How U.S. Interrogators Destroyed the Mind of Jose Padilla

By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!
Posted on August 17, 2007, Printed on August 17, 2007

http://www.alternet.org/story/59958/


On Thursday, the jury in the Jose Padilla terror trial has found the American citizen guilty of conspiracy to support Islamic terrorism overseas. His sentencing is set for December 5 and he faces possible life in prison.

The FBI initially arrested him in Chicago in 2002 after he got off a plane from Europe. For a month he was held as a material witness. Then Attorney General John Ashcroft made a dramatic announcement -- the U.S. government had disrupted an al-Qaeda plot to set off nuclear dirty bombs inside the United States. At the center of the plot, Ashcroft alleged, was Padilla.

President Bush then classified Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant, stripping him of all his rights. He was transferred to a Navy brig in South Carolina where he was held in extreme isolation for forty three months.

The Christian Science Monitor reported: "Padilla's cell measured nine feet by seven feet. The windows were covered over… He had no pillow. No sheet. No clock. No calendar. No radio. No television. No telephone calls. No visitors. Even Padilla's lawyer was prevented from seeing him for nearly two years."

According to his attorneys, Padilla was routinely tortured in ways designed to cause pain, anguish, depression and ultimately the loss of will to live.

His lawyers have claimed that Padilla was forced to take LSD and PCP to act as a sort of truth serum during his interrogations.

Up until last year the Bush administration maintained it had the legal right to hold Padilla without charge forever. But when faced with a Supreme Court challenge, President Bush transferred Padila out of military custody to face criminal conspiracy charges.

On January 3, 2006 the government charged him and two others with criminal conspiracy. The government claims Padilla, along with his mentor, Adham Amin Hassoun, and Hassoun's colleague, Kifah Wael Jayyousi, conspired to commit murder abroad and to provide material support toward that goal.

Since May the men have been on trial in Miami. According to the Miami Herald, the overall case against Padilla is riddled with circumstantial evidence. Much of the case is built around an alleged form Padilla filled out to attend an al-Qaeda training camp.

Prosecutors have no introduced no evidence of personal involvement by Padilla in planning or carrying out any violent acts. There is no mention of Padilla -- plotting to set off a dirty bomb.

Questions have also been raised about whether Padilla was mentally fit to stand trial. His lawyers and family say he has become clearly mentally ill after being held in isolation.

Amy Goodman is one of the last true investigative journalists left in America. What they did to Jose Padilla is a crime against humanity.

How U.S. Interrogators Destroyed the Mind of Jose Padilla

By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!
Posted on August 17, 2007, Printed on August 17, 2007

http://www.alternet.org/story/59958/


On Thursday, the jury in the Jose Padilla terror trial has found the American citizen guilty of conspiracy to support Islamic terrorism overseas. His sentencing is set for December 5 and he faces possible life in prison.

LSD as truth serum. Clearly they've never had a hit.
The FBI initially arrested him in Chicago in 2002 after he got off a plane from Europe. For a month he was held as a material witness. Then Attorney General John Ashcroft made a dramatic announcement -- the U.S. government had disrupted an al-Qaeda plot to set off nuclear dirty bombs inside the United States. At the center of the plot, Ashcroft alleged, was Padilla.

President Bush then classified Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant, stripping him of all his rights. He was transferred to a Navy brig in South Carolina where he was held in extreme isolation for forty three months.

The Christian Science Monitor reported: "Padilla's cell measured nine feet by seven feet. The windows were covered over… He had no pillow. No sheet. No clock. No calendar. No radio. No television. No telephone calls. No visitors. Even Padilla's lawyer was prevented from seeing him for nearly two years."

According to his attorneys, Padilla was routinely tortured in ways designed to cause pain, anguish, depression and ultimately the loss of will to live.

His lawyers have claimed that Padilla was forced to take LSD and PCP to act as a sort of truth serum during his interrogations.

Up until last year the Bush administration maintained it had the legal right to hold Padilla without charge forever. But when faced with a Supreme Court challenge, President Bush transferred Padila out of military custody to face criminal conspiracy charges.

On January 3, 2006 the government charged him and two others with criminal conspiracy. The government claims Padilla, along with his mentor, Adham Amin Hassoun, and Hassoun's colleague, Kifah Wael Jayyousi, conspired to commit murder abroad and to provide material support toward that goal.

Since May the men have been on trial in Miami. According to the Miami Herald, the overall case against Padilla is riddled with circumstantial evidence. Much of the case is built around an alleged form Padilla filled out to attend an al-Qaeda training camp.

Prosecutors have no introduced no evidence of personal involvement by Padilla in planning or carrying out any violent acts. There is no mention of Padilla -- plotting to set off a dirty bomb.

Questions have also been raised about whether Padilla was mentally fit to stand trial. His lawyers and family say he has become clearly mentally ill after being held in isolation.

And the 'evidence' that he was tortured consists of ......... the defence lawyers said so.
Is there a smiley for lmao?

LSD as truth serum. Clearly they've never had a hit.

And the 'evidence' that he was tortured consists of ......... the defence lawyers said so.


This coming from the guy who doesn't understand what 6th graders do (or would, if they were still taught civics) that the Constitution limits the power of the government.

By the way, the word is "defense", Einstein. :rolleyes:

By the way, the word is "defense", Einstein. :rolleyes:
It can be spelt either way. "Defence" is usually the British spelling.

What they did to Jose Padilla is a crime against humanity.
No, it's a crime against one human. Leave your meaningless hyperbole at the door.

This coming from the guy who doesn't understand what 6th graders do (or would, if they were still taught civics) that the Constitution limits the power of the government.

By the way, the word is "defense", Einstein. :rolleyes:


Should we bother waiting for you to produce the list of constitutional scholars that support the notion that the constitution is a document that deals with how the US gov't deals with the everyone in the world?

Or is that another challenge where drama fails to offer anything more than............ pffffffft and to to filed under More of drama's Quaint Notions?

Reduced to worrying about my spelling and can't even get that right? What's it like to be dramabum?

It can be spelt either way. "Defence" is usually the British spelling.

The spell check did not agree that is a correct spelling.

on edit:
I just checked with a friend of mine in England and he says you are wrong.

Should we bother waiting for you to produce the list of constitutional scholars that support the notion that the constitution is a document that deals with how the US gov't deals with the everyone in the world?

:lolhit:

Why don't you try actually reading the document Waldo?

"Constitutional Scholars" usually leave such basic issues to grade school teachers. If you want a name, try Bruce Fein.

Anyone who bothers to put in the effort and has elementary school level reading comprehension will understand what it says... but I guess that explains why you do not understand the Constitution.

The spell check did not agree that is a correct spelling.

on edit:
I just checked with a friend of mine in England and he says you are wrong.
Wesbster (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defence) and Oxford (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/defence?view=uk) dictionaries both agree with me.

Wesbster (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defence) and Oxford (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/defence?view=uk) dictionaries both agree with me.
or..

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/d/d0090600.html

The spell check did not agree that is a correct spelling.

on edit:
I just checked with a friend of mine in England and he says you are wrong.

Your friend is as smart as you.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defence

The UK Ministry of Defence can be found here
http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/home

you might as well say harvey the rabbit supports your postion. unless you tell us where we can find it it's a meaningless assertion.

As well as the UK Ministry of Defence (http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/home).

dharmabum, that friend of yours in England isn't American by any chance, is he?

dharmabum, that friend of yours in England isn't American by any chance, is he?
Whatever his "friend's" nationality, we're only guaranteed one absolute here - he's a total moron ipso facto.

Padilla's conviction was based on secret evidence from another Gitmo prisoner that they tortured to get the evidence?????

And the court never met the witness nor did they hear the evidence and Padilla was refused the right to face his accuser?

Sounds legal to me ... ROTFLMAO

Maybe some day they'll hold traffic court the same way or convict your kid and give him life in prison for drug charges, based on secret evidence that was tortured out of a drug dealer.

It's like clockwork, anyone who is accused of or convicted of terrorism by the US Government will be staunchly defended by certain people in our society, always those of a left wing nature.

It's like clockwork, anyone who is accused of or convicted of terrorism by the US Government will be staunchly defended by certain people in our society, always those of a left wing nature.
Of course, based on some internal propensity to strictly (beyond all reasonable means, that is) apply an overly literal (and needlessly complex) interpretation of the constitution (or law, in general) when it completely flies in the face of logic to do so. Hell, half the time when I’m talking to one, I picture a geeky, grandiloquent CPA waxing on about the uniform tax code (or some such shit) while emphatically making his "point" by pushing his taped glasses to his forehead via his index finger. Fuckin' nerds.

::In a whiny voice:: Did Padilla actually "touch" the paperwork!?!?!?

Assholes.

It's like clockwork, anyone who is accused of or convicted of terrorism by the US Government will be staunchly defended by certain people in our society, always those of a left wing nature.

Like clockwork, any American citizen whose rights are violated by the US Government will be staunchly defended by certain people in our society, always those on the Left........while those on the Right will complain about the people of a left wing nature expecting the Government to obey the Constitution.

Like clockwork, any American citizen whose rights are violated by the US Government will be staunchly defended by certain people in our society, always those on the Left.........
And sometimes even after he's found guilty.

unless you happen to be a US Serviceman accused of killing an Iraqi, then you are guilty right away, and when you are found to not be guilty those left wingers who threw you under the bus will pretend they never said anything in the first place.

Quite the champions of "justice", aren't they?

Does it not concern anyone that this was an American citizen who faced years of solitary confinement, no access to a lawyer, and torture?

Seems what we did to this American citizen is exactly what we condemn other countries (Cuba, China, Iran, etc) for! Is this America????

And Jose Padilla was never convicted of the "crime" he was allegedly arrested for.

Again, the day he joined Al Qeada is the day he gave the constitution the bird.

Again, the day he joined Al Qeada is the day he gave the constitution the bird.


Aren't you putting the cart a bit before the horse here? The Constitution is supposed to provide protections to its citizens when they are accused of a crime. You're saying here that the fact that he's guilty means the government didn't have to afford him those protections in the first place, and that's not how it's supposed to work.

You may say that the Constitution was never meant to protect terrorists, and I'll say that it's meant to protect all of us so we can properly find out who the terrorists really are.

The spell check did not agree that is a correct spelling.
I just checked with a friend of mine in England and he says you are wrong.

In the United States, it is spelled 'Defense'.
e.g.;
http://www.defenselink.mil/

In England, it's 'Defence':
http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/home

In Australia, they spell it 'Defence' as well.
e.g.; http://www.defence.gov.au/index.htm

Dharmabum, you know that I am rarely one to argue or disagree, but it appears that your friend in England might just be wrong, sir.

Give him a jingle, will you? Set him straight before he suffers some sort of embarrassment about his command of the English language.

:cool:

And Jose Padilla was never convicted of the "crime" he was allegedly arrested for.
It's immaterial. They cited him for criminal conspiracy, and guess what, "truth" - he was convicted.

I don't give a shit if that piece of human offal "suffered" at the hands of the very government he wanted to do in - he WAS an "enemy combatant", thus it was totally reasonable to strip him of his rights. As Trav said - he gave his American "rights" the bird when he signed up for Al Qaeda.

Aren't you putting the cart a bit before the horse here? The Constitution is supposed to provide protections to its citizens when they are accused of a crime. You're saying here that the fact that he's guilty means the government didn't have to afford him those protections in the first place, and that's not how it's supposed to work.

You may say that the Constitution was never meant to protect terrorists, and I'll say that it's meant to protect all of us so we can properly find out who the terrorists really are.
Exactly. To add to that, if the mere accusation of terrorism is enough to deny someone his constitutional rights, law enforcement can arrest and imprison ANYONE without ever allowing him an attorney or a trial.

I don't give a shit if that piece of human offal "suffered" at the hands of the very government he wanted to do in - he WAS an "enemy combatant", thus it was totally reasonable to strip him of his rights. As Trav said - he gave his American "rights" the bird when he signed up for Al Qaeda.Ya know, for someone who rants as much as you do about abusive cops you sure are quick to approve a massive broadening of the state's police powers.To add to that, if the mere accusation of terrorism is enough to deny someone his constitutional rights, law enforcement can arrest and imprison ANYONE without ever allowing him an attorney or a trial.
This is exactly right.

I'm amazed that otherwise intelligent people fail to see this for what it is.

Franz Kafka's The Trial (http://www.online-literature.com/franz-kafka/the-trial/1/) is available online for those who could use a refresher.

I don't give a shit if that piece of human offal "suffered" at the hands of the very government he wanted to do in - he WAS an "enemy combatant", thus it was totally reasonable to strip him of his rights. As Trav said - he gave his American "rights" the bird when he signed up for Al Qaeda.

Interestingly, this country was founded by people who took up arms against their government. Traitors all. They then set about creating a society founded on a document that delineates a set of basic human rights and promises to uphold those rights. Now you're saying that it's ok for this society founded on rights for all, regardless of race creed or color, to deny those rights to certain "others", by simply labeling them as traitors.

Exactly. To add to that, if the mere accusation of terrorism is enough to deny someone his constitutional rights, law enforcement can arrest and imprison ANYONE without ever allowing him an attorney or a trial.

WELL SAID!! Prae and Trav..just stop and think about this for a minute.

just stop and think about it. This is not a left or right wing issue.

this country was founded by people who took up arms against their government. Traitors all. They then set about creating a society founded on a document that delineates a set of basic human rights and promises to uphold those rights. Now you're saying that it's ok for this society founded on rights for all, regardless of race creed or color, to deny those rights to certain "others", by simply labeling them as traitors.


They can't help it.

They're dedicated little Rightwing drones; the type of useful idiots that the Government requires in order to fully subjugate the People.

They are too blind --or just too stupid-- to see that if the Government is given the right to strip some people -for arbitrary reasons- of their rights, it also might at some future point in time place them or someone they know in the position of being stripped of their rights in the same way.

Their extreme Reichwing partisanship blinds them to the ramifications of excusing this sort of behavior on the part of their Government.

Sad.

Prae and Trav..just stop and think about this for a minute.


Nope. Won't happen.

That is the one thing that good little conservative drones are trained to NEVER do..........to stop and THINK about what they're agreeing to the Government doing to them.

Again, the day he joined Al Qeada is the day he gave the constitution the bird.


The day Padilla became a muslim, he made Trav's shit list.

Does it not concern anyone that this was an American citizen who faced years of solitary confinement, no access to a lawyer, and torture?

Seems what we did to this American citizen is exactly what we condemn other countries (Cuba, China, Iran, etc) for! Is this America????

And Jose Padilla was never convicted of the "crime" he was allegedly arrested for.

Of course the Reichwing does not care. They do not give two shits about the Constitution, Rights or anything else except "their" political party maintaining power at all costs. To the conservative mind, the ends always justify the means, even when you don't get the ends you were hoping for.

Nope. Won't happen.

That is the one thing that good little conservative drones are trained to NEVER do..........to stop and THINK about what they're agreeing to the Government doing to them.

They behave exactly as George Lakoff predicts based upon the "strict father" mentality of conservatives. They do desperately need to have that "strict father" in the form of government that they will excuse and defend shredding the Constitution if only the government will tell them they are safer and they will never, ever bother to stop and think about it themselves for two seconds.

Exactly. To add to that, if the mere accusation of terrorism is enough to deny someone his constitutional rights, law enforcement can arrest and imprison ANYONE without ever allowing him an attorney or a trial.
I agree, it does set a bad precedent - I'm just pissed off when I think that some people here are more willing to let the Padilla types off the hook by twisting his situation into one where, "OMG! Look at what our government did to poor ole Jose!!!" (hence, the INCREDIBLE leap in logic - ) "Next thing you know, my fellow liberals, they're gonna be accusing you of terrorism for not paying dinner check."

And you accuse the right of fear mongering. Talk about your classic slippery slope argument......I mean, c'mon, guys - your supposition here is absurd. Jose Padilla is / was a terrorist sympathizer / conspirator, and all the sudden it's hands across America for this total piece of shit because his "rights" were violated (despite him being labeled (accurately, I might add) as an "enemy combatant").

I understand your point, I just think the precedent YOU'RE setting could do more damage than throwing someone you know to be guilty of bad shit in a can to rot like the fuckball he is.

I'm already on record -- not in my name

F'n bastards

Aren't you putting the cart a bit before the horse here? The Constitution is supposed to provide protections to its citizens when they are accused of a crime. You're saying here that the fact that he's guilty means the government didn't have to afford him those protections in the first place, and that's not how it's supposed to work.

You may say that the Constitution was never meant to protect terrorists, and I'll say that it's meant to protect all of us so we can properly find out who the terrorists really are.

again, the day he joined al qeada and flew to pakistan to train he gave up his rights as an American Citizen.

Nope, he did not ever give up his rights as an American citizen. Did you ever take Civics or American Government in high school? Is that even offerred in high school any more??? Had you taken such courses you would know the answer to that stupid comment already.

I understand he did not give them up, how was he to come back in and plant the dirty bomb if he wasnt a citizen? that was his biggest strength.

I agree, it does set a bad precedent - I'm just pissed off when I think that some people here are more willing to let the Padilla types off the hook by twisting his situation into one where, "OMG! Look at what our government did to poor ole Jose!!!" (hence, the INCREDIBLE leap in logic - ) "Next thing you know, my fellow liberals, they're gonna be accusing you of terrorism for not paying dinner check."

And you accuse the right of fear mongering. Talk about your classic slippery slope argument......I mean, c'mon, guys - your supposition here is absurd. Jose Padilla is / was a terrorist sympathizer / conspirator, and all the sudden it's hands across America for this total piece of shit because his "rights" were violated (despite him being labeled (accurately, I might add) as an "enemy combatant").

I don't care if he is/was/wanted to be a terrorist -


He still reserves the right to knowing what charges have been brought against him

He still reserves the right to legal representation

He still reserves the right to a fair and speedy trial

He still reserves the right to not be tortured


As much as this situation may gall you, once our government abrogates those rights to its citizens and detainees, we've lost our moral high ground to the entire world.

In short, we become the world's biggest lying, two-faced, self-serving hypocrites. I'd rather not, thankyouverymuch.

I understand your point, I just think the precedent YOU'RE setting could do more damage than throwing someone you know to be guilty of bad shit in a can to rot like the fuckball he is.

I'm curious what you think about the OJ Simpson situation? And Robert Blake? Should they have deserved a trial, a lawyer, the right not to be tortured? Or is it just suspected terrorists that you would strip of Constitutional rights?

As disgusted as I was/am with the outcomes of those trials, and as pro-death penalty as I am, I still feel that they deserved the rights given us by our Constitution. In point of fact, I believe the jurors failed us in those situations, but that's how it goes here in the land of the free and the home of the wife murderers. Sometimes you win; sometimes you lose, but every one of us should get the same fair shake.

but that's how it goes here in the land of the free and the home of the wife murderers.

*grin*

No one ever proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Padilla was Al-Queda or a terrorist.

Bush claimed Padilla was and FOX news, CNN, Rush, Ann, Bill and Sean swore to it which was good enough for the average knuckle-dragging, flat-earther, NASCAR bubba, wingnut, Xtian whack-job.

And apparently, it still is.

I agree, it does set a bad precedent - I'm just pissed off when I think that some people here are more willing to let the Padilla types off the hook by twisting his situation into one where, "OMG! Look at what our government did to poor ole Jose!!!" (hence, the INCREDIBLE leap in logic - ) "Next thing you know, my fellow liberals, they're gonna be accusing you of terrorism for not paying dinner check."

And you accuse the right of fear mongering. Talk about your classic slippery slope argument......I mean, c'mon, guys - your supposition here is absurd. Jose Padilla is / was a terrorist sympathizer / conspirator, and all the sudden it's hands across America for this total piece of shit because his "rights" were violated (despite him being labeled (accurately, I might add) as an "enemy combatant").

I understand your point, I just think the precedent YOU'RE setting could do more damage than throwing someone you know to be guilty of bad shit in a can to rot like the fuckball he is.We can't assume that someone's guilty of terrorism just because he's accused of it. The whole point of giving someone a trial is to determine that guilt or innocence. Without a trial or access to an attorney, I can guarantee you that there will be innocent people locked up for indefinite periods of time. It's already happened with prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. What you're proposing would cause the same to happen to US citizens.

I don't care if he is/was/wanted to be a terrorist -
Well, you and I disagree on that point - I do care. Greatly.

But the good news is you're not alone.....I firmly believe that most liberals are in your court.
He still reserves the right to knowing what charges have been brought against him
Check.
He still reserves the right to legal representation
Check.
He still reserves the right to a fair and speedy trial
Check.
He still reserves the right to not be tortured

Well, our idea of what "torture" is differs greatly from the rest of the world, but with that said, I agree. As far as I'm concerned, we put the coq au van in his privileged Mexican mouth by NOT torturing him. Ooooooh, "dark rooms" and "small cells" - call the morality police! Only in America could we actually be accused "destroying the mind" of a fucking slimeball, who incidentally, was guilty, but let's not focus on that.....for we've got an entire legal system to impugn. Why, you ask??? Well, because of ONE terrorist who just so happened to be a citizen, and not to mention, a member of Al Qaeda.

Herein lies the rub - we're told that we should uphold constitutional law (despite the president's declaration), give this man a trial, 3 squares a day, and legal representation, but when we do, invariably we're told (by the same people arguing for the aforementioned "rights" above) things like, "well, we all know a conviction is guaranteed with this justice system....".

I mean, it's simply baffling.

Oh, and the allegations of "torture" brought on by his lawyers just so happen to involve the government forcibly introducing LSD and PCP to Padilla's system because (and this is the best part) we all know they're FAR more effective eliciting the truth than Sodium Pentothal is. Boy, oh boy - for a government that gets constantly accused of "torturing" so many people, we sure suck at it. We're goddamned amateurs, I tell ya....
As much as this situation may gall you, once our government abrogates those rights to its citizens and detainees, we've lost our moral high ground to the entire world.

In short, we become the world's biggest lying, two-faced, self-serving hypocrites.
Because of that!?
I'm curious what you think about the OJ Simpson situation? And Robert Blake? Should they have deserved a trial, a lawyer, the right not to be tortured? Or is it just suspected terrorists that you would strip of Constitutional rights?
The latter, and I think it's fairly safe to say that Padilla wasn't just a "suspected" terrorist; he was one.
Sometimes you win; sometimes you lose, but every one of us should get the same fair shake.
I agree - they should be given a fair trial and hung immediately afterwards. You know, this sure was a lot of trouble for the one legal Mexican we have residing in North America. I'll bet his El Camino sported a Mexican AND Iranian flag on the bumper. The real kicker is, they ALL want American rights, don't they? Hmmmm. I'm sold, let's give 'em up.