How far we have fallen

By Sean Aqui | Related entries in Law, News, The War On Terrorism

A prosecution expert says Jose Padilla is competent to stand trial, contradicting defense claims that his imprisonment amounted to torture that had induced post-traumatic stress disorder in the dirty-bomb suspect.

That’s how it goes in these cases. The defense witnesses say he’s crazy; the prosecution witnesses say he’s not. The judge then has to sort it out.

I’m a bit skeptical of the PTSD claim. Solitary confinement can be mentally arduous, but it has a long history in our prison system, so it’s not particularly unusual, and it doesn’t routinely drive people nuts. If Padilla were particularly vulnerable it could cause problems, but in that case I would expect it to lead to something more concrete than PTSD, which while real is vague enough that it strikes me as a second-choice diagnosis by a defense team that knew a more serious diagnosis stood no chance.

Anyway, it’s a sideshow. I also don’t think we tortured Padilla, as the defense claims. But the government’s treatment of Padilla has still been outrageous. Holding a U.S. citizen for more than three years without trial should offend everyone. And suddenly releasing him rather than face Supreme Court review of his detention — and failing to charge him with anything related to the alleged dirty-bomb plot — was both cynical and a tacit admission that the detention would not stand up to scrutiny.

It’s good that Padilla is getting a trial. If he’s guilty, he should be put away for a long time. But it should not have taken three years of legal pressure to secure such a basic right for a U.S. citizen. And the fact that so many Americans supported the government is downright disgraceful.

The PTSD debate is central to the defense’s motion to have the case dismissed outright because the government’s conduct has been so outrageous. I think they’re arguing on the wrong basis, relying on showing torture rather than simply noting the blatant unconstitutionality of imprisoning a citizen without trial. While I’d prefer to have a trial, I will fully understand if the judge agrees with the defense motion. It will be yet one more lesson that basic civil rights cannot be taken away by government fiat, and that trying to do so ends up harming security more than helping it.

I also find it interesting to compare our treatment of Padilla (and the political reaction to it) with the fate of the Egyptian blogger found guilty of criticizing Islam and Hosni Mubarak. Many of the same people who support holding Padilla manage to (rightly) oppose the treatment of the blogger. But who got treated better? At least the blogger was charged, tried and convicted in open court. He had a chance to challenge the evidence against him. And his lawyers are appealing the sentence. He wasn’t simply picked up by security agents and thrown into solitary confinement for three years based solely on the government’s say-so.

Padilla’s alleged crime (not the long-dropped “dirty bomb” accusation, but the ones he is facing trial for) is more serious than simply posting opinions to a blog, of course. But the key word there is “alleged.” The fact remains that Egypt — a country known for repression, torture and other heavy-handed tactics — treated their suspect far more in accord with American standards than we did Padilla. And that’s a sad commentary on how badly the president’s overreach on security matters has tarnished the proud legacy of freedom here.


This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 27th, 2007 and is filed under Law, News, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

5 Responses to “How far we have fallen”

  1. DosPeros Says:

    Sean – It is good to see you tacitly supporting the Patriot Act. After all, as Gonzalez points out:

    The Department of Justice is prosecuting this case in part because prosecutors and law enforcement agents were able to share information and use declassified FISA material from a multi-district intelligence investigation under the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. By tearing down the artificial wall that would have prevented this kind of investigation in the past, we’re able to bring terrorists to justice…This investigation has been underway for quite a while now – and has resulted in charges against Padilla, which he will now face in a court of law. If convicted of these charges, he could face a sentence of life in prison.

  2. Sean Aqui Says:

    Intelligence sharing has always been one of the less-controversial aspects of the Patriot Act. While some people ignorantly condemn the entire bill, most people who criticize “the Patriot Act” are referring to its more odious provisions.

  3. DosPeros Says:

    Really, I always thought that the violence done to the 4th Amendment visa vi “intelligence sharing” was one of the major objections to the Patriot Act. Oh well, maybe Judge Seidlin can head-up a new terrorist court — I’m sure he’d find merit in the post-traumatic-bush syndrome.

  4. Sean Aqui Says:

    Compared to some of the other provisions — like expanding warrantless searches, “sneak and peek” warrants, the library records provision, roving wiretaps, broad-net internet searches, administrative subpoenas and so on — the intelligence-sharing provision is somewhat tame. The controversy is more in the details than the principle. Some opponents have also argued that intelligence sharing was allowable under previous rules, so the Patriot Act provision is unnecessary.

  5. ME Says:

    “and it [solitary confinement] doesn’t routinely drive people nuts.”

    Yes, it does.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: