DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on August 13, 2007, 11:32:47 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070813/ts_csm/apadillaone_1
A really chilling scenario of the new Amerika being hatched by the Bush administration. Padilla of course is a U.S. citizen but even citizenship will not save you from their torture chambers.
The scariest part of this story is that we may never know what tortures were inflicted on Padilla in the brig, as he seems conditioned to reflexly avoid the subject as a taboo.
Can't happen here? Apparently, it already has.
-
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w257/amoose14/DemsSecurity.jpg)
-
I guess you're not very impressed that a human being presumed to have been innocent and acquitted in fact of all the "dirty bomb" accusations originally brought against him, and a U.S. citizen just like you, has been driven out of his mind by tortures which are still a state secret and can be used against anyone else who falls under administration supervision. Nice that you can turn it into a joke. Laughter is the best medicine.
-
Skimming the article, I nonetheless come to the harrowing conclusion that Bush & Co. certainly ranged far into the sadistic to "protect the country," the plausible cover story perhaps put to the lie by baser underlying motives such as, "How dare you fuck with me!" I am just sick of thesystematic abuses I've learned about which have remote-to-no chance of uncovering operable intelliegence in any but the most incremental way virtually always eclipsable by ordinary intelligence means assiduously applied. Even then, with Dershowitz, I tend to argue that extreme measures are inappropriate for all but the biggest of fish and the most pressing of matters. Even then, the policy is, or should be, an off-the-book, "freelance" ("mission impossible") effort confined to a cadre of operatives proceeding from a severed chain of command. (I firmly believe in the degrading potential of a war fought inartfully.) Anyhow, rather than ramble any more, I'll conclude that Padilla's treatment -- from subject (him), to his mission, to its conceivable toll, to alternative means of gaining intelligence, to nonemergent nature of the threat (not a ticking bomb but a jigsaw puzzle for a now-past possible-event), to the array of lost rights that should apply, to the gross accumulation of gross abuses by this administration in fruitless efforts, to the culture of incompetence that perpetuates itself at the expense of the small fry, and so on -- was plainly and simply an outrage and a disgrace. Is this really the best they can do? Take an apparently fragmented, tortured personality and further accentuate those aspects of his character in the hopes that he'll re-glue spontaneously, have an epiphany and come clean in the arms of his tormenters? Is that a sound approach? Was this not predictable? Are these people idiots?
-
But actually, Michael, based on a more careful reading of the article, though reaffirming my earlier opinions, it is more accurate to entitle this thread (and the article): "Padilla's Mental Health Has Noticeably Deteriorated During the Time He Spent in the Navy Brig." We simply don't know on present information whether it's permanent, nor do we know whether he was "tortured" even if a consensus definition of that term could be agreed upon. In my practice, under normal prison circumstances, overseen by a vigilant DOC and a bevy of in-and-out lawyers and other visitors making the fortress only a semi-closed system, I've seen theretofore robust-seeming men deteriorate rather severely, most often into severe depression, not PTSD, in reaction to the burden of their circumstance playing upon preexisting fissures in their personalities.
-
What impressed me the most, domer, was the guy's obvious terror when pressed to reveal what they had done to him in the brig. I know ex-cons too, in varying degrees of mental health and some of it could be due to their treatment inside, even if no torture had been involved. But I never met one that wouldn't open up and talk about conditions inside, and usually the worse the conditions, the more they want to talk about it. It seemed to me that what happened there could easily be repeated and the mere possibility that this would happen had terrorized the guy into clamming up.
That civil liberties are being sacrificed so blatantly to "security" is a classic fascist technique. It's the Reichstag Fire tactic all over again and it's an unmistakeable step towards fascism. Once again, I see the complacency of most of this group as an indicator of how little resistance this incremental march to fascism (using the term very loosely) is meeting along the way. A very bad sign.
-
I agree with your last post, Michael. Good work.
-
A very bad sign.
No offense Mikey but this entire story is based on expert testimony hired by the Padilla defense team.
A smart lawyer never asks a question he doesn't know the answer to and a smart lawyer never hires an expert witness whose testimony he can't bank on.
This is being played out for the press. Let me know when an independent Psych evaluation is released.
-
Your take on this< BT, is unnecessarily cynical. Many a time I've hired a pschiatric expert whose opinion I could not use because it conclusion was at odds with the point I was advocating. Many of these experts, aside from having strong professional credentials, have a a strong sense of personal and professional ethics. The opinions offered in the article, based on all known circumstances to me, in my view, are certainly revealing and cause for further inquiry and thought if not in any sense conclusive.
-
Like i said, let me know when an independent evaluation is published.
My understanding is the judge ruled months ago that Padilla was fit to stand trial.
To what end were these reports released now?
Who is defending Padilla? Is it being done pro bono? What other causes have these attorneys embraced?
I welcome an inquiry.
-
Even assuming that these highly respected professionals are just prostituting themselves by issuing bogus opinions, where does Padilla find the money to pay these guys enough to ruin their professional reputations and be subjected to a withering cross-examination that will expose them to the ridicule of their peers? It would make more sense if this were O.J. or Klaus von Bulow on trial, but let's face it, BT, this guy is a penniless schmuck. With all due respect, I just don't think you'll find a hell of a lot of corrupted experts testifying in a pro bono case.
Also, I was very impressed with the account of how he would clam up and react with explosive anger when pressed on what happened in the brig. I'm not a total idiot, and that story had a ring of truth to it that really shook me. A very, very good confidence man could fool me once or twice, and I'm not saying it's never happened before, but unless that guy is a master con artist, that didn't sound like an act and I'd be very surprised if it were. I believe something really bad happened to Padilla in that brig, either what we would conventionally term torture, or the deliberate calculated destruction of a human being's mind and soul that no decent human being could ever countenance. Something that no one could ever tolerate being done to his or her own loved ones, no matter what they were alleged to have done.
-
Padilla i presume is not paying for it. Either his attorneys are court appointed, (doubtful) or they are working pro bono. More likely.
The defense paid for the Psych evaluations. Since the issue of fitness to stand trial has been decided, i don't see these experts testifying under oath on the stand, subject to cross examination.
This is an interesting passage from your link:
What makes Padilla's case especially challenging from a psychological perspective is that he denies having any symptoms of psychological distress. Experts say it is an attempt by Padilla to avoid being viewed in any way as mentally disturbed.
"He was told not to talk about what happened in the brig and that if he ever spoke about what happened, people would think he was crazy," Hegarty says. "This admonition has power over him," she says. "He becomes visibly terrified as he is saying it."
And yet his defense team did just that. Painted him as crazy. My guess is Padilla is unaware these reports were released by his team.
Perhaps this is not a legal move by the defense, but a publicity move so that some quarters can point to the report and lament the long slow march to fascism and point fingers at everyday americans and claim they are complicit fascists simply because they raise questions or sit back and let the the trial run its course.
People aren't like that are they?
-
<<The defense paid for the Psych evaluations. Since the issue of fitness to stand trial has been decided, i don't see these experts testifying under oath on the stand, subject to cross examination.>>
That's not the point. There was a time after they gave their reports when they could have been cross-examined on them. If the issue of sanity, mental condition or even general state of health arises in any conceivable way in the future, they could be cross-examined if their reports find their way into the evidence. Not being lawyers themselves and not being in possession of a working crystal ball, they could not possibly know when they delivered their reports whether they would ever be subjected to cross-examination on them.
<<This is an interesting passage from your link:
<<What makes Padilla's case especially challenging from a psychological perspective is that he denies having any symptoms of psychological distress. Experts say it is an attempt by Padilla to avoid being viewed in any way as mentally disturbed.
<<"He was told not to talk about what happened in the brig and that if he ever spoke about what happened, people would think he was crazy," Hegarty says. "This admonition has power over him," she says. "He becomes visibly terrified as he is saying it.">>
I saw that - - but it didn't account for his reaction when pressed for details of what happened in the brig. He was afraid of much more than being thought mentally ill.
<<And yet his defense team did just that. Painted him as crazy. My guess is Padilla is unaware these reports were released by his team.>>
Well, I'm not sure of the ethics of this, but maybe the defence team, acting in his best interests, "painted" him as crazy whether he wanted it or not. Besides if the guy really was crazy, what difference would it make whether he wanted to be painted as crazy or not? He wouldn't be mentally competent to instruct his counsel either way.
<<Perhaps this is not a legal move by the defense, but a publicity move so that some quarters can point to the report and lament the long slow march to fascism and point fingers at everyday americans and claim they are complicit fascists simply because they raise questions or sit back and let the the trial run its course.>>
You're implying that the lawyers are selling out their client to promote their cause. It's happened before, but this is pure speculation on your part. How do you even know that the lawyers have a political interest in promoting the POV that you allege they might be promoting, and you can't even link it to a specific action program. Padilla's family would have to be roped into the conspiracy and they'd have to be sophisticated enough to concoct the story of how he reacted when pressed for details, which sure as hell fooled me. It's not impossible but I consider it highly improbable and bottom line is that for me, it (Padilla's reaction) had a real ring of truth to it.
<<People aren't like that are they?>>
I never said that, but those kind of conspiracies aren't as common as you think, and usually, in order to succeed, they need a lot of coercive power, a lot of money, and a lot of expertise. Something that usually comes from one source - - the U.S. government and its secret state security apparatus or their mega-rich ultra-conservative patrons.
-
I am reminded of the Alar scare from the early 70's when apple juice was dumped by the millions of gallons because the Natural Resource Defense Fund hired Fenton Communications to stir up a scare.
The scare took off when 60 Minutes ran with their report.
Consumers Union independently tested their claims and found them wanting.
I i don't think either the NRDF or Fenton are deep pocket conservative firms.
-
If you want to compare the reputations of distinguished psychiatrists from great Universities with the reputation of Fenton Communications, whoever and whatever they are, please be my guest. I believe that in Padilla's case we are talking about the reputations of three independent medical witnesses of some renown, not the reputation of something or someone called "Fenton Communications." I'll stay with my original opinion, thank you very much.
-
Fenton handled the PR for Cindy Sheehan recently.
-
<<Fenton handled the PR for Cindy Sheehan recently. >>
Ahhh, clearly a man of high repute. I am sure his renown easily trumps that of the three University professors who examined Padilla.
-
Ahhh, clearly a man of high repute. I am sure his renown easily trumps that of the three University professors who examined Padilla.
I guess it depends upon whom is doing the judging, eh?
-
<<I guess it depends upon whom is doing the judging, eh?>>
Yep. That's why I said, "If you want to compare the reputations of distinguished psychiatrists from great Universities with the reputation of Fenton Communications, whoever and whatever they are, please be my guest. "
-
Mr Padillia went to the Al Queda to learn their creative suicide methods.
Well aledegedly so anyway.
Seems to me that he was accusd of being crazy in the first place.
Is he crazyer now than he started or do we know?
-
I read the article and between his family's statements and the reports of the psychiatrists and psychologist, it looked to me like his mind and soul had been destroyed sometime during his incarceration in the brig. The family said he was OK before and the professionals identified the incarceration as the time when he deteriorated.
-
I read the article and between his family's statements and the reports of the psychiatrists and psychologist, it looked to me like his mind and soul had been destroyed sometime during his incarceration in the brig. The family said he was OK before and the professionals identified the incarceration as the time when he deteriorated.
What is the baseline?
He was OK before?
Then he was not joining the Al Quieda after all?
To me ,running off in that direction would be proof of instability.
Lots o tme in solitary confinement might have been tough on him , but would you really want him to be put into the general population of an American prison?
That might have been bad for him too.
-
<<To me ,running off in that direction [al Qaeda]would be proof of instability.>>
That's kind of like the old Soviet state line, if you're opposed to the regime, that in itself is evidence of mental instability.
Why do you think that running off to al Qaeda would be evidence of mental instability? What particular form of mental instability did you have in mind?
<<Lots o tme in solitary confinement might have been tough on him , but would you really want him to be put into the general population of an American prison?>>
I'm sure the experts know a little bit about the effects of solitary confinement on an individual. That's why they're experts. And their opinion was NOT that he was suffering from the effects of solitary confinement. This is a case of either torture as it's conventionally understood or some form of deliberate destruction of a man's psyche and being.
<<That [solitary confinement] might have been bad for him too.>>
Thanks for the opinion, this time I'm going with the experts.
-
<<That [solitary confinement] might have been bad for him too.>>
Thanks for the opinion, this time I'm going with the experts.
no
<<That [Putting him in the general prison population] might have been bad for him too.>>
-
<<That [Putting him in the general prison population] might have been bad for him too.>>
Yeah but that was not their only alternative to solitary confinement. He coulda been in protective custody. Solitary is a kind of punishment it's not protective.
-
From an interview:
[.......]
He [Padilla] had developed really a tremendous identification with the goals and interests of the government. I really considered a diagnosis of Stockholm syndrome. For example, at one point in the proceedings, his attorneys had, you know, done well at cross-examining an FBI agent, and instead of feeling happy about it like all the other defendants I?ve seen over the years, he was actually very angry with them. He was very angry that the civil proceedings were ?unfair to the commander-in-chief,? quote/unquote. And in fact, one of the things that happened that disturbed me particularly was when he saw his mother. He wanted her to contact President Bush to help him, help him out of his dilemma. He expected that the government might help him, if he was ?good,? quote/unquote.
The second thing was his absolute state of terror, terror alternating with numbness?It was as though the interrogators were in the room with us. He was like?a trauma victim who knew that they were going to be sent back to the person who hurt them and that he ?would subsequently pay a price if he revealed what happened?
In this very small cell, he was monitored twenty-four hours a day, and the doors were managed electronically?.He had no way of knowing the time. The light was always artificial. The windows were blackened. He had no calendar or time, as you mentioned earlier. He really didn?t see people, especially in the beginning. He only had contact with his interrogators. (LZK Note: Padilla had to be charged with a crime. He was experiencing this as a presumed innocent man.)
AMY GOODMAN: Did you conclude he had been tortured?
DR. ANGELA HEGARTY: Well, ?torture,? of course, is a legal term. However, as a clinician, I have worked with torture victims and, of course, abuse victims for a few decades now, actually. I think, from a clinical point of view, he was tortured.
This was the first time I ever met anybody who had been isolated for such an extraordinarily long period of time. I mean, the sensory deprivation studies, for example, tell us that without sleep, especially, people will develop psychotic symptoms, hallucinations, panic attacks, depression, suicidality within days. And here we had a man who had been in this situation, utterly dependent on his interrogators, who didn?t treat him all that nicely, for years. And apart from ? the only people I ever met who had such a protracted experience were people who were in detention camps overseas, that would come close, but even then they weren?t subjected to the sensory deprivation. So, yes, he was somewhat of a unique case in that regard.
AMY GOODMAN: How afraid was Jose Padilla?
DR. ANGELA HEGARTY: How to capture that in an apt metaphor? He was terrified. For him, the government was all-powerful. The government knew everything. The government knew everything that he was doing. His interrogators would find out every little detail that he revealed. And he would be punished for it.
He was convinced that ? I mean, I think in words he endorsed ? even if he won his case, he lost, because he was going back to the brig if he managed to prevail at trial. And essentially, if hypothetically one were to offer him a really long prison sentence versus ? with a guarantee that he wouldn?t go back to the brig ? versus risking going back to the brig, the chance that he might go back to the brig, he would take the prison sentence for a very long period of time. I think he would take almost anything rather than go back to that brig.
AMY GOODMAN: What happened in the brig?
DR. ANGELA HEGARTY: What happened at the brig was essentially the destruction of a human being?s mind. That?s what happened at the brig. His personality was deconstructed and reformed.
One of the things that came out in the course of my evaluation was, he was required to sign his name John Doe. This kind of thing and the whole notion of dependency and the cultivation of dependency, the impact of sleep deprivation, stress positions, all of that was so coordinated it?s impossible for me to imagine that at least at some phase there wasn?t some mental health professionals involved.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And what was the reason for wanting to have him sign his name John Doe?
DR. ANGELA HEGARTY: He?s no longer a person. He?s no longer an individual. There will be no record that he was ever there, that the interrogators ? this is from my knowledge of torture around the world ? that the interrogators essentially will be absolutely immune to any accountability.
[...............]
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/16/1416242#transcript
-
Effectively the government seems to have destroyed his ability to participate meaningfully in his own defence. Doesn't that mean that he has been denied the right to a fair trial?
Hopefully his lawyers will be able to overturn the conviction. That is step one.
Then they can sue the government for damages for fucking up this guy's head. Megabucks. Although more difficult now with Nazis in a controlling position on the Supreme Court bench. And include millions for psychiatric rehab - - maybe, just maybe, there is therapy that can bring Jose Padilla back to who he once was.
Last - - but it will never happen - - criminal trials for Bush and his subordinates for everything they did to Jose Padilla. Long, long prison sentences. Only a revolution could produce a situation where Bush and his subordinates will ever be punished for what they did. This last part is just a pipe dream.
-
We are a big, rich country. Surely we can keep someone safe and not torture them, while keeping the rest of the country safe and while awaiting this person's trial. That is not beyond our means. This is disgusting.
-
Surely we can keep someone safe and not torture them, while keeping the rest of the country safe and while awaiting this person's trial.
Do you just assume this man was tortured or do you have documentation backing that statement.
-
Of course I don't have documentation. Nice how that works, isn't it?
Remember, this man is a U.S. citizen.
Cold comfort.
Anyone can be taken and held, incommunicado. Under this regime, anyway. I do hope the next president gives up those powers.
-
If you don't have proof why did you state it as fact.
Was it wishful thinking?
-
See reply #25 in this thread. In that professional's opinion, he had been tortured.
-
See reply #25 in this thread. In that professional's opinion, he had been tortured.
Countered by this quote from the originating article.
Defense Department officials reject charges that Padilla was mistreated. "The government in the strongest terms denies Padilla's allegations of torture ? allegations made without support and without citing a shred of record evidence," writes Navy Commander J.D. Gordon, a spokesman for the secretary of Defense, in an e-mail. "Any credible allegations of illegal conduct by US military personnel are taken seriously and looked into in painstaking detail."
He adds, "There has never been a substantiated case of detainee abuse at Charleston Navy brig."
-
And there never will be.
-
And there never will be.
Has to happen for there to be.
-
It has to happen AND there has to be documentation to prove it to you. And that's something that I doubt will ever happen.
-
<<Defense Department officials reject charges that Padilla was mistreated. ">>
Geeze, there's a BIG surprise. I thought defense department officials were going to rush forward with tapes of the guy BEING tortured. Of course we can always take the word of Defense Department officials. Why they're almost as trustworthy as the "President" himself.
In BT's sick and warped view of things, if a criminal government, being the only institution capable of providing first-hand proof of torture, doesn't come forward and obligingly hand over the proof of its own misdeeds, then it never happened. Expert opinion, circumstantial evidence and common sense conclusions simply count for nothing. If you ain't got the hard evidence, you ain't got nuthin.
As I have pointed out previously, using this kind of "reasoning" you could exonerate Hitler for the Holocaust. Not a shred of written evidence, no orders, nothing links him to the Holocaust. No evidence he'd ever been to a concentration camp. The guy just didn't know.
-
In BT's sick and warped view of things,
My my ......your debating skills just shine in this post.
-
"Debating skills"? Each of you is taking an unknown and speculating into the stratosphere in an attempt to ground your own preconceptions. The most that can be said is that the guy seriously detriorated in his mental state while in Navy custody. The expert reports legitimately raise the question of the genesis of that deterioration, which warrants neither wild-eyed condemnation of our armed service detention centers nor a pusillanimous cantoring of administration holier-than-thou protestations of innocence. The matter, plainly and simply, should be investigated, if only for the novelty of the set up and the drastic nature of the outcome.
-
The matter, plainly and simply, should be investigated, if only for the novelty of the set up and the drastic nature of the outcome.
"Any credible allegations of illegal conduct by US military personnel are taken seriously and looked into in painstaking detail."
Apparently if credible accusations come forth it is policy to investigate painstakingly.
I guess my question is would hired gun expert testimony for the defense trigger such an investigation?
or are these folks satisfied floating unsubstantiated speculation in the press where the burden of proof and the ability to cross examine is by design limited.
-
<<I guess my question is would hired gun expert testimony for the defense trigger such an investigation?>>
"hired gun." I guess the government psychiatrists and psychologists don't work for a paycheque and if they do, it's not Uncle Sam who signs the cheque. As government employees they must be so much more reliable than free-lance shrinks.
<<or are these folks satisfied floating unsubstantiated speculation in the press where the burden of proof and the ability to cross examine is by design limited.>>
You're right, they're satisfied floating unsubstantiated speculation in the press, where the government has absolutely no access to float countervailing opinions. It's a closed circuit to which no government PR will ever be permitted access. They are trashing their own reputations, but they probably don't realize this, but if Padilla's mental condition or the circumstances of his trial ever come before the courts, the psychiatrists who examined him may be asked for their opinion and cross-examined on it, but they're just too dumb to know that and wouldn't care anyway because they were paid huge bucks to prostitute themselves.
Just one problem though, where did those huge bucks come from? Last time I checked, Padilla was not exactly in the same league financially as O.J.
-
Just one problem though, where did those huge bucks come from? Last time I checked, Padilla was not exactly in the same league financially as O.J.
Which brings us full circle. Who is paying for Padilla's defense?
And also begs the question why Padilla's sanity was fed to the press when the judge ruled on his competency to stand trial early spring?
-
Padilla is being defended by the Federal Defender's office, which I assume is paid for by the Federal Government.
-
My guess is Padilla received defense services through the Federal Public Defender system (taxpayer funded), court-appointed (and paid) "private lawyers," some NGO such as Amnesty International or an analogue, the ACLU (but criminal defense?), an ad hoc rights group sprung up since abuses have become widely reported, etc., but less likely a pro bono high-powered defense firm and certainly not Jihadists-R-Us or We-Hate-America-First. Bank on it.