit to stand trial. They argue that he has been so damaged by his interrogations and prolonged isolation that he suffers post-traumatic stress disorder and is unable to assist in his own defense. His interrogations, they say, included hooding, stress positions, assaults, threats of imminent execution and the administration of “truth serums.”
A Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Todd Vician, said Sunday that the military disputes Mr. Padilla’s accusations of mistreatment. And, in court papers, prosecutors deny “in the strongest terms” the accusations of torture and say that “Padilla’s conditions of confinement were humane and designed to ensure his safety and security.”
***Dr. Angela Hegarty, director of forensic psychiatry at the Creedmoor Psychiatric Center in Queens, N.Y., who examined Mr. Padilla for a total of 22 hours in June and September, said in an affidavit filed Friday that he “lacks the capacity to assist in his own defense.”
“It is my opinion that as the result of his experiences during his detention and interrogation, Mr. Padilla does not appreciate the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him, is unable to render assistance to counsel, and has impairments in reasoning as the result of a mental illness, i.e., post-traumatic stress disorder, complicated by the neuropsychiatric effects of prolonged isolation,” Dr. Hegarty said in an affidavit for the defense.
Mr. Padilla’s status was abruptly changed to criminal defendant from enemy combatant last fall. At the time, the Supreme Court was weighing whether to take up the legality of his military detention — and thus the issue of the president’s authority to seize an American citizen on American soil and hold him indefinitely without charges — when the Bush administration pre-empted its decision by filing criminal charges against Mr. Padilla.
This provides the win/win/win/win scenario for the nihilists are Red State:
That is a picture the New York Times does not want you to see. They want you to forget the destruction that befell America on September 11, 2001. They want you to forget the horror. They want you to forget the tragedy. No major media outlet in the United States will show these pictures. “Too traumatizing” is how these pictures are described. “Too traumatizing” is apparently a euphemism for “they make American’s remember what they’re fighting for.”
But, they do want you to feel sorry for Jose Padilla. They want you to see the pictures of poor Jose. They want you to remember the “abuse” and “torture” he has suffered at the hands of the Regime of Bush.
They want to play down the fact that Mr. Padilla plotted to blow up a radiological dirty bomb inside the United States — instead, Mr. Padilla is merely accused by “Le Regime Bush” of “plotting a dirty bomb attack.” But make no mistake, they aren’t trying to underplay how evil Mr. Padilla’s detainers have been.
They get to attempt to scare us all with pictures of 9/11, smear the press, attack anyone who questions or questioned the government treatment of enemy combatants (while ignoring the fact that the government itself abruptly switched his status only because they realized their bullshit made-up status was untenable), and they get to ignore the fact that Padilla can no longer defend himself- and let;s face it- they don’t care if he can. In the authoritarian mindset, someone is guilty when the authorities declare he is.
I carry no water for Jose Padilla- if he is guilty of what he has been accused, there will be no tears spillt here if he is forever incarcerated or executed. However, how anyone can look at the government behavior in this and say “Nothing here- just hysterical terrorist enablers and the liberal media” is simply beyond me.
I guess maybe it is easier for those who believe in nothing but amassing power in the hands of the Republican party and excusing the conduct and excesses of this administration.
Pb
IMO, this is a very smart move by Padilla’s lawyers–whether or not he can stand trial, to properly settle this line of inquiry, the court would want to look at Padilla’s condition and his treatment by the government–and I’m sure the government is not eager to open that can of worms. I’m betting that they’re eventually forced to drop the case. That is, provided they don’t just hold him indefinitely *again*…
As for Red State… what can I say. With their unique blend of blind partisanship and rabid nationalism, they’ve turned being wrong into an art form. Check out this sentence:
Oh, how cute. Throw in some French, and our cognitive functions are supposed to shut down, is that how it works? Yes, that’s right, Jose Padilla is merely accused of “plotting a dirty bomb attack”, or whatever they’re accusing him of this week. That’s how our system works. Red State, do you have any conclusive evidence in this case that the federal prosecutors should know about? Are you withholding evidence? Can you demonstrate that the government ever had a case here? Can you tell us what, exactly, is so deadly dangerous that Jose Padilla–an American citizen–warranted such treatment, in direct contravention to the Constitutional guarantees that the rest of us enjoy? Well, come on then, I’m waiting. Make a real, reality-based argument for once, one that respects our history and our Consitution.
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
searp
Everybody is guilty of a capital crime, all the time. Vigilante justice. It is disgusting and un-American.
My brother started down that path a bit. He is an attorney. I asked him what about proof that the people actually did something? Made him think a bit.
Salty Party Snax
Let the hearings begin. January 2007 can’t get here soon enough.
Edmund Dantes
Read that piece again.
Let it sink in for a second.
Then remember, impeachment is off the table because “America needs to heal. It would be seen as partisan wrangling for Congress to seriously consider impeachment.” We aren’t talking about little penny ante stuff. We are talking serious Constitutional issues, yet one of the few Constitutional remedies has somehow been removed from the table.
Almost every aspect of his treatment violated the Constitution at a most basic level it’s not even funny. It doesn’t matter if he in the end is guilty or not. The Constitution doesn’t lay out rules for the pre-guilty versus the pre-not guilty.
Also imagine if his case had never been transferred to civilian court. How much of this case would we have never heard of because it would violate national security? I’m surprised they aren’t using the “we can’t allow Mr. Padilla to challenge his treatment since it would necessitate revealing the technigues used on him to our enemies thus allowing them to prepare for the tactics.”
bud
Speaking of causing cognitive dissonance.
The Creedmore staff that everyone on here seems to thing has powers of ominipotence:
http://www.ect.org/new-york-supreme-court-affirms-forced-shock-ruling/
Has just got permission from the court to apply ECT against the patients wishes.
There, that should get everybody’s chimes ringing.
Sorry, it’s still a “he said, she said” situation, and the addition of a hired-gun shrink doesn’t change that, except to the extent you believe that said shrink has truth-detecting powers beyond those of ordinary mortals. It’s possible to con a shrink, it’s done everyday in prisons across the land.
Wait until the prosecution gets to pick *their* shrink. Here’s a prediction that you can take to the bank: he’ll find that Padilla is capable.
Pb above seems to be arguing that a) it’s a good defensive move, and b) there’s no case anyway. Something’s amiss here, since, if there’s no case, the best thing would be to have a speedy trial, especially given the polical climate of today. Get him acquited and out of there, before there is another “successful” attack in the US. This manuver is just a delay.
Edmund Dantes
Hmmm… the end of that got swallowed. That last part in quotations was an actual argument forwarded by the DOJ as to why one of the foreign nationals challenging his treatment couldn’t be allowed to testify as to what happened to him.
Link
ThymeZone
If a thug robs a liquor store and kills the clerk, we want to catch him and try him and punish him, so that we can “heal.”
If a drunk robs a country of an election, becomes president, lies to start a war, and kills tens of thousands of people out of sheer stupidity and stubbornness, we shouldn’t go after him, or try to hold him accountable, because the country “needs to heal.”
Can anyone explain this to me? Anybody?
The Other Steve
Jose Padilla is obviously the leader of a global terrorist network, who is duping y’all into thinking he’s a washed up gang member from Chicago.
The truth is, he was planted in the 1950s by a super secret KGB infiltration program.
But he’s been here so long, and has been under such deep cover, he doesn’t even realize the KGB no longer exists.
That’s why the defense finds him crazy.
The Other Steve
We only hold people accountable for lying about sex.
Chuck Butcher
This is exactly the outcome of mixing the military/national security apparatus into the nation’s criminal justice system. Whatever the government now or previously accused Mr Padilla of was a crime, then and now. The criminal justice system of the US has been held to work by the government through its participation in the system. Here they have attempted to plow the criminal justice system under with the military/national security apparatus, been called to task for doing so, and now have to deal with the criminal justice system under its rules and legal limitations after exceeding them. They now would have us take the schizophrenic stand that the government is not itself, that what one part of government does has no effect on what another part of government does.
The entire reasoning behind our separation of powers form of government is that government is responsible for its actions, that the pieces all add up to an actual government and that the division of responsibility allows for the proper application of each’s reponsibility. To assert, as BushCo has, that the military/spy arm can act within the purview of the court system puts an arm of the government into a sphere where they have no expertise or standing and their failures are to be expected. Unfortuanately incompetence does not excuse BushCo failures and excesses. So now, thanks to our Executive Branch, we face the possible or even probable breakdown of a criminal proceedings, perhaps Congress ought to be interested in exactly what the Executive Branch thought it was up to.
I personally am as worried that a nutcase bomber gets tossed onto the streets as I am by the government’s intial behavior. Neither is desirable, sadly the intial behavior promises longer term dire consequences, too bad our government has become a greater threat than lunatics.
Tsulagi
Exactly.
When my daughter begins dating if she dragged someone like Padilla home I’d probably want to shoot him. Don’t know his life history in detail, but from what I’ve read he’s an ex gang banger who delusionally saw himself as an International Man of Terror. Then this administration, which is no stranger to delusional thinking, elevated him to that status. Like the loony guy who planned to take down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch with the admin claiming his capture was a major blow against terrorism.
There used to be an old adage in this country: Better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent wrongly imprisoned. Of course you’d work to lower that 100:1 ratio, but the point was made.
Now Bush/RedState “patriots” want the ratio flipped: Better 100 innocents are falsely imprisoned and “alternatively” interrogated indefinitely with one retard at the top able to fuck them over any way he chooses at his whim than one guilty person go free. Yep, those patriots are true, tough defenders of American freedom and justice. To really reflect their deep “thinking” and patriotism, they should be calling for a hammer and sickle to be added to the American flag.
Delusional idiots. They really should be supporting stem cell research because that is probably the only future hope they’ll have of growing a spine.
ThymeZone
So if I understand the government correctly, I am supposed to be quaking in fear over here at the ppG compound, afraid on one guy who is in shackles and blindfolded, and some other guy who lives in a cave in fucking Packistan.
On the basis of this fear, I’m supposed to support my government.
No matter what stupid and unconscionable crap they do.
Explanation? Anyone? Little help here?
DougL
Correct me if I’m missing something. As far as I understand, impeachment is only about removing an elected official from office without that official’s consent.
Consider that there’s only a bit more than two more years left in Bush’s presidency. Consider that the investigation and hearings would take a significant portion of that time. So assume congress actually goes through with and votes for impeachment. I’ve seen guesstimates that that whole process might take 12 to 18 months. So, on a successful impeachment President Bush gets removed from office 6 to 12 months ahead of when he would’ve ended his term anyway only to be replaced by … President Cheney?! A whole lot of effort and not much to show for it other than whatever satisfaction people get from Bush being impeached.
Maybe impeachment isn’t the remedy you really want.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for investigations and members of the Bush administration being held accountable, but removal from office, especially considering the next-in-line replacement, seems pretty weak and a big waste of time and effort. Investigations and hearings leading to more substantive penalties appropriate to the proven misdeeds – I can get onboard with that.
Myrtle Parker
Right Wing mindset in a nutshell:
That he was punished is evidence of his guilt.
Sam Hutcheson
Please note that Jose Padilla is not actually charged with any of the crimes he was originally declared “enemy combatant” and disappeared for. He is not charged with conspiracy or attempting to build a dirty bomb. He is not charged with being involved with al Queada. He is charged with being sympathetic to Chechnya. I think.
A citizen was disappeared for four years, driven insane by torture, for no reason.
s/
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Interesting how Red State plays up the dirty bomb accusation, but neglects to mention the latest indictment against Padilla mentions nothing of the sort.
TenguPhule
You’re not thinking like Bush’s Padilla. They can’t let him go because it would be an admission of weakness/guilt. Their original case held no water, so they tried to change the rules, the courts overruled them so they changed the rules again. And now after subjecting him to months of sensory deprivation and torture, to put him where anyone not gagged by the hush orders or not a koolaid drinker could hear what they did to him is suicide.
Bush doesn’t care about guilt or speedy trials, he needs people he can drag out as ‘proof’ that his methods are needed.
Tulkinghorn
The threat of impeachment is more powerful than the act… who cares whether or not we impeach Bush, just use the investigations to disgrace and punish as many crooks as possible.
Maybe if Eliot Abrams gets convicted twice the next GOP administration will be too ashamed to employ him. One can hope.
TenguPhule
Having the ability to ship the Bush Clan, Rumsfield, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Ashcroft, McCain, Delay and 3 Rightwinger Supreme Court Justices to Guantanamo Bay for the rest of their lives is worth the costs of double impeachment.
The Other Steve
I heard he stole Stalin’s pipe.
The Other Steve
Remember… After Napolean was exiled to Elba.
He came back.
ThymeZone
Yeah, but Bolton took his moustache, and look where he is.
Pb
DougL,
Will do, DougJ++.
No, impeachment is about deciding whether or not to remove an elected official from office without that official’s consent, in an open hearing and with investigations of said officials’ alleged misconduct, etc., etc.
Sort of like Clinton, circa 1998?
Not necessarily–it could take, say, two months.
An impeachment hearing that impeached Bush and not Cheney wouldn’t be much of a hearing, considering. But it is possible to impeach them both, you know.
I disagree–you’d get an official judgement by the Congress that what Bush did was wrong, and should not be tolerated, or repeated in the future. Also, they’d actually be executing their sworn duties under The Constitution for once. Also… President Pelosi?! Heh, I’d have to borrow a few extra popcorn poppers for that outcome.
Like how? To do that, you’d probably want to impeach and convict him first. But I agree that there should be investigations and hearings, and if that leads to impeachment, then so be it. There aren’t a ton of other remedies out there, really.
Ryan S.
Do you want the terrorist to win?
Pb
Sam Hutcheson,
Yeah, I was wondering about that. I noticed that the gov’t was trying to get that terrorism conspiracy charge added back in, but I wasn’t clear on whether or not they were successful with that, or still pursuing it. Probably the latter?
Jake
That’s because innocent until proven guilty is like, sooo pre-9/11. Once a person is accused of committing or plotting to commit an act of terrorism they have in fact committed or plotted to commit that act. The Great and Powerful Decider has spoken!
Speaking of has-beens dressed up as threats to the universe, has anyone heard from those bozos who were “plotting” to
score some pot and get wastedblow up the Sears Tower in Chicago?scarshapedstar
Here’s a hint: Where you and I have a brain, they have an empty space.
Tulkinghorn
One approach to impeachment would be to skip the investigation and vote to impeach just on their admissions – of authorising illegal wiretaps, waterboarding, and so on. Go straight to the debate.
The downside is that if not convicted, Bush/Cheney would consider it vindication.
RSA
Or, as Dave Barry observed about Lyndon LaRouche, a Whack-A-Mole game.
DougL
If you’re accusing me of being a DougJ sock, I think I’m a bit offended.
Not exactly. A minor nit, sure, but Clinton was impeached with just over two years to go in his term in office. Investigation concluded. An investigation hasn’t even been started for Bush. So assuming congress decided to go forward with investigations (earliest that’d happen would be in January) we’re still months away from where Clinton was when he was impeached.
Besides, “But they did it to Clinton, too.” doesn’t carry any more weight with me than when the other side says “But Clinton did it, too.”
I didn’t know that. Good to know. That’s why I asked if I was missing anything.
You do realize that impeachment is not a prerequisite for any other investigations or charges or convictions, right? Totally independent. Sure, you could do impeachment and all the stuff that got dug up in investigations prior to impeachment would, of course, be usable in criminal proceedings, but you could still do the investigations for criminal or other charges without having had impeachment first.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
(takes quiz)
Ooh, I knew it.
Mike S
The kids at Redstate are prime examples of why the current GOP uses fear to win votes. Each one of them must have large spaces under their comp desks where they hide while typing.
Andrew
He’s gay!
Jake
Woohoo! I’m going to Gitmo-land!
Thanks Ryan S.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
The thought-crime line is a nice touch.
demimondian
Actually, no. Impeachment and removal are the only legal enforcement powers which are beyond the Presidential power of pardon. The Congress (by design) has the absolute last word on defining misconduct among senior governmental officials.
(Yes, there’s considerable question in my mind about whether the Ford pardon could have protected Nixon from impeachment and removal. I personally think that trial should have goen forward, precisely to establish that point.)
Steve
They don’t merely “play up” the dirty bomb accusation. They refer to “the fact that Mr. Padilla plotted to blow up a radiological dirty bomb inside the United States.” As if Erick Erickson, the most dishonest blogger on the Internet, has received a secret briefing on the evidence from the Department of Justice. This, at the website where they constantly deride people who post “Known Facts.” Apparently in America we convict people on the basis of DOJ press conferences.
Mike S
Those are strong words. Especially when you consider his compatition. People like John Heilrocket, Jeff Goldstein, Hewy Hewitt, Pam shrugs and just about the entire PJM blogroll minus John Cole.
Pb
DougL,
I’m not accusing you of anything, but the handle is notably similar, in construction and otherwise, for me to take note of it.
As opposed to…
Impeachment *is* an investigation–it starts off a trial wherein the Senate can gather evidence, interview witnesses, etc., etc. The investigation goes on after the House passes a resolution to impeach–and it isn’t like they have nothing to work with, people have started down that road already.
It’s not a rationale for impeachment, it’s an observation that the time frame need not take 12-18 months, as it hasn’t in the past. It’s not like we’re occupying Iraq here.
Investigations, no. Charges or convictions, that can get iffy. See demi’s post above. Presidents are given quite a bit of power here, and that fight could easily drag out longer than an impeachment trial.
Pb
Mike S,
Ok, can he be *tied* for “most dishonest”? But yes, his posts are almost always shameless, reprehensible, and obviously absurd–which is why they love him over at Red State. The only thing I can imagine that would be worse would be a blogger who posted only plagiarized Erick posts–that’d be sort of like cheating on a test and failing.
Zifnab
The difference between ’06 Democrats and ’98 Rethuglicans is policy. The ’06 platform involves raising minimum wage, fighting global warming, pulling out of Iraq, ending domestic wiretapping and torture policies, reforming the medicare D disaster, and generally unfucking America. The ’98 platform was impeach Clinton, and… stuff. Maybe cut some taxes. I dunno.
It’s a matter of priorities. Pelosi recognizes that she can piss away her political resources fighting to tear down statues of Bush all over Washington, and maybe getting a picture on an aircraft carrier with a big Mission Accomplished banner in time for ’08. Or she can do the people’s business. I think impeachment could have been an issue if we didn’t have so many other issues on the front burner. But at the moment, Bush doesn’t deserve our attention. We’ve got actual work to do.
Ugh
There’s no such thing as irony in Bizarro World.
Mike S
Don’t give Benji any ideas.
Pb
Zifnab,
Maybe that’s another reason why the 110th Congress is apparently planning to be in session for more days, in stark contrast to the 109th “do nothing” Congress?
He’s already got my attention, and I’m sure he’ll continue working to get yours again–I’m guessing we’re going to see some really amazing vetoes, obstructionism, signing statements, and other ‘creative’ procedures. Mark my words, the man doesn’t know how to work, let alone work with others, he’s been a failure at everything he’s ever tried to actually do (no, public relations / campaigning doesn’t really count as actually doing anything re:work), and he’s going to continue to drag the rest of us down with him for as long as he can.
Andrew
It’s just like quantum superposition. They are all, each by themselves, the most dishonest blogger in the world, and at the same time, the other asshole bloggers are the most dishonest.
And they like to kill cats in boxes.
SeesThroughIt
Actually, the right-wing line as I have seen it pushed is, “That he is detained is evidence of his guilt,” but…tomayto, tomahto.
I too scored 100 percent on the “Do I want terrorists to win?” scale. Terrorists–FUCK YEAH!
Area Man
I’m really starting to admire Liz Mair’s pluck. It seems free-range RedStaters become angry drooling ID-beasts when suddenly unencumbered by the checks and balances of their normal habitat.
And they have absolutely no sense of humor. Or irony. Or hypocrisy. Or anything resembling common sense.
CaseyL
Remember a fellow named Zubaydah?
Bush claimed he was a “high value” prisoner. But Zubaydah was an “insane, certifiable, split personality” (per the FBI) and not a big wheel at all. Bush ordered Zubaydah be tortured, and the guy made up information about a bunch of terrorist plots, which Bush then claimed to have foiled. It was useful for a few news cycles of positive coverage.
Padilla served the same purpose: propaganda value. Maybe Bush figures his merry crew of Torquemada wanna-bes can come up with some more illusory plots that Bush can then claim to have saved us from.
This has gone beyond Orwell and Kafka; we’re officially in Stalinist territory.
Perry Como
POTD.
Zifnab
Seconded.
SeesThroughIt
tangentially related to Liz Mair’s post…can somebody explain the RedState ban on the term “nativist?”
HyperIon
along these lines…i heard on morning edition today a story about soldiers and PTSD. it was partly about how soldiers are not getting treated for this.
but then a sargent starts explaining how lots of these guys are just faking it so they will not have to go back to Iraq. he also said that he had seen bad stuff in Iraq but that one had to just get over it. it was pretty clear that he was saying what MANY military folks think. but i’ve never heard such a frank and unapologetic statement of this attitude.
Area Man
Longer: “unappeasable, anti-immigrant nativist”. It implies that you are a racist. Or something like that.
Tsulagi
Yeah. This one has been a real Bush administration classic. Not long after we picked him up we knew he was no value and a certified loon. But the important thing was he has a cool name Hollywood would be proud of creating for the sinister terrorist bad guy. Bush just loved, and still does, to roll off the name ABU ZUBAYDAH to get the base to piss down their pant legs into their socks.
Zubaydah loves the attention and to take him seriously just made his plots more outrageous. We’ve spent millions of dollars, wasted thousands of man hours, used up resources, and issued terrorism alerts responding to his bullshit. Just a loon maybe with a sense of humor. What does it say when a clown from the insane asylum is able to outwit your country’s leadership and laugh watching them run with your fantasies? Welcome to the short bus rider’s version of 24, BushyWorld.
Jon H
DougL writes: “Not exactly. A minor nit, sure, but Clinton was impeached with just over two years to go in his term in office. Investigation concluded. An investigation hasn’t even been started for Bush. So assuming congress decided to go forward with investigations (earliest that’d happen would be in January) we’re still months away from where Clinton was when he was impeached.”
An investigation isn’t required. The Congress could just ‘find’ that impeachment is warranted, draw up the articles of impeachment, and impeach the bastards. Bush and Cheney’s acts, statements, incompetence, and admissions are more than enough to work with.
The only reason there was an investigation of Clinton is that the GOP was on a fishing expedition to dig up something… anything that could be used as an excuse for impeachment – because they didn’t have anything from his official duties that they could work with.
Jon H
“it was pretty clear that he was saying what MANY military folks think. but i’ve never heard such a frank and unapologetic statement of this attitude.”
I heard that. It sounded just like the people who post rants denying that ADHD exists.
Jake
S.O.P.
I wonder if Zubaydah is any relation to the attention whore from Georgia.
Jon H
Perhaps I should reword that. A big Starr-class investigation isn’t required for an impeachment. I’m sure the 19th century impeachment investigations were vastly, vastly more simple.
I bet a search of Google and Lexis-Nexis, and a stack of printouts and clippings, would be sufficient.
Bush and Cheney’s defense would probably not seek to disprove the evidence produced, but rather would hinge on the idea that they were doing what they thought was right to protect the country, that they have the power to do everything they did, etc, and you can’t impeach a President for doing what he thought was right.
On a tangent… Has anyone mentioned to Pelosi that if Bush and Cheney were impeached and convicted simultaneously, she would probably become President, the first woman President, thus forever stealing that from Hillary Clinton?
DougJ
The guy’s a US citizen. The government can now take its own citizens and throw them in jail for 21 months without charging them. I don’t know what else there is to say.
If we don’t torture our own citizens, the terrorists win.
Pb
Yes, but not the first elected woman President… d’oh!
whatsleft
Hyperlon, IIRC, that same sergeant that derided the “weak-minded”, in a follow-up interview ended up getting treatment for his own PTSD, and has stated that he would like to be “an example” for his fellow-soldiers. I hope everyone gets a chance to listen to these interviews and reports – beyond chilling.
lightning_fast_draw
Does it really matter who this guy is? According to the constitution he’s suppose to be tried by a jury of his peers. That’s the whole idea of this country. That’s why all of our forefathers spilled their blood.
The idea of giving our rights away because 9/11 made us afraid of the terrorists sounds a little bit frail to me. Padilla deserves a fair trial like anybody else. All this handwringing about terrorists has got to stop. We sound like a country filled with little old ladies.
Denying anyone the benefit of our constitution or bill of rights might as well piss all over the Washington Monument. What the hell are we willing to fight for? Oh wait, I’m going to be late to get my nails done.
cya
Bruce Moomaw
By God, the Red Staters ARE emulating Lewis Carroll. “Sentence first, verdict afterwards!”
neil
Bruce Moomaw, that’s not Wonderland, it’s Iraq, our wonderful model democracy.
mclaren
The essential problem with “evidence” obtained by torture is that it’s worthless because people will say anything if you torture ’em long enough. This leads to bogus “evidence” that incriminates innocent people…who are in turn tortured to produce more junk “evidence” which in turn incrimiates more innocent people.
It’s a vicious cycle. We saw this at work in the witch trials of the 17th century. One innocent person got tortured into “admitting” wacky crap like “I danced naked with the devil at midnight and my neighbor watched,” then the neighbor gets picked up and tortured until he confesses that his wife is married to Satan, then the wife gets picked up and tortured until she implicates the local bishop… And it’s all insane nonsense. Not one jot or tittle or scintilla of connection to reality.
What no one seems to have mentioned is that the judge in the Padilla case has thrown the book at the gov’t prosectuors because the case is “very light on facts” (judge’s words).
blog.washingtonpost.com/benchconference/2006/08/padilla_case_light_on_facts.html
I mean…folks! C’mon! This is a _federal judge_ talking here. When a federal judge calls a case “very light on facts,” you *know* there’s something seriously wrong.
Moreover, note that Padilla was initially alleged to have been involved with a supposed dirty bomb attack plan — but as soon as it came time to charge Padilla in a criminal court, those charges disappeared. Instead, we got vague conspiracy charges. Now, anyone who knows the U.S. court system recognizes that a conspiracy charge is the weakest and most candy-assed charge you can possibly make. So it looks as though the government simply has no hard forensic evidence at all against Padilla. Nothing. No fibers, no explosives residue, no cash receipts…nothing. Nothing at all.
Sounds like padilla may be an innocent schmuck like the cab driver Dilwar
http://www.supportmpscapegoats.com/brand.html
who got grabbed up by mistake and tortured into spouting self-incriminating lies, and continued to be held even though interrogators eventually started to realize he was innocent. By then, it was too late — they’d gone too far and couldn’t admit they’d tortured and kidnapped an innoncent man.
Sources now openly speculate that the so-called “evidence” against Padilla is so pathetically inadequate that he “could draw a light prison sentence or even be acquitted.”
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/nation/epaper/2006/11/19/a22a_padilla_1119.html
Ask yourself — is _this_ how you want to run a judicial system?