« See? We told you so... | Main | Whom do you believe . . . »

10 October 2006

This is what American torture looks like

Keith Olbermann will be giving another Special Comment tonight on "Countdown", this time regarding the assault on habeas corpus. In case anyone is in doubt about the evil of holding any person without charge or recourse, read Glenn Greenwald for a timely post on what's been happening to Jose Padilla over the past three-and-a-half years:

[...] The administration declared Padilla an "enemy combatant," put him in a military prison, and refused to charge him with any crime or even allow him access to a lawyer or anyone else. He stayed in a black hole, kept by his own government, for the next three-a-half-years with no charges of any kind ever asserted against him and with the administration insisting on the right to detain him (and any other American citizen) indefinitely -- all based solely on the secret, unchallengeable say-so of the President that he was an "enemy combatant." [...]

The Bush administration finally charged Padilla with a crime (after 3 1/2 years of detention) only because the U.S. Supreme Court was set to rule on the legality of their treatment of Padilla, and indicting Padilla enabled the administration to argue that his case was now "moot." The Government's indictment made no mention of the flamboyant allegation they originally trumpeted to justify his lawless incarceration -- that he was a "Dirty Bomber" attempting to detonate a radiological bomb in an American city (because the "evidence" for that accusation was itself procured by torture and was therefore unreliable and unusable). Instead, the indictment contained only the vaguest and most generic terrorism allegations. [...]

Last week, Padilla's lawyers filed a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment against him on the grounds that the Government has engaged in outrageous conduct -- specifically, that they tortured him for the 3 1/2 years he remained in captivity, particularly for the almost 2 full years that they denied him access even to a lawyer. [...]

Greenwald goes on to excerpt portions of the Motion to Dismiss (.pdf), and they will raise the hair on your head:

For nearly two years – from June 9, 2002 until March 2, 2004, when the Department of Defense permitted Mr. Padilla to have contact with his lawyers – Mr. Padilla was in complete isolation. Even after he was permitted contact with counsel, his conditions of confinement remained essentially the same.

He was kept in a unit comprising sixteen individual cells, eight on the upper level and eight on the lower level, where Mr. Padilla’s cell was located. No other cells in the unit were occupied. His cell was electronically monitored twenty-four hours a day, eliminating the need for a guard to patrol his unit. His only contact with another person was when a guard would deliver and retrieve trays of food and when the government desired to interrogate him.

His isolation, furthermore, was aggravated by the efforts of his captors to maintain complete sensory deprivation. His tiny cell – nine feet by seven feet – had no view to the outside world. The door to his cell had a window, however, it was covered by a magnetic sticker, depriving Mr. Padilla of even a view into the hallway and adjacent common areas of his unit. He was not given a clock or a watch and for most of the time of his captivity, he was unaware whether it was day or night, or what time of year or day it was.

In addition to his extreme isolation, Mr. Padilla was also viciously deprived of sleep. This sleep deprivation was achieved in a variety of ways. For a substantial period of his captivity, Mr. Padilla’s cell contained only a steel bunk with no mattress. The pain and discomfort of sleeping on a cold, steel bunk made it impossible for him to sleep. Mr. Padilla was not given a mattress until the tail end of his captivity. . . .

Other times, his captors would bang the walls and cell bars creating loud startling noises. These disruptions would occur throughout the night and cease only in the morning, when Mr. Padilla’s interrogations would begin. Efforts to manipulate Mr. Padilla and break his will also took the form of the denial of the few benefits he possessed in his cell. . . .

Mr. Padilla’s dehumanization at the hands of his captors also took more sinister forms. Mr. Padilla was often put in stress positions for hours at a time. He would be shackled and manacled, with a belly chain, for hours in his cell. Noxious fumes would be introduced to his room causing his eyes and nose to run. The temperature of his cell would be manipulated, making his cell extremely cold for long stretches of time. Mr. Padilla was denied even the smallest, and most personal shreds of human dignity by being deprived of showering for weeks at a time, yet having to endure forced grooming at the whim of his captors.

A substantial quantum of torture endured by Mr. Padilla came at the hands of his interrogators. In an effort to disorient Mr. Padilla, his captors would deceive him about his location and who his interrogators actually were. Mr. Padilla was threatened with being forcibly removed from the United States to another country, including U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he was threatened his fate would be even worse than in the Naval Brig.

He was threatened with being cut with a knife and having alcohol poured on the wounds. He was also threatened with imminent execution. He was hooded and forced to stand in stress positions for long durations of time. He was forced to endure exceedingly long interrogation sessions, without adequate sleep, wherein he would be confronted with false information, scenarios, and documents to further disorient him. Often he had to endure multiple interrogators who would scream, shake, and otherwise assault Mr. Padilla.

Additionally, Mr. Padilla was given drugs against his will, believed to be some form of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) or phencyclidine (PCP), to act as a sort of truth serum during his interrogations.

Throughout most of the time Mr. Padilla was held captive in the Naval Brig he had no contact with the outside world. In March 2004, one year and eight months after arriving in the Naval Brig, Mr. Padilla was permitted his first contact with his attorneys. Even thereafter, although Mr. Padilla had access to counsel, and thereby some contact with the outside world, those visits were extremely limited and restricted. . . .

The deprivations, physical abuse, and other forms of inhumane treatment visited upon Mr. Padilla caused serious medical problems that were not adequately addressed. Apart from the psychological damage done to Mr. Padilla, there were numerous health problems brought on by the conditions of his captivity. Mr. Padilla frequently experienced cardiothoracic difficulties while sleeping, or attempting to fall asleep, including a heavy pressure on his chest and an inability to breath or move his body.

Jose Padilla, terrorist wanna-be and "dirty bomb" plotter, must be really terrifying if our big he-man government had to do all that to one, lone loser.

And what, after all, did he actually do? When, as I've asked before, will his crime be repaid in full?

It's worth remembering that none of this would have seen the light of day if Bush's "Justice" Dept. had not been forced to charge Padilla to stave off a pending ruling from the Supreme Court, and thus make the case moot. That is the meaning of habeas corpus. And now, as Greenwald points out, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed by a morally bankrupt, chickenshit Congress, would make all of this "legal".

Habeas corpus used to protect every one of us from the kind of tyranny exercised on Jose Padilla, an American citizen. No longer. Another miserable stain of the Bush Legacy.

Posted by Chiaroscuro _ on October 10, 2006 at 04:16 PM in Blog Watch, Congress Watch, Moral Values, Scoundrel Time, True Blue v. Red Menace, War(s) | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451648869e200d834f18c6669e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference This is what American torture looks like:

Comments

You quote the defense's motion to dismiss as if it is to be considered factual.

Ever been to court or found reason to hire counsel? Why do you think most politicians were lawyers first? Actors, even? You pay them to stand in front of juries and with a straight face tell the lies your own conscience could never pull off.

Glaringly void is a real description of how it is Mr. Padilla found himself to be in custody and thought to be a terrorist in the first place.

You and I have nothing to worry about from our government. People like Padilla do.

Posted by: batvette | Oct 14, 2006 5:18:56 AM

batvette, I am aware that defense counsel is bound to put the best gloss on any facts relating to the defense of his client. I also understand that defense counsel may not be telling the whole truth, merely that part which benefits his client.

I don't believe, however, that tales of torture or extreme treatment can be dismissed as lies in the present political climate -- sadly. These are the very "techniques" that Bush has insisted are essential to his war on terror. It is, by now, no secret that such treatment has been dealt out to many, if not most, of the detainees.

The issue here is the treatment of Padilla, not his guilt or innocence of the charges. The charges which the govt eventually was forced to bring against Padilla are also fairly murky and generic. They are hardly the charges expected for a dirty bomb terrorist as Padilla was described by Ashcroft in his breathless press conference in Moscow -- months after Padilla was actually detained.

When the rights of one person, however bad he may be, are abrogated, we all have to worry about our rights. Maybe not today, or tomorrow. But when there are no rules, it won't take long before someone is in power who may not like your politics. What will you do then, when the rules that guarantee that no one may be held without showing cause are gone?

And aren't you so smug, that you can talk about "people like Padilla"? What exactly is Padilla like? I have no idea, and neither do you. You have a collection of preconceptions of "evil terrorist" that you've draped onto Padilla.

And what, exactly, has he actually done? Did he plot and plan? Do we think he might have actually been ever able to succeed at making and deploying a dirty bomb? Even if that extremely unlikely eventuality were possible, it didn't happen. He was stopped at the plot and plan point. So are years of detention, torture and limbo enough of a punishment? A punishment that, I might add, was never proven in a court of law to be deserved.

Posted by: Chiaroscuro | Oct 17, 2006 8:12:31 AM

Here is a passage from human rights watch:

Consider, for example, the cases of Jose Padilla and Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri. Federal officials arrested Padilla, a U.S. citizen, in May 2002 when he arrived from Pakistan at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport, allegedly to scout out targets for a radiological or “dirty” bomb. As for al-Marri, a student from Qatar, he was arrested in December 2001 at his home in Peoria, Illinois, for allegedly being a “sleeper,” an inactive accomplice who could be activated to help others launch terrorist attacks. If these allegations are true, Padilla and al-Marri should certainly be prosecuted. Instead, after initially holding each man on other grounds, President Bush declared them both to be “enemy combatants” and claimed the right to hold them without charge or trial until the end of the war against terrorism—which, of course, may never come.

But should Padilla and al-Marri, even if they have actually done what the U.S. government claims, really be considered warriors? Aren’t they more like ordinary criminals? A simple thought experiment shows how dangerous are the implications of treating them as combatants. The Bush administration has asserted that the two men planned to wage war against the United States and therefore can be considered de facto soldiers. But if that is the case, then under war rules, the two men could have been shot on sight, regardless of any immediate danger they posed. Padilla could have been gunned down as he stepped off his plane at O’Hare, al-Marri as he left his home in Peoria. That, after all, is what it means to be a combatant in time of war.

Most people, I suspect, would be deeply troubled by that result. The Bush administration has not alleged that either suspect was anywhere near to carrying out his alleged terrorist plan. Neither man, therefore, posed an imminent threat of the sort that might justify the preventive use of lethal force under law enforcement rules. With a sophisticated legal system available to hear their cases, killing these men would have seemed gratuitous and wrong. Of course, the Bush administration has not proposed summarily killing them; it plans to detain them indefinitely. But if Padilla and al-Marri are not enemy combatants for the purpose of being shot, they should not be enemy combatants for the purpose of being detained, either. The one conclusion necessarily implies the other.

Even if they were appropriately treated as combatants, Padilla’s and al-Marri’s lives might still have been spared under the doctrine of military necessity, which precludes using lethal force when an enemy combatant can be neutralized through lesser means. But from the bombing of urban bridges in northern Serbia during the Kosovo war to the slaughter on the “Highway of Death” during the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S. government has been at best inconsistent in respecting the doctrine of military necessity. Other governments’ records are even worse. That terrorist suspects who pose no immediate danger might only sometimes be shot without warning should still trouble us and lead us to question the appropriateness of their classification as combatants in the first place.

--------------------------------

You know what I believe the author doesn't get? He applies traditional rationale to a conflict where the only thing separating a disgruntled innocent muslim, whatever his country of origin, from a murderous suicide bomber killing women and children.... is the short time it takes for him to strap on a bomb and detonate it.
We're asking our side to stop him and gather the evidence to neutralize him by a years long prison sentance for our safety in that hour or hours, and that's a tall order.
I wish I could have found more on Padilla's arrest, but take the "British 4" held at Gitmo and released. One of them was living in London and after 9/11 decided it would be prudent to travel to Afghanistan to "study Islam", never mind Mecca was a great distance away. He had passports denoting citizenship in Britain and an African country, with an alias on one. He wisely left the country as we invaded but instead of going home went to the second country to visit some family. In the mean time his British passport is found in a Al Qaeda cave hideout with bomb making materials and anti-semetic propaganda, so when he tries to board a plane from Africa to Britain British intel grabs him and hands him to us.
After a year and a half in custody we let him go and British media sees him as a victim of US brutality.
I think he's served a sentance for stupidity, but then I lean right on the issue.
I'll leave you with this: You and I wouldn't be in Pakistan within a year of 9/11 on a religious pilgrimmage and walking (and talking) around with a chip on our shoulder for the US, would we? That's what I meant by "people like him".

Here's two links to how they really get treated at gitmo:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/78066,CST-EDT-steyn01.article

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008952

Posted by: batvette | Oct 19, 2006 5:22:55 AM

"You and I wouldn't be in Pakistan within a year of 9/11 on a religious pilgrimmage and walking (and talking) around with a chip on our shoulder for the US, would we?"

No, we wouldn't, but if we were, is that what we would be charged with? Walking? Talking? Suspicious religious affiliations? A chip on our shoulders?

If these are the standards to which we've sunk, what the hell are we fighting for anyway? The right to oil and who gives fuck-all for who we have to stomp on to get it? Maybe so, 'cause it sure ain't any of those "freedoms" and "liberties" we give lip service.

You denigrate all those pesky "traditional rationales" in favor of expediency. You pump yourself into a frenzy with imagined scenarios of "disgruntled innocent muslims" morphing into remorseless suicide bombers in the blink of an eye. No time for due process. The guy's a ticking time bomb!

Has fear made you take leave of your senses? Do you actually live in a likely target city? Is it worth tossing out hundreds of years' worth of civilized jurisprudence because you're worried about a suicide bomber at the local Dairy Barn drive-thru? You want to live by the sword? Then you'll die by the sword. And there's no telling who'll be wielding it.

When Jefferson said, "The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither," it was "people like you" he had in mind. Why not just take a trip to DC and spit on his Memorial?

Posted by: Chiaroscuro | Oct 20, 2006 12:52:16 PM

Thanks for the help you have given me

Posted by: bruna | Feb 25, 2008 5:53:50 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.