God, how fucking awful. I've been wondering how he's doing.
They took a man, held him without charges, and literally drove him insane. And tomorrow a bunch of our fellow citizens will defend it all.
Times story with more details here.
Even if the interrogations were taped, I doubt that his mistreatment before and after them was.
as many people as are spending long amounts of time in prison for drug crimes and this is the biggest problems?
4: Awesome. You should always hit the bong before commenting.
What a shameful act by our country.
Great credit should be given to the people who are spending their time and money fighting these injustices (CharleyCarp, etc..)
Um, I mean "has seen the tape" -- not meaning to imply they are making it available for public watching.
"and fears that his lawyers are government agents"
can't imagine where he'd get a crazy idea like that.
"and fears that his lawyers are government agents"
can't imagine where he'd get a crazy idea like that.
It makes one wonder whether his interrogators ever posed as public defenders in order to get information. Which is sort of horrifying.
can't imagine...like that s/b italics, of course.
This is really depressing. I second 6.
I can remember when all my Amnesty Intn'l donations went to brutal, backwards countries halfway around the globe. I hardly imagined that some of them might rightfully be needed here in these United States.
Hey, if the government says he's guilty, he must be guilty, isn't that how it works these days? Just think of the $$ we're saving on "quaint" notions such as defense lawyers, judges, discovery, and "trials."
Take a look in the mirror, guys.
Vampires have no reflection.
13: I know you're speaking tongue-in-cheek, but part of what really bothers me about this is:
1) the government was perfectly willing to just hold him forever without ever actually charging him until the courts forced their hand, and;
2) once charges were actually brought, there was no mention of dirty bombs and all the other stuff they'd been spouting all along, just some vague shit about "supporting terrorism".
And now they've driven him to the point that they may never have to prove those charges either.
15: Yes, that really bothers me too.
It will be interesting to see what they administration tries to pull if Padilla is acquitted or the charges are dismissed (or, indeed, if he is convicted and sentenced to time served or some other short prison term).
And to think that none of that conduct amounts to "torture." Hill. City. Shining.
Sigh. This is so fucking frustrating, the way we make people insane while holding them. This situation is worse, because it's pre-trial (bonus: not even any charges), but this insane-making problem is endemic. I wrote a major paper last year surveying the research showing that solitary confinement/segregation conditions cause people to go insane. It's pretty striking. stuff.
15,17: We can't let him go, he's insane!!?! Even his own attorneys say so!
18--
Democrats want to release crazy terrorists onto the streets.
19: That's pretty good. But he also might be faking.
Mr. do Campo said that Mr. Padilla was not incommunicative, and that he expressed curiosity about what was going on in the world, liked to talk about sports and demonstrated particularly keen interest in the Chicago Bears.
That's the part that did it for me. Holy Christ.
Everything about this makes me so sad. I can't imagine what his jailers think as they enact this stuff every day.
And the reaction to Padilla's treatment from Bizarro World? 9/11 means we can do whatever we want.
As a prosecutor, this type of shit drives me batshit crazy.
I went to a conference of local prosecutors from all across the country in September 2002 about how local prosecutors could be prepared to prosecute terrorist crimes -- you know, develop a disaster recovery plan in case of an attack, look for financial crimes that might be raising funds for terrorist organizations, etc. We got to go watch some stuff blow up, which was pretty cool. And the Commonwealth's Attorney for the jurisdiction which includes Langley, VA, did a presentation on how he successfully prosecuted Mir Aimal Kasi, the Pakistani who shot and killed two CIA analysis outside CIA headquarters in 1993.
It struck me as odd that right after this presentation, William Haynes (Gen'l Counsel at DoD) spoke to us about how great military tribunals were going to be and how important they were for national security and all that great stuff. He took questions, and so I stood and asked him, "Given what we just heard about the prosecution of the CIA shooter, what is it about our criminal justice system that you find inadequate to hold these terrorists accountable?" He sputtered through a response, and afterwards many of the prosecutors in the room came up to me and thanked me for asking the question.
Of course, I did nothing else about it, so I guess I'm not a part of the solution but rather part of the problem. But this is the kind of thing that makes folks like John Emerson say things like "prosecutors can't be trusted." Therefore, it drives me batshit crazy.
21 was me, sorry.
NCP, I don't think anyone blames this... horrific lunacy... on local prosecutors. We'll stick to blaming you for the drug war and speed traps.
Jesus, Ugh, that post is insane.
Yes, and "Erick" is, I believe, the full time employee of the site (which I guess makes him extra-bat-shit crazy). I await the accusations of "pre-9/11 mindset" and "law enforcement approach to terrorism" to be leveled in the comments at anyone who suggests that maybe, just maybe, the government should be required to prove its case against Padilla in court.
27: Or so the New York Times would have you believe.
Jesus, from the RedState post: "They want to play down the fact that Mr. Padilla plotted to blow up a radiological dirty bomb inside the United States."
Um, I'd like to play up the fact that the US government no longer accuses him of this, you fucking halfwit.
Y'know, so far, I'm thinking the problem with the law enforcement approach to terrorism is that it actually works. Hard to have a justification for a stupid war if you manage to arrest the bad guy.
Due to my upbringing, I can usually put on my conservative hat and understand what's going on in Republicans' heads, and sort of see why it's not exactly insane, given the sort of conditioning they have been subjected to. Not with this guy. His facts are wrong, sure. But even his analysis of the wrong facts is crazy.
"Um, I'd like to play up the fact that the US government no longer accuses him of this, you fucking halfwit."
How on earth can you say that!??!??! Of course they still accuse him of that.*
*Not in Court or anywhere where their accusations might actually be examined, but an accusation in the press or online is just as good as any of those irrelevant legal proceedings. Didnt you know that accusations are now just as good as convictions? Who says Bush/Cheney didnt read Gulag Archipelago?
Other disturbing things our gov't does to people trying to enter the country here.
Via a comment at Glenn Greenwald's place.
"Who says Bush/Cheney didnt read Gulag Archipelago?"
I do.
They maybe looked at the back cover. Thumbed through to look for pictures. But they didn't read it. Couldn't.
Odd tech question: Starting a few days ago, I've been almost unable to access the NYT on my mac, at home, using Firefox. I can open it in Safari. I can use Firefox to read the NYT when I'm at other locations. As far as I can tell, it's only the peculiar combination of home + firefox that causes this. Any bright ideas to explain away this mystery?
35: About a month ago, that very thing happened to me, but with a different site than the NYT; it was my own blog. It was the oddest thing. Then it went away. I could open it in Safari, and other people could open it in browsers on their computers, but I could not open it in Firefox on my computer at home. I would like to hear an answer to Michael's question! So weird.
I'm using Firefox 1.5.0.8, btw.
Try 2.0 and see if that does it.
Should I? Ogged and w-lfs-n, I believe, say they don't like the newer version.
This whole thing is so hard to even think about. Even if, hypothetically, Padilla had been convicted of plotting to set off a dirty bomb, no court in this (or any other) country would sentence him to being driven out of his mind. We all understand that that would be at the extreme of human evil. Somehow, not having it made explicit makes it seem like an ancillary effect of his interrogation. Also, given how easily foreigners and foreign leaders are demonized, think about how this will play (without even being embellished) among people who are wondering what to think of America.
no court in this (or any other) country would sentence him to being driven out of his mind
You wouldn't think so, but sentencing a person with any kind of mental illness to prison is, in effect, sentencing them to being driven out of ther mind. They can't behave in prison, they get disciplined with segregation conditions, and they stay there. And then they go fucking nuts.
So can a mind be regarded as an organ for torture-definition purposes?
We can't let him go, he's insane
Plus, any testimony he might offer against us is inadmissable. He's insane, see. Funny how that works.
43: Sure, but since there's no pain involved, just madness, there's no toture.
42: I saw a Frontline special that showed absolutely appalling treatment of mentally-ill prisoners. There was one guy who was being punished for his clearly delusional behavior. He was banging himself against a wall in solitary confinement and screaming. He was on his way to the maximum security psych hospital, but they spent a lot of time beating him up. It was completely gratuitous. They could have given him some Ativan or put him in restraints.