Torture

[CptSternn]

US terror interrogation went too far, experts say

http://news.**********/s/csm/2007081...paHpDE_uKs0NUE

Miami - Jose Padilla had no history of mental illness when President Bush ordered him detained in 2002 as a suspected Al Qaeda operative. But he does now.

The Muslim convert was subjected to prison conditions and interrogation techniques that took him past the breaking point, mental health experts say.

Two psychiatrists and a psychologist who conducted detailed personal examinations of Mr. Padilla on behalf of his defense lawyers say his extended detention and interrogation at the US Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C., left him with severe mental disabilities. All three say he may never recover.

Padilla's psychological condition is important because his situation marks the first time an enemy combatant in the war on terror is in a position to present a verifiable claim of abuse at the hands of US interrogators. Padilla's mental health itself is a form of evidence, mental-health experts say, and it strongly suggests that – at least in Padilla's case – the government's harsh interrogation and confinement tactics went too far.

Beyond the outcome of his Miami trial, larger issues loom. Chief among them, legal scholars say, is whether Mr. Bush acted within his constitutional authority when he ordered Padilla, a United States citizen, held without charge as an enemy combatant at the brig for three years and seven months.

Padilla's treatment in the brig raises another issue, these scholars say: whether the Constitution ever permits the government to force a man to confess to involvement in terrorist plots and, in doing so, risk destruction of a portion of his mind.

The Padilla mental-health issue arises as the Bush administration faces increasing pressure to balance the requirements of the criminal justice system against the demands of its intelligence-collection system. Information about Padilla's detention and interrogation at the brig is classified. But his mental health status can't be kept secret.

His psychological reports are on file in his Miami court case. The three reports total 34 pages and offer a rare window into the psychological effects of Padilla's experience in the brig. The mental-health experts were retained by Padilla's lawyers for testimony during pretrial motions. The reports reflect their professional judgments offered to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

In Padilla's case, these experts say, the pattern of signs and symptoms clearly suggest their origin is the brig . Unlike many allegations of harm from interrogation methods, Padilla's mental condition – and the probable cause of his mental disabilities – can be critically assessed and verified by an independent panel of mental-health professionals, provided Padilla cooperates, these and other psychology experts say.

The judge in Padilla's criminal case has already ruled that Padilla is suffering from a mental disability, but she refused to allow defense lawyers to explore the issue of whether the disability was caused by Padilla's treatment in the brig.

...

Tricky issue: US citizenship

The administration has faced criticism for using harsh interrogation tactics on foreign enemy combatants at Guantánamo Bay and other locations overseas. But Padilla's situation is unique.

Padilla is a US citizen who was arrested and detained on US soil. Because of this status, his case was closely followed at the highest levels of the US government. The president himself signed the order authorizing Padilla's detention.

In 2002, the Justice Department produced a "torture" memo stating that victims would have to experience pain equivalent to organ failure to prove torture.

"The development of a mental disorder such as post-traumatic stress disorder, which can last months or even years, or even chronic depression, which can last a considerable period of time if untreated, might satisfy the prolonged harm requirement" to prove torture, the memo says.

Drs. Hegarty and Grassian say Padilla's psychological condition exceeds even the high standard for mental damage set by the 2002 torture memo. "This whole issue of torture turns on the question of what are the types of effects that one would expect from putting a person in this situation in the brig," says Grassian. "If you would expect a person to become so deranged as to become psychotically terrified, to me that constitutes torture."

The issue is not new. Lawyers representing Padilla in his criminal case in Miami filed motions last year charging that their client had been tortured while in military custody. They said the abuse rendered Padilla mentally incompetent to assist in his own defense at trial.

But in a February hearing, US District Judge Marcia Cooke sidestepped the torture accusations. She ruled that even though mental-health experts had identified mental disabilities, Padilla was competent enough to face prosecution.

"The mere fact that the defendant is suffering from a mental disease or defect does not render the defendant incompetent to stand trial," Judge Cooke declared.

Mental-health experts say that a legal determination of competence to stand trial doesn't undercut the severity of Padilla's existing mental disabilities.

...

Padilla's treatment in the brig is classified as a state secret.

Ironically, no one knows this better than Padilla himself. When Hegarty, the psychiatrist, asked him about his interrogation in the brig, Padilla responded: "I can't talk about what happened to me because it is classified."

Although Padilla has been meeting with his Miami lawyers for more than a year and a half, he refuses to discuss his treatment in the brig in any detail.

"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."

Critical focus on the brig

Hegarty, Grassian, and Zapf all agree that Padilla exhibits symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and that he has become psychotically disorganized. They say that Padilla's ordeal in the brig was so psychologically unsettling that it has left him terrorized. Any reminder of the ordeal through questions by his lawyers or others, triggers a recurrence of the disorganizing terror Padilla experienced in the brig, they say.

"As soon as you try to approach a subject related to the brig he starts grimacing and you can just see he becomes mentally disorganized. Anyone who watched this with a reasonably unbiased eye would find it so creepy," Grassian says. "You can see the terror come out of him."

Padilla has been on trial in Miami since May on charges that he became a willing Al Qaeda recruit. The government never presented any part of the alleged "dirty-bomb" plot in the case, and some analysts say the government's cobbled-together case against Padilla is weak.

It is unclear what Padilla thinks about the possibility of an acquittal in Miami. But Hegarty says that if Padilla's lawyers win the case it could mark the worst possible outcome for him. That's because the president might try to move Padilla back to his old cell in the brig.

"There is no question in my mind that his first and most important priority is to not go back to the brig," Hegarty says. "This is what leaves me chilled, if one were to offer him a long prison term or return to the brig, he would take prison, in a heartbeat."

She adds, "He told me more than once that if he went back to the brig he knew what he had to do." Her notes reflect Padilla's hints of suicide.

Worst outcome: a return to the brig

Although it is still unknown exactly what happened to Padilla during his three years and seven months in the Charleston brig, Hegarty says this much is certain – for Padilla returning to the brig would be a fate worse than death.

Legally, Padilla isn't at a dead end. Last year, three justices of the Supreme Court issued a highly unusual warning. If the government attempts to take Padilla back to the brig, they said, Padilla could, if necessary, appeal directly to the highest court in the land.

Some longtime court-watchers suggest Padilla already has the support of at least five of the nine justices, and maybe more.

When Padilla's case originally reached the high court in 2004, it was dismissed on technical grounds by a 5-to-4 vote. The vote allowed the continued harsh treatment of Padilla.

Justice John Paul Stevens, a US Navy intelligence officer during World War II, filed a dissent. He quoted a 1949 opinion by then Justice Felix Frankfurter.

It said: "There is torture of mind as well as body; the will is as much affected by fear as by force. And there comes a point where this court should not be ignorant as judges of what we know as men."

When did Padilla's mental problems begin?

If Jose Padilla's mental disabilities are evidence that US coercive interrogation tactics are too harsh, a key issue is when the disabilities began.

Conversely, several pieces of evidence suggest that the problems began at the Navy brig in South Carolina.

"Mr. Padilla had no evidence of any mental illness prior to his arrest and incarceration in 2002," writes Stuart Grassian, a Boston psychiatrist, in his report for Padilla's defense team. He examined medical documents and interviewed Padilla's family, including his mother, siblings, and ex-wife.

[CptSternn]

Who would have thought locking a man in solitary confinement for almost 4 years and beating him on a daily basis might cause long term mental issues?

Let’s look at the big picture here, the rights which Americans have lost.

Then there is the first Amendment. The right to freedom of speech, religion, and to associate. This man is accused of meeting with people in Pakistan. To date, no evidence has been produced to prove he did anything other than meet with people in a mosque. In fact, the first Amendment also states that citizens have the right to access government information. Mr. Padilla’s own incarceration is now been labelled a state secret. He can't even talk about the torture, as it has been classified, therefore his defence lawyers can't bring up the subject because its labelled as secret by the government.

Forget about the First Amendment.

Then there is the Fourth Amendment - regarding search and seizure. He was pulled off the street in America with no charges against him. His home was ransacked, he was thrown in prison, searched multiple times, and then never charged. Fourth Amendment? Not for this man.

Bye bye Fourth Amendment.

Then there is the Fifth Amendment - the right to due process and the right to only be held with charge. Due process? Habeas Corpus? Yeah, bush under the Patriot Act removed both protections. Due process used to mean you had to be arrested, do to court, be arraigned, etc. before they could incarcerate you. This man was held 3 years with no charges. Forget Due Process. Habeas Corpus? Also known as FREEDOM FROM BEING HELD WITHOUT CHARGE as it says in the Amendment, meaning you can't be held without charge. After almost 4 years, he is being charged, but not with the same reason they claim he was originally detained. Lets also not forget why most people remember the Fifth Amendment - the bush administration does - they used it multiple times in front of congress, as did every other political official during the Plume debacle. That’s the right to not self incriminate. Hard to not incriminate yourself when your confession is being beaten out of you on a daily basis.

Forget the Fifth Amendment here people.

The Sixth Amendment states all persons charged with a crime have a right to a speedy trial. In a normal court up until now, if your trial date was longer than a year, you were set free due to the Sixth Amendment. Under the bush regime, your Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has now been taken away. You will get a trial when the bush regime decides to charge you, and you will wait in prison until that day comes, no matter how long it may be. Also includes in this Amendment is the right to face your accuser and the right to legal representation. Mr. Padilla was not offered council, for three years. On top of that, all the evidence against him is being presented in court - he is not being given the right to even see it as its considered top secret. His lawyers won't know what evidence they will use against him even during the trial as most will never be revealed, ever.

There goes the Sixth Amendment.

Now we are on to the Eighth Amendment. That’s right - the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Being put in solitary confinement for almost 4 years, only to have that hell interrupted for beatings and interrogations, well, that pretty much says it all. The fact 4 separate doctors cite this as the reason for his current condition speaks volumes.

Eighth Amendment? Not anymore.

And finally, the Fourteenth Amendment - the right to equal protection under the law. For those who think this is a special case, it is. However, under the US constitution, all citizens are to be treated equally. That means all these harsh things that have happened to this man could happen to you. If the government doesn't continue such tactics, then the case could be appealed on these grounds. So how does the government get around this? Simple, take away the rights of others and increase the usage of such tactics. By keeping Guantanamo open, and having another 2 Americans in military custody like Padilla, they can say this is equal treatment for other Americans.

That’s not all. This man was arrested after the Secretary for Defence came on every television channel, even on channels overseas, and announced that this defendant was a 'terrorist' and planned to blow up Americans with a 'dirty bomb'. Those were direct statements made to everyone. How exactly can you find a jury that was not influenced by such actions?

What’s even more disturbing is now the US government dropped all early accusations and claim he merely met with a man in a mosque they think may have been associated with an insurgent group.

That’s what it boils down to. They have no evidence, even after almost four years of searching the globe, beating the accused, and worse, the best they can come up with is providing material support to an anti-American organisation, because they have no other evidence to prove anything else - and even that evidence is so shaky they won’t reveal where they got it nor can they confirm it.

Innocent until proven guilty? Holding a man for almost four years before charing them with a crime that until then they had no evidence for? Torturing confessions out of suspects?

A man who never broke a law, is accused of meeting with a person to discuss breaking a law, is sentenced before he is even charged, imprisoned before they even try him, tortured to say what they want, then told that he can't fight the evidence they are using against him as he is not privileged enough to see it.

This isn't some 3rd world dictatorship, this is bush's America.

So before anyone tells me about their 'rights' as an 'American', I can tell you of one American who so far has had no rights.

Sad thing is, his story is not unique, is just the one we currently know about.

Remember, if it can happen to one American, it can happen to any American.

[Nevan]

It's sad to see this kind of thing happening in the 'free world'. Although (if this site is accurate) in light of the bigger picture it makes a lot of sense - are you familiar with this website?

www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

My apologies if it's old hat - I only discovered it recently.

[delicti]

Well, I should start by saying that I completely agree that this administration has a horrible civil rights record both abroad and domestic. I also disagree with the current Federal guidelines for torture and its appropriate use; that is to say, torture should never be an acceptable way of gathering information.

That being said, just a couple points of order.

If this person is being held as a enemy combatant, they are likely not a US Citizen, which means that we should be talking about either the Geneva Conventions, or the UN Bill of Rights. Unless they are a US citizen, the US Constitution is not applicable in this case.

Also, I think that them claiming PTSD without yet explicitly asserting how the defendant has been tortured shows that their case may be weak. Especially when they say things like, "there is torture of the mind as well as the body;" this is likely to hold little legal water, even if it is an accurate statement. The thing about torture of the body is that it is easy to prove; torture of the mind is not so much so.

I'd love to see this administration get nailed for their civil rights violations, but this case looks like a dud in those respects.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by delicti

If this person is being held as a enemy combatant, they are likely not a US Citizen, which means that we should be talking about either the Geneva Conventions, or the UN Bill of Rights. Unless they are a US citizen, the US Constitution is not applicable in this case.

There you go with the right-wing tactics again. 'IF'...

There is no question of his nationality. There are only a few reasons you would say that:

1. You didn't read the article. Padilla, as I pointed out, made international news. Rumsfeld came on on every channel in America and all the news channels here and talked about the man when this happened. If you somehow missed the man the article was about, then you must have not read it since his name is in it many, many times.

2. You live under a rock. You seriously never heard of this guy, even though his name is known to every nation with television.

3. Your again using yet another right-wing tactic. Like in the debate on global warming, they never say it isn't happening, they like to throw in words like 'if' and 'maybe' in efforts to confuse others who are following.

There is no doubt of his nationality. To start your statements with 'if this is true, then' automatically means you didn't read the article, are very ignorant, or are intentionally trying to mislead anyone who is reading this thread.

That being said, to make sure you are fully informed, check these links..

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...la&btnG=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%...eged_terrorist)

Thats the google search on his name. Over 2 millions hits on his name, page after page of his history, including the cover of TIME magazine, Newsweek, and a few others. But hey, if you really somehow missed every news channel and magazine worldwide for the past two years and didn't have a clue about him, now you can't say that anymore. I'm here to help!

Also, I think that them claiming PTSD without yet explicitly asserting how the defendant has been tortured shows that their case may be weak. Especially when they say things like, "there is torture of the mind as well as the body;" this is likely to hold little legal water, even if it is an accurate statement. The thing about torture of the body is that it is easy to prove; torture of the mind is not so much so.

I have to give you credit for again trying to cover your views with the proverbial fig leaf. That seems to be your thing. You start off by saying your against torture, then when it comes to torture, debating on what exactly the definition is.

Being locked in a single room with no outside contact for almost 4 years is torture. If you want to debate this, I say we lock you in solitary for a few years and then you can give us a first hand opinion.

Better yet, the 'allowed' forms of torture, like water boarding - we will dunk you in a tank until you start sucking water, and you can tells us if that, in your opinion, constitutes torture. I mean, your 'against torture' but obviously only in some forms if your here attempting to debate the finer points of what constitutes abuse of a human being.

I'd love to see this administration get nailed for their civil rights violations, but this case looks like a dud in those respects.

Are you serious about this statement? Might I suggest some reading on this very issue - check out a few of those 2.5 million results. Start with the major ones, news agencies, Time, etc.

After listing above all the rights which were violated, and the fact he was tortured, you still thing this is somehow NOT a violation of civil rights? I mean, under your rules, those who survived concentration camps in WW2 didn't suffer torture. They were never killed, right? Didn't lose any limbs? Weren't beaten too much by gards. They made it through, so they must have not been tortured if they looked healthy enough when they made it out? Right?

[delicti]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

There you go with the right-wing tactics again. 'IF'...

Holy crap, we better change the dictionary. IF is officially a right-wing word.

There is no question of his nationality. There are only a few reasons you would say that:

You're right, I did give the article a cursory read, and I missed that point.

2. You live under a rock. You seriously never heard of this guy, even though his name is known to every nation with television.

I usually don't watch television unless my girlfriend has it on. The times I do watch I'm usually watching the History and Discovery channel. I find that network news is a great way to get frustrated about things that have no real impact on my life; sorry, didn't see it.

3. Your again using yet another right-wing tactic. Like in the debate on global warming, they never say it isn't happening, they like to throw in words

How is skepticism a right wing tactic? I don't accept everything everybody says on face value; last I checked that was pretty smart behavior.

Over 2 millions hits on his name, page after page of his history, including the cover of TIME magazine, Newsweek, and a few others. But hey, if you really somehow missed every news channel and magazine worldwide for the past two years and didn't have a clue about him, now you can't say that anymore. I'm here to help!

You're right, I did. These trials actually bore the crap out of me, because they usually are presented with such bias that it's hard to get anything close to the truth on them. As is, it's a legal proceeding, so we won't know the whole facts until after the trial is done anyways.

I have to give you credit for again trying to cover your views with the proverbial fig leaf. That seems to be your thing. You start off by saying your against torture, then when it comes to torture, debating on what exactly the definition is.

Who is debating the definition of torture? Not me. Are you? The Federal guideline for torture are a joke, I think any reasonable person can see that.

Being locked in a single room with no outside contact for almost 4 years is torture. If you want to debate this, I say we lock you in solitary for a few years and then you can give us a first hand opinion.

In most countries that's actually called prison. Solitary confinement is a more extreme version of it, but I doubt you're really going to be able to call it torture, unless there was extenuating psychological circumstances that made it exceptionally cruel.

Better yet, the 'allowed' forms of torture, like water boarding - we will dunk you in a tank until you start sucking water, and you can tells us if that, in your opinion, constitutes torture. I mean, your 'against torture' but obviously only in some forms if your here attempting to debate the finer points of what constitutes abuse of a human being.

{SARCASM}Yes Sternn, because I totally am in love with all of those things. In fact, I do them myself on Holiday. I'm partically fond of the rack and iron maiden, actually. I spend hours pining for the "good old days" when we could burn people like myself at the stake for not believing in God, too.{/SARCASM}

You're making an issue where there is none.

After listing above all the rights which were violated, and the fact he was tortured, you still thing this is somehow NOT a violation of civil rights?

If the trial proves that he was tortured, then his civil rights were violated. Since you've (fairly rudely) corrected me that he is American, then he'll also have protections under US law, and hopefully some sort of compensation.

I never claimed that his civil rights were not violated, I missed that he was American, and so I was suggesting a correction as to which statues you should be quoting.

I mean, under your rules, those who survived concentration camps in WW2 didn't suffer torture. They were never killed, right? Didn't lose any limbs? Weren't beaten too much by gards. They made it through, so they must have not been tortured if they looked healthy enough when they made it out? Right?

Oh, here comes the 50 Hitler post.

Sheesh, at least I'm willing to admit when read something somebody else posted wrongly.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by delicti

You're right, I did give the article a cursory read, and I missed that point.

So, much like the Moore thread, you have yet to read the information being discussed here, and jump in with a long reply, with no real understanding of what we are even discussing. Way to go.

I usually don't watch television unless my girlfriend has it on. The times I do watch I'm usually watching the History and Discovery channel. I find that network news is a great way to get frustrated about things that have no real impact on my life; sorry, didn't see it.

You don't think the loss of your constitutional rights 'has any real impact on your life'. Thats another brilliant statement there.

You're right, I did. These trials actually bore the crap out of me, because they usually are presented with such bias that it's hard to get anything close to the truth on them. As is, it's a legal proceeding, so we won't know the whole facts until after the trial is done anyways.

So even though such things 'bore the crap out of you', you still post large responses here on your opinion on something you can't be bothered to watch because it bores you. If you so 'bored', then why are you posting such long responses about a topic you claim to have not read about an issue you claim to find so boring?

[delicti]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

So, much like the Moore thread, you have yet to read the information being discussed here, and jump in with a long reply, with no real understanding of what we are even discussing. Way to go.

1. My reply wasn't long.

2. I was contributing on the Moore thread since the beginning of it. You're the one who has been trying to change the subject of that thread.

You don't think the loss of your constitutional rights 'has any real impact on your life'. Thats another brilliant statement there.

You act like this is a new thing? And to be honest, there really isn't a whole lot we're going to be able to do about it until this next election. Actually, by then we'll probably have a Democrat who conveniently doesn't repeal the Patriot act, while also going after other rights. Civil rights erosion in the US is not going away any time soon.

So even though such things 'bore the crap out of you', you still post large responses here on your opinion on something you can't be bothered to watch because it bores you.

Someone's a little bitter about the Moore thread.

If you so 'bored', then why are you posting such long responses about a topic you claim to have not read about an issue you claim to find so boring?

The initial post wasn't that long. I made a larger post apologizing.

Anyways, this is all quite a bit off topic, and these trials actually do really bore me, so I'm done on this thread.

[CptSternn]

US psychologists limit roles in torture of military prisoners

http://news.**********/s/afp/ustortu...2Vp60IuRms0NUE

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) - The American Psychological Association on Sunday banned members from taking part in more than a dozen tactics such as mock executions and water-boarding during questioning of military prisoners.

APA leaders voted nearly unanimously to limit involvement by members in coercive interrogations but the resolution fell short of a complete moratorium called for by some US psychologists.

The resolution issues an unequivocal condemnation and prohibits psychologists' participation in specific interrogation tactics including mock executions; water-boarding; isolation, and sleep deprivation.

"This is a move forward because it specifies techniques and includes lack of due process in the definition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment," said APA member Neil Altman, author of the original proposal for a complete moratorium on psychologists' presence in detention centers.

"But it omitted language that would keep psychologists from being involved in other detainees-related operations in detention centers outside of interrogations."

Three members of the APA council of representatives voted against the resolution in protest.

"What I would like to see is for psychologists to be participating only in treatment, not interrogation," APA member Laurie Wagner told AFP.

"If psychologists need to be present to keep detainees from being killed, then the only way for us to protest is to leave those situations."

APA leaders voted down a substitute motion that would have limited psychologists to "ameliorative psychological treatment of detainees that are deprived of adequate protection of human rights."

"Without the amendment that would call on our colleagues to not participate in these inhumane situations, it's all just words," said Bernice Lott, a member of the APA council of representatives.

Many within the APA believe that psychologists must remain present to act as safety officers.

"I just came here from Cuba," said APA council representative Colonel Larry James. "If we remove psychologists from Guantanamo, innocent people are going to die."

Beth Wiggins of the APA law division agreed.

"Walking away from these situations would make us passive bystanders," she said.

The vote took place during the APA's annual conference in San Francisco.

Demonstrators outside the proceedings stood on boxes and covered themselves with black hoods with wires trailing from their arms to symbolize prisoner abuses at clandestine US military facilities and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

With 148,000 members, the APA is the largest professional organization in the mental health field.


"I just came here from Cuba," said APA council representative Colonel Larry James. "If we remove psychologists from Guantanamo, innocent people are going to die."

That pretty much sums it up.

[CptSternn]

In Padilla interrogation, no checks or balances

http://news.**********/s/csm/20070904/ts_csm/aoversight

When admitted 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed complained in a Guantánamo Bay hearing earlier this year that he'd been tortured by US interrogators, the presiding military officer assured him the charges would be investigated.

Two US senators who watched the hearing later praised the officer's action. "Allegations of prisoner mistreatment must be taken seriously and properly investigated," Sens. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina and Carl Levin (D) of Michigan said in a joint statement. "To do otherwise would reflect poorly on our nation."

In contrast, when alleged Al Qaeda operative Jose Padilla, a US citizen, claimed in 2006 that he had been tortured, no similar effort was undertaken.

No senators called for an investigation or a hearing. No one promised a Defense Department inspector general inquiry or a Justice Department probe. The federal judge then presiding over Mr. Padilla's criminal case in Miami refused to permit further inquiry into the torture allegation, and instead ordered Padilla's lawyers not to raise the issue during trial.

The difference between Mr. Mohammed's experience and Padilla's experience highlights a near total lack of independent oversight involving the secret military detention and interrogation of a US citizen on American soil.

It is unlikely anyone outside a select group of military officials knows the full story of exactly what was done, or wasn't done, to Padilla in the name of national security.

But instead of aggressively examining the torture allegation, the Bush administration has fought hard to keep Padilla's treatment in military custody veiled in secrecy.

"The treatment of Padilla ranks as one of the most serious abuses after 9/11," says Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School in Washington. "This is a case that would have shocked the Framers. This is precisely what many of the drafters of the Constitution had in mind when they tried to create a system of checks and balances."

Human rights activists, too, are alarmed by what they see as the continuing lack of oversight and accountability. "What happened to [Padilla] in military custody will be seen by history as one of the more shameful acts this country has taken against one of its own citizens," says Hina Shamsi, deputy director of the Law and Security Program at Human Rights First.

Padilla was held without charge in military custody at the US Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C., for more than 3-1/2 years. He was allegedly subjected to prolonged isolation, sensory deprivation, and stress positions, among other harsh interrogation tactics. Mental-health experts who have examined Padilla say the coercive techniques left him with severe psychological damage that may be permanent. Their observations are detailed in three reports filed in Padilla's criminal case.

Allegations deemed not credible
Defense Department officials say they believe Padilla is faking his psychological conditions. No similar detailed psychological examinations, however, have been conducted by the government.

Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, says suggestions that Padilla is a different person after his years in military custody are not evidence of illegal abuse. Simply being held in a federal prison can change an inmate's personality, but that doesn't mean prison officials tortured him, Commander Gordon says. "I bet I would be different," he says.

In terms of oversight, Gordon says, Defense Department personnel stand ready to fully investigate any credible allegations of torture or other illegal conduct at the brig. "Credible allegations of illegal conduct are taken seriously," he says. "In this case we don't believe that to have occurred."

In Mr. Mohammed's case, his allegations were referred to the inspector general of the Central Intelligence Agency, which will neither confirm nor deny the existence of such a probe.

Even if an oversight investigation verified some or all of Padilla's claims, it is unlikely that he would find himself a free man anytime soon. Padilla was convicted in a terror conspiracy trial in Miami on Aug. 16. He is set to be sentenced in December and faces up to life in prison.

Apart from the criminal case, a separate group of lawyers has filed a civil lawsuit in South Carolina seeking a judicial ruling declaring the US government's treatment of Padilla in the brig illegal and unconstitutional.

Justice Department lawyers are expected to ask that Padilla's suit be thrown out of court because the litigation would likely reveal state secrets about Padilla's interrogation, legal analysts say. Such a move would again prevent public scrutiny of the torture allegations, these analysts say.

"If they invoke the state secrets privilege, that is the ultimate trump card," says Douglas Kmiec, a professor at Pepperdine University Law School in Malibu, Calif. So far, every time the government has invoked the state secrets privilege in recent years, the case has been thrown out of court, he says.

Civil libertarians and human rights experts say oversight and accountability are important because Padilla's treatment by the military could happen to others.

"This is a dangerous precedent," says Douglas Johnson, executive director of the Minneapolis-based Center for Victims of Torture. "Padilla may well deserve to be put away for the rest of his life, but some key principles of American law and culture were violated, and that means that other people could also be in danger of their rights being violated."

The Center for Victims of Torture seeks to provide a healing environment for those who have faced physical and psychological torture overseas. Dr. Johnson says patients at the center have faced many of the same techniques allegedly used against Padilla.

"Isolation has been a consistent methodology of repressive regimes [overseas]," he says. "It is very, very frightening that our government has chosen to use this methodology."

Padilla's claims are different than those of most people who say they've been tortured. More substantive than merely a verbal accusation, the three psychological reports and Padilla's degraded mental condition represent direct evidence of abuse, say experts in the treatment of torture victims.

"There is a valid and objective way to evaluate all this," says Scott Allen of Physicians for Human Rights and author of a recent PHR/Human Rights First report, "Leave No Mark," that discusses how US interrogators may face criminal liability in the future.

PHR experts are assembling psychological reports and conducting exams similar to those done in the Padilla case, he says. They are gathering evidence from at least seven former detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the US detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The report calls on the executive branch to stop using harsh interrogation tactics and to release all government documents related to such tactics. In addition, it asks Congress to exercise its oversight role and ban these interrogation methods.

Congress's oversight record
Two years ago, Democrats in Congress championed a proposal to establish a 9/11-type independent commission to investigate allegations of detainee interrogation abuses. The measure was sponsored by Senator Levin, who complained that the Republican-controlled Congress had failed to aggressively carry out its oversight responsibilities.

Republican opponents of the Levin amendment said the Defense Department had already conducted 12 major investigations into detainee treatment, and Congress had conducted 30 open hearings and 40 closed hearings.

Levin countered that the investigations and hearings had been selective and that large areas – including the legality of certain interrogation techniques – had never been investigated.

"These issues are not going to go away. They can't be swept under the rug," Levin said during the floor debate. "With each passing day, we have new revelations of detainee abuses."

The Levin amendment was defeated in a largely party-line vote in November 2005. The tally: 43 to 55.

A year later, Democrats took control of both houses of Congress. So far, the Democratic leadership has yet to undertake any significant public oversight – such as hearings, investigations, or legislation – on the issue of detainee interrogation.

Political analysts say civil liberties in the war on terror is not a winning issue for Democrats seeking to win the White House in 2008 and to expand their majorities in both houses of Congress.

The result: The conditions of Padilla's interrogation and confinement may remain shrouded in secrecy.

"The Framers believed they had created an independent judiciary and Congress that would check this kind of abuse by the executive [branch]," Professor Turley says.

"In the absence of judicial review, it is possible for Congress to seek legislative guarantees to prevent a repeat of this abuse," he says. "But Democrats appear terrified that they will be accused of supporting a terrorist."


Yet another account of the abuse of this man. Whats important is now, there are groups getting together to focus on future prosecution of people involved in such activity. The bush administration won't be in power forever, and one day the Middle East will look like the Russian Cold War - a distant relic. People in hindsight saw the McCarthy hearings for what they were. This will no doubt go down in history as yet another heinous act carried about by Americans on innocent people.

[Johnny Gnar Gnar]

Capt, we agree. As much as everyone tries to ride you down on these forums, the Truth cannot be ignored. The problem, I have learned, with most of my American counterparts is the simple fact that annonimity (sp?) is golden. People can feel free to sit behind a keyboard and bitch about the government, yet how many have been actively involved in changes. The one thing I have to argue, debate, whatever is the statement "Bush will not be in power forever". The way this whole operation has been organized (with lack of resistance from both sides) has placed us under military law. All it would take is Bush declaring at the end of his term that he is still in power, and it would maybe stick. Hopefully, not without some major uprisal, but it could fore-seeably happen. *I know my spelling sucks this evening, I do not have the benefit of Firefox telling me what is "right" and "wrong". Bush could, by the way this whole thing has been run, declare himself a leader. My question for all American people, is simply this........ Where are the people who do not agree?!? Why are we so complacent we can sit behind keyboards and bitch, yet we will not stand in line against tyranny? Heil the Fourth Reich.... Being complacent is just as bad as being a part of the guilty party!

[Wormboy]

Sternn, we get it, we have a shitty government, let's move on

[raggedyanne]

Te amo wormboy, te amo!

[delicti]

Originally Posted by Johnny Gnar Gnar

Capt, we agree. As much as everyone tries to ride you down on these forums, the Truth cannot be ignored.

I have no problems with Sternn when he's right, but his anti-American bias is a bit annoying. I have no problems admitting when our country is wrong (although military law may be a stretch), but when he's constantly saying how not just the government is bad, but how all Americans are ignorant and fascists, it kind of makes it hard to deal with.

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by Johnny Gnar Gnar

People can feel free to sit behind a keyboard and bitch about the government, yet how many have been actively involved in changes.

Well, let's poll and find out how many people are over 18, are registered voters, and are citizens that actually partake in the voting process. Then you'll get your number.

I can only assume that you, atop of a soapbox, fall under this category.

The way this whole operation has been organized (with lack of resistance from both sides) has placed us under military law.

Do you mean, "Martial Law?" When habeas corpus is completely suspended and the armed forces assume all law enforcement duties? Please clarify, because we are certainly not under, "Martial Law."

All it would take is Bush declaring at the end of his term that he is still in power, and it would maybe stick. Hopefully, not without some major uprisal, but it could fore-seeably happen.

You're getting worked up about speculation over what's really a non-issue. Not only would the Supreme Court step in and overturn that Executive Order in a heartbeat for clashing with the 22nd Amendment, Congress might actually beat them to the chase first with an overwhelming vote to do so. It would therefore be an inevitably illegal decree and he would be forcibly removed by Secret Service Officers and Agents if necessary. There's also, of course, the long route, in which Congress just impeaches everyone from the administration out of office and the Speaker assumes control.

Where are the people who do not agree?!? Why are we so complacent we can sit behind keyboards and bitch, yet we will not stand in line against tyranny? Heil the Fourth Reich.... Being complacent is just as bad as being a part of the guilty party!

Aside from listening to too much Green Day you're being delusional about the threats you're concerned with. Germany, as of the 1930s, was not run on a system of checks and balances in which Hitler could be easily challenged or removed from power via another branch of government. Not only that, but he won popular legal approval through the rest of government before stepping into the dictatorial position he assumed.

Your concerns will be more justified on the eve of when the Supreme Court burns the Constitution up and Congress gives it's unequivocal support for a President to assume an indefinite term. Even the deterioration happening in Venezuelan politics could only be as successful as it is today if Chavez were even elected again. Unilateral assumptions of power, especially in the United States, are a spectacular work of fiction.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by MaguMan

Unilateral assumptions of power, especially in the United States, are a spectacular work of fiction.

Seriously.

I have a brother in the Air Force; one day while talking politics on base, the Comm crew and a bunch of pilots took a count of hands as to who would do everything they could to immediately assassinate a president who refused to leave office, using whatever military hardware was at their disposal.

Every single person in the room raised their hand.

[Wormboy]

Originally Posted by raggedyanne

Te amo wormboy, te amo!

Gracias, te amo tambien

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Johnny Gnar Gnar

Capt, we agree. As much as everyone tries to ride you down on these forums, the Truth cannot be ignored. The problem, I have learned, with most of my American counterparts is the simple fact that annonimity (sp?) is golden. People can feel free to sit behind a keyboard and bitch about the government, yet how many have been actively involved in changes.

Thats the problem these days. The American people do not care. Their 'caring' begins and ends with their own families, their own routines. If they get to work, pay their bills, and are able to do whatever it is they like to unwind, they care feck all for anyone elses plight. The average American may read about such acts as above, but unless it effect them directly, or someone they know, they don't even bother to follow the news story.

Thats the reason the current administration has been able to get away with so much. Most people in America just don't care as they don't see how this effects them directly.

Where are the people who do not agree?!? Why are we so complacent we can sit behind keyboards and bitch, yet we will not stand in line against tyranny? Heil the Fourth Reich.... Being complacent is just as bad as being a part of the guilty party!

Crimes of omission. Allowing such acts is just as bad as participating in them. Tis why I post stuff here. People can't say they didn't hear about it. Many of the articles I post are found on the back pages of large media outlets, stories they try to bury - posted on Friday afternoon when the majority of Americans aren't paying attention (stats show Americans leave work early, and don't watch the news on Fridays).

By at least posting them here at least some of this stuff which most people miss will be available. Funny thing, if you search for many terms (i.e. torture, rendition, etc) you will find Gothic.Net articles high in the Google and Yahoo rankings due to the articles I post and the topics we discuss here.

That being said, people still don't care, but hey, thats no reason to stop posting.

The fact we get blow-ins who have just joined last month who post 100% in the political forums, and try and discredit everything I post makes me think we are getting to someone out there, especially since these people seem to have no interest in the goth scene, and have focused 100% of their attention on me and my posts.

We must be doing something right.

[Anguelon]

Sternn...I'd like to ask your opinion about something since you've made it a full-time job to bash us Americans. I'm an American of Lebanese descent. I've been living in Lebanon for the past 16 years. Little Lebanese Lesson: Lebanon is a Middle Eastern country with a dominant Muslim population of 75% and still growing. Maronites (Catholics who are Syriac and are followers of the Pope) are the onese who get to be President.

I don't mean to bore you, but I promise to get to the point. I have read your posts here. From your part as an anti-American (which I assume), you might be right. Or , let's say, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say You are 100% right from your part. But there's a big niche that you've missed my dear Irish friend. So, sit back and enjoy and I'm not poking holes here just to be a smart ass, but please consider this:

Muslims follow the Sharia' which is the law in the holy Koran. This means if you steal, your hand will be cut off. If a woman commits adultery, her brother or father or whatever male relative has the right to kill her a.k.a honor killing. These are extremely abided in Saudi Arabia and other extreme islamic countries.

Muslims don't believe in the Human Rights crap. They believe in what the Koran tells them, believe me. Their religion is by the sword, literally. I'm telling you something I see everyday and not something any biased media tells me.
They can marry up to four women. Muslims are not allowed to adopt for it is stated in the Koran that they can sleep with the child of adultery or any other for it's not their child by blood. Now, what kind of Human Rights crap in their countries or by their Sheikhs believe that that is wrong?

I am a Catholic living in Lebanon. I live in a Catholic dominant area. You go to a Muslim area and you're in for a surprise. It's the city of fanatics and womanizers. It's the city of "legal adultery" and "legal **********". What kind of prophet marries a 6 year old girl?

Sternn, you have to know that Muslims use the Human Rights as a loop hole and a way out from everything in the United States or anything related to the US outside. My husband was in Saudi Arabia and his boss invited him once to a beheading. Give me a break my friend! They have no such thing called Human Rights in their own goddamn country!

So please, I am sure you are a smart guy and I advise you to waste your precious time and everyone's precious time on Gnet on something more fruitful...not that I don't like the threads you post. But believe me, you have no idea what the heck you're getting yourself into by going through a never ending circle of Arab hypocracy!

[LadyLucretia]

Originally Posted by Johnny Gnar Gnar

My question for all American people, is simply this........ Where are the people who do not agree?!? Why are we so complacent we can sit behind keyboards and bitch, yet we will not stand in line against tyranny? Heil the Fourth Reich.... Being complacent is just as bad as being a part of the guilty party!

If you have a good plan for taking out the Bush dynasty, I'd like to hear it. In the mean time, I'll just keep voting. What are *you* doing to avoid complacency?

[raggedyanne]

We have a little over a year until Bush leaves office. By this time the majority of the people in charge and the informed public are pissed at our president. We are a democratic nation, so instead of raising our pitchforks and stomping under the proverbial presidential balcony, we simply vote against war funding and crap like that. Sure, there may be some citizens that are so closed-minded and blinded by religion or whatever that they refuse to move along with the 21st century; and sure, our government is a corrupt piece of crap; but we have a higher standard of living than most countries out there.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Anguelon

Sternn...I'd like to ask your opinion about something since you've made it a full-time job to bash us Americans. I'm an American of Lebanese descent.

First, I don't bash Americans, only American policy. If you internalise and personalise my critique of the American government, thats your own personal issue, as I am not judging any person(s), merely pointing out issues with government policy.

Second, You claim to be a Lebanese decent, but you openly attack your own nations religious practices, government, and way of life. I would listen to your criticisms more if you appeared to be even slightly unbiased. You obvious pro-American policy slant means your no more a Lebanese citizen than any other American currently living there.

People in their own country should have the right to live their lives regardless of what some country half a world away thinks.

I must ask, if your not a fan of the country you have lived 16 years in, then why stay? I mean, if you are so anti-your-own-country, but stay anyway, then your selling out your own principles.

If you disagree with 75% of the people who live in your country (and growing), then your doing no one any good by staying there and complaining.

I would ask, why then a person who has such strong feelings against their own country and countrymen would stay in such a place, and argue with anyone who claims life there is good.

75% of the people there like it, enjoy it, and choose to live in such a manner. Who has the right to tell them what they can and can't do in their own country?

The Lebanese can kill/maim/torture anyone they want in the country who breaks their laws. Thats how it works. The majority of people there support that. America is attempting to force it's will upon nations, violating their human rights, and then claiming the governments in charge are violating their rights, as you claimed.

The difference is, the people there accept the Lebanese government, laws, and penalties - when a foreign nation tried to manipulate such events, thats a violation of the people in that country.

If the Lebanese don't like their way of life, they will rise up and change it, but its for them to do in their own time, not for America to jump in, like they do worldwide, and force their will upon other nations.

Much like punishing your own child in comparison with trying to punish a random child in the market - its not your place and no matter what the circumstances you will always be in the wrong.

Thats the problem I take issue with. Lebanon might have incidents which are more egregious than similar incidents in America (i.e. chopping off a hand instead of a jail sentence for theft), but thats their choice. The people there, made that choice and live by it. No other nation has the right to tell them it's wrong, especially a nation that hasn't even been in existence for anytime in comparison to the nation they want to change. Lebanon was around before America, and their ways have exists for centuries before America decided what they were doing is 'wrong' in *their* eyes.

More importantly, Lebanon doesn't hide the fact they participate in such activities. America on the other hand does one thing, and preaches another (do-as-I-say, no as-I-do). Thats the thing I take issue with, and the reason I post such items which you are on about.

People should be able to live by their own culture in their own country. They shouldn't force their will upon other nations. Nations who have existed for eons shouldn't be told by ones that have barely been here a few centuries that their way of life and their religion, which has been practiced for eons as well, is wrong and bad. Nations should live by the same standards which they claim to embrace, and be open with their people.

Thats my thoughts on yer post there for ye...

[LadyLucretia]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

First, I don't bash Americans, only American policy.

BULLSHIT.

I don't even have to go beyond this very thread to disprove that:

Thats the problem these days. The American people do not care. Their 'caring' begins and ends with their own families, their own routines. If they get to work, pay their bills, and are able to do whatever it is they like to unwind, they care feck all for anyone elses plight. The average American may read about such acts as above, but unless it effect them directly, or someone they know, they don't even bother to follow the news story.

[Wormboy]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Thats the problem these days. The American people do not care. Their 'caring' begins and ends with their own families, their own routines. If they get to work, pay their bills, and are able to do whatever it is they like to unwind, they care feck all for anyone else's plight. The average American may read about such acts as above, but unless it effect them directly, or someone they know, they don't even bother to follow the news story.

Pretty much, except you forgot to add friends =)

as my friend Alyssa always says, "Don't let this face fool you, I really don't give a shit"

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by LadyLucretia

BULLSHIT.

I don't even have to go beyond this very thread to disprove that:

Thats the problem these days. The American people do not care. Their 'caring' begins and ends with their own families, their own routines. If they get to work, pay their bills, and are able to do whatever it is they like to unwind, they care feck all for anyone elses plight. The average American may read about such acts as above, but unless it effect them directly, or someone they know, they don't even bother to follow the news story.


Thats from another thread, and taken out of context. However, I do stand by that statement, as it does accurately depict many Americans. Do you disagree with that assessment?