Welcome to PatsFans.com

Conditions of confinement for Jose Padilla...

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by DarrylS, Dec 4, 2006.

  1. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,844
    Likes Received:
    90
    Ratings:
    +151 / 3 / -19

    Jose Padilla has now been held for 3.5 years, no trial, no charges and still being held in very strict confinement in a Charleston, SC brig and now in a federal detention center in Miami. His atty is now saying that, because of this, he has become mentally unable to assist in his defense and is incompetent. The length of time in affording him due process, he is now viewed as a criminal case and his solitary confinement, may ultimately render any decision overturned as it violates the constitution. I do not understand, and I doubt anyone else does, the subtleties of the charges against him along with the evidence. He is alleged to be a member of Al Quada and was plotting to plant a "dirty bomb", without regard this adm needs to move quicker on these types of cases so there can be a resolution before a defendent is driven insane. If he beats this charge, and is actually an enemy combatant he could beat this charge.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/04/u...mes Topics/People/P/Padilla, Jose&oref=slogin

    One spring day during his three and a half years as an enemy combatant, Jose Padilla experienced a break from the monotony of his solitary confinement in a bare cell in the brig at the Naval Weapons Station in Charleston, S.C.

    In the videotape, Mr. Padilla's feet were shackled.
    That day, Mr. Padilla, a Brooklyn-born Muslim convert whom the Bush administration had accused of plotting a dirty bomb attack and had detained without charges, got to go to the dentist.

    “Today is May 21,†a naval official declared to a camera videotaping the event. “Right now we’re ready to do a root canal treatment on Jose Padilla, our enemy combatant.â€

    Several guards in camouflage and riot gear approached cell No. 103. They unlocked a rectangular panel at the bottom of the door and Mr. Padilla’s bare feet slid through, eerily disembodied. As one guard held down a foot with his black boot, the others shackled Mr. Padilla’s legs. Next, his hands emerged through another hole to be manacled.

    Wordlessly, the guards, pushing into the cell, chained Mr. Padilla’s cuffed hands to a metal belt. Briefly, his expressionless eyes met the camera before he lowered his head submissively in expectation of what came next: noise-blocking headphones over his ears and blacked-out goggles over his eyes. Then the guards, whose faces were hidden behind plastic visors, marched their masked, clanking prisoner down the hall to his root canal.

    The videotape of that trip to the dentist, which was recently released to Mr. Padilla’s lawyers and viewed by The New York Times, offers the first concrete glimpse inside the secretive military incarceration of an American citizen whose detention without charges became a test case of President Bush’s powers in the fight against terror. Still frames from the videotape were posted in Mr. Padilla’s electronic court file late Friday.

    To Mr. Padilla’s lawyers, the pictures capture the dehumanization of their client during his military detention from mid-2002 until earlier this year, when the government changed his status from enemy combatant to criminal defendant and transferred him to the federal detention center in Miami. He now awaits trial scheduled for late January.

    Together with other documents filed late Friday, the images represent the latest and most aggressive sally by defense lawyers who declared this fall that charges against Mr. Padilla should be dismissed for “outrageous government conduct,†saying that he was mistreated and tortured during his years 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.â€

    “His basic needs were met in a conscientious manner, including Halal (Muslim acceptable) food, clothing, sleep and daily medical assessment and treatment when necessary,†the government stated. “While in the brig, Padilla never reported any abusive treatment to the staff or medical personnel.â€

    In the brig, Mr. Padilla was denied access to counsel for 21 months. Andrew Patel, one of his lawyers, said his isolation was not only severe but compounded by material and sensory deprivations. In an affidavit filed Friday, he alleged that Mr. Padilla was held alone in a 10-cell wing of the brig; that he had little human contact other than with his interrogators; that his cell was electronically monitored and his meals were passed to him through a slot in the door; that windows were blackened, and there was no clock or calendar; and that he slept on a steel platform after a foam mattress was taken from him, along with his copy of the Koan, “as part of an interrogation plan.â€
  2. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I happen to think its silly to have a trial. If there's real evidence that the guy was acting as a 'Muslim soldier' he should be declared a POW or a spy and we should move on following the precedent that's been established with regard to people declared as such. We held German POWs long after WW2 ended, why? Because we won and the winner gets to do that. So holding this guy until we decide the WOT is over doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me. Running him through the criminal process at this point seems like a crime against our own system.
  3. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Except that Jose Padilla is a US citizen.
  4. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    True but that wouldn't prevent him from acting as a soldier/spy in an enemy Army. Citizen or not doesn't carry a lot of weight with me. I don't see people who are clearly not citizens as less deserving of rights one way or the other.
  5. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,844
    Likes Received:
    90
    Ratings:
    +151 / 3 / -19

    From the article, not sure what this means, but if he is now a criminal defendent aren't there different standards and different processes for him??

    "the government changed his status from enemy combatant to criminal defendant and transferred him to the federal detention center in Miami. He now awaits trial scheduled for late January."
  6. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    It may not carry a lot of weight with you, but I don't see a WOT exemption to the fourth amendment, and that may just carry weight with our federal court system.
  7. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Keep in mind that when I say citizenship doesn't carry a lot of weight with me I mean that in the context of the Bill of Rights applying to people not just citizens. Its not that I wanna take rights away when I say that. I want to give them.

    I do feel that we can't treat enemy soldiers as criminals however. I'm willing to hold my nose and treat this guy the way I want our soldiers treated. Which is confined for the duration with no official declaration of his acts as criminal, more like acts of war. I will admit that I can't specifically point to differences between say, the Rosenbergs for example (who were tried and executed,) and Padilla and I'll also admit that there are some similarities.
  8. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    It's too risky in a war with no end like the WOT. Bush always reminds us that the battlefield is anywhere the enemy goes. I don't want people being dragged out of their homes and held without a trial based on the power of one unchecked branch of government. Reminds me too much of the Soviet Union I left.
  9. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,855
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +296 / 1 / -9

    Poison Him
  10. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    You're really helping me sell my "too much like the Soviet Union" thing.
  11. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    In the case we are actually at war, which we're not, American citizens cannot be tried or treated as enemy combatants. There are a number of war crimes reserved for Americans such as treason, giving comfort and aid, etc. They may be tried and sentenced for these crimes, but not treated as an enemy combatants unless we're in a state of civil war, as far as I know.
    Am I wrong?
  12. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    That's my take on it, too. Unfortunately I don't sit on the Supreme Court.
  13. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Come on people? Bush is "The Decider"....meaning he can do whatever he wants to anyone he declares to be an enemy combatant.

    after all....he wrote the signing statement.

    ''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

    Now don't we all feel safer?

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>