One can't be too careful with dangerous persons

Pure

Fiel a Verdad
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Posts
15,135
Video Is a Window Into a Terror Suspect’s Isolation

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/04/u...b458c838c22&hp&ex=1165208400&partner=homepage

[Jose Padilla, fitted with blacked-out goggles, was videotaped by the government when he was allowed outside solitary confinement to see a dentist. ]



By DEBORAH SONTAG
Published: December 4, 2006
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. The date of the tape has not been disclosed.
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.”

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.”

A Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Todd Vician, said Sunday that the military disputes Mr. Padilla’s accusations of mistreatment. And, in court papers, prosecutors deny “in the strongest terms” the accusations of torture and say that “Padilla’s conditions of confinement were humane and designed to ensure his safety and security.”

“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.”

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 Koran, “as part of an interrogation plan.”

Mr. Padilla’s situation, as an American declared an enemy combatant and held without charges by his own government, was extraordinary and the conditions of his detention appear to have been unprecedented in the military justice system.

Philip D. Cave, a former judge advocate general for the Navy and now a lawyer specializing in military law, said, “There’s nothing comparable in terms of severity of confinement, in terms of how Padilla was held, especially considering that this was pretrial confinement.”

Ali al-Marri, a Qatari and Saudi dual citizen and the only enemy combatant currently detained in the United States, has made similar claims of isolation and deprivation at the brig in South Carolina. The Pentagon spokesman, Lieutenant Vician, said Sunday that he could not comment on the methods used to escort Mr. Padilla to the dentist. Blackened goggles and earphones are rarely employed in internal prison transports in the United States, but riot gear is sometimes used for violent prisoners.

One of Mr. Padilla’s lawyers, Orlando do Campo, said, however, that Mr. Padilla was a “completely docile” prisoner. “There was not one disciplinary problem with Jose ever, not one citation, not one act of disobedience,” said Mr. do Campo, who is a lawyer at the Miami federal public defender’s office.

In his affidavit, Mr. Patel said, “I was told by members of the brig staff that Mr. Padilla’s temperament was so docile and inactive that his behavior was like that of ‘a piece of furniture.’ ”

Federal prosecutors and defense lawyers are locked in a tug of war over the relevancy of Mr. Padilla’s military detention to the present criminal case. Federal prosecutors have asked the judge to forbid Mr. Padilla’s lawyers from mentioning the circumstances of his military detention during the trial, maintaining that their accusations could “distract and inflame the jury.”

But defense lawyers say it is unconscionable to ignore Mr. Padilla’s military detention because, among other reasons, it altered him in a way that will impinge on his trial.
[...]

Mr. Padilla was added as a defendant in a terrorism conspiracy case already under way in Miami. The strong public accusations made during his military detention — about the dirty bomb, Al Qaeda connections and supposed plans to set off natural gas explosions in apartment buildings — appear nowhere in the indictment against him. The indictment does not allege any specific violent plot against America.

Mr. Padilla is portrayed in the indictment as the recruit of a “North American terror support cell” that sent money, goods and recruits abroad to assist “global jihad” in general, with a special interest in Bosnia and Chechnya. Mr. Padilla, the indictment asserts, traveled overseas “to participate in violent jihad” and filled out an application for a mujahedin training camp in Afghanistan.[....]
 
Last edited:
bump,

i'm surprised this case, one of the most striking of the last few years, has attracted zero attention, here. i would have thought that suspension of habeus corpus, right to a civilizan trial etc would draw more comment. :devil:
 
Pure said:
bump,

i'm surprised this case, one of the most striking of the last few years, has attracted zero attention, here. i would have thought that suspension of habeus corpus, right to a civilizan trial etc would draw more comment. :devil:
I read the article and was too floored to respond coherently.......what country do we live in again?
 
Jose Padilla is an excellent example of (a) why the military has denied access by the "detainees" to their attornies and (b) how the Bush Administration has systematically dismantaled that dirty old piece of paper we like to refer too as the Constitution :rolleyes:
 
An interesting point about Habeas Corpus...

When the US Constitution mentions Habeas Corpus, it says "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Small problem: The "writ of habeas corpus", as the framers of the constitution would have understood it, was part of English Common Law, specifically the "Habeas Corpus Act of 1679"

That act said, basically, that a prisoner had to be released on bail within three days after the person who had custody of him had been served with a writ of Habeas Corpus "unless the commitment aforesaid were for treason or felony, plainly and specially expressed in the warrant of commitment".

In other words, Habeas Corpus does not apply to a person who has been accused of a felony. It was only intended for people charged with "petty crimes".

The issue here is not Habeas Corpus, it is the right of an accused to a "speedy and public trial", "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" and "to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence", all of which are part of the sixth ammendment.

Yes, of course, Jose Padilla and others are being held under circumstances that are a gross violation of the US Constitution but the problem isn't Habeas Corpus. The problem is that he isn't getting a lawyer and a speedy trial.
 
Hi Angela,

I don't think habeas corpus in the US, now, applies only to petty crime and not to felony, as you say in the quote, below. That conflicts with a plain reading of the US constitution, whose exception is only for rebellion or invasion.

The following online authority make no mention of the restriction you mention, which is stated in a 17 th century BRITISH document, inter alia.

----
Electric Law Library
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm
habeas corpus


//Lat. "you have the body" Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. //

====

The Duke Law website has a commentary on part of the Padilla proceedings--the dispute over whether Rumsfeld was to be a respondent-- and which clearly states that Padilla's was a habeas petition. Were it invalid on its face, as you suggest, surely that fact would be mentioned.
http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/rumvpad.html
---

The comments of the US District Court, in addressing Padilla's petition makes no mention of the difficulty you mention; it's a 'habeas' petition.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_..._briefs/4th_Circuit/padilla-ruling-030105.pdf
====
Angela said in part

Small problem: The "writ of habeas corpus", as the framers of the constitution would have understood it, was part of English Common Law, specifically the "Habeas Corpus Act of 1679"

That act said, basically, that a prisoner had to be released on bail within three days after the person who had custody of him had been served with a writ of Habeas Corpus "unless the commitment aforesaid were for treason or felony, plainly and specially expressed in the warrant of commitment".

In other words, Habeas Corpus does not apply to a person who has been accused of a felony. It was only intended for people charged with "petty crimes".
 
Last edited:
thanks,

samandiriel, jenny, and angela; thanks for giving this matter some attention and keeping the thread from instant, total oblivion.


:rose:
:rose:
:rose:
 
Back
Top