Padilla Permanently Broken Mentally by Torture in Navy Brig

[BT]

If you don't have proof why did you state it as fact.

Was it wishful thinking?

[Lanya]

See reply #25 in this thread.  In that professional's opinion, he had been tortured.

[BT]

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."

[Lanya]

And there never will be.

[BT]

And there never will be.

Has to happen for there to be.

[Lanya]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[BT]

In BT's sick and warped view of things,

My my ......your debating skills just shine in this post.

[gipper]

"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.

[BT]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[BT]

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?

[Michael Tee]

Padilla is being defended by the Federal Defender's office, which I assume is paid for by the Federal Government.

[gipper]

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.