Padilla Permanently Broken Mentally by Torture in Navy Brig

[Michael Tee]

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.

[Christians4LessGvt]

[Michael Tee]

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.

[gipper]

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?

[gipper]

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.

[Michael Tee]

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.

[gipper]

I agree with your last post, Michael. Good work.

[BT]

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.

[gipper]

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.

[BT]

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.

[Michael Tee]

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.

[BT]

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?

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[BT]

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.

[Michael Tee]

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.