# Padilla "Confession" Extracted After Months of Brutal Torture **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 1, 2004, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114 "2004-06-01T18:32:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2004, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114/81 "2004-06-02T18:28:41Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Actually, i’m not sure that’s really a fair characterization of Cato. > \ Interesting - thanks for the info. So is the Hudson Institute now the leading conservative TT? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2004, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114/82 "2004-06-02T18:36:05Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > No one seems to think that the Executive has to try members of an enemy army before shooting them. And if the Executive can shoot them, then it can certainly hold them until the hostilities have ended. Out of curiosity, are you saying that the USG had the right to execute Padilla when he arrived @ O’Hare? If not, how does your argument in this situation work? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2004, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114/83 "2004-06-02T19:17:18Z")
I dug up some of my old posts in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=121566&page=2&pp=50&highlight=quirin) > [@](#): > > Here’s a little legal tidbit for the debate. In 1942, 8 German saboteurs were caught on American soil. One of the saboteurs was, most likely, a citizen of the United States. These saboteurs were tried and convicted by a military tribunal, and then filed an appeal that went to the United State’s Supreme Court. The defense argued that the President had no authority to, by Presidential Proclamation, order that these people didn’t have to be tried by a federal court, but could be tried in a military tribunal, and that certain Constitutional rights, like the rights to trial by jury, or to a Grand Jury indictment, did not apply to these saboteurs. They were considered unlawful combatants and, as such, were not afforded all the rights granted in the Constitution. It’s all in Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). > > Now, I think part of the logic and reasoning in Quirin is applicable to the administration’s actions. I don’t believe the United States is required to give every person it detains a jury trial, complete with all that entails. I have a bit of a problem getting my mind around the fact that non-citizens of Al Queda would be afforded the protections the Constitution grants to U.S. citizens, citizens that they wholesale slaughtered on September 11, 2001. And historically, I cannot imagine the requirement that any POW the US captured in any war, should get a jury trial. It’s dangerous and unworkable. > > Of course, when the enemy belligerent is an American citizen (although I would think that their actions act as in fact denouncement of their citizenship), the lines are much more blurry. I believe that if certain conditions are met, the President would have the power to order military tribunals to try even citizens of the United States, if they are acting as enemy combatants. Quirin again becomes a guidepost, because in that case, there was: 1) A Congressionally Declared War; 2) the President’s actions were specifically allowed by statute; 3) The Courts held some authority of review. > > In this case, Bush is missing/arguing against all three, which, in my view, makes his actions a violation of the Separation of Powers. Until Congress formally declares war, and grants Bush power to establish military tribunals “in a time of war.”, and Bush allows the Courts the power to review the Executive Branch’s determination of who is an “enemy combatant”, then Bush is acting in violation of the Constitution. However, if these pre-requisites are met, I have no problem with enemy combatants, even if they are United State’s citizens, being tried in military tribunals rather than in federal court. Bush has skipped some major steps in his grab for more power. > [@](#): > > That is the position this administration has taken in their latest brief; basically saying that the court system has no power to review the decisions of the Executive in this area. However, if you read my post, you would see that I agree with the Supreme Court in Quirin that held that the judiciary CAN and SHOULD review the determination that a person is an “enemy belligerent”, but allowing that determination to be made doesn’t mean that the person then gets all the rights under the Constitution. > > I agree that this kind of “war” is completely new, and we are left fumbling through old cases, old treaties, and old Conventions and we try and fit the current situation into them. It isn’t going to work. In America, we are at a crucial time of history in determining major issues regarding the powers of the 3 branchs of government. And the executive branch is off and running and trying to grab as much of it as it can, before the judiciary gets involved. > > But don’t think the International Community is in any better shape, because the Geneva Convention is really tough to apply in this case, and the Al Qaeda are not an internationally recogized organization, complete with uniforms, and a basis in land, etc. Until now, most groups that were like Al Qaeda were involved in Civil Wars in whatever country, but now AL Qaeda is entering the realm of an international war, and the treaties and conventions in place are ill equipped to deal with it too. and some quqotes from the _Quirin_ case: > [@](#): > > By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations7 and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. 8 The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals and > [@](#): > > But regardless of their merits, it [the government] also insists that petitioners must be denied access to the courts, both because they are enemy aliens or have entered our territory as enemy belligerents, and because the President’s Proclamation undertakes in terms to deny such access to the class of persons defined by the Proclamation, which aptly describes the character and conduct of petitioners. It is urged that if they are enemy aliens or if the Proclamation has force no court may afford the petitioners a hearing. But there is certainly nothing in the Proclamation to preclude access to the courts for determining its applicability to the particular case. And neither the Proclamation nor the fact that they are enemy aliens forecloses consideration by the courts of petitioners’ contentions that the Constitution and laws of the United States constitutionally enacted forbid their trial by military commission. Even if you accept _Quirin_ is applicable, it does not make this administration’s actions any less unconstitutional and reprehensible. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2004, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114/84 "2004-06-02T19:39:32Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Interesting - thanks for the info. So is the Hudson Institute now the leading conservative TT? I think the Heritage Foundation is probably the benchmark in terms of influence and financial backing. It is certainly quoted often in the media, and has considerable clout in Washington. The fact that it’s heavily supported by Richard Mellon Scaife should give you an idea of its politics. The Brookings Institution is arguably even more influential than Heritage, but in the current political climate i think that Brookings is more fairly described as centerist, even thought they are more conservative than i would like. Finally, i shouldn’t downplay too much the conservatism of the Cato Institute. Even though i stressed before that they are mainly “conservative” when it comes to economics, the consequence of such conservative economic policies is often the gutting or abolition of social programs that provide a measure of assistance to the less fortunate members of society. Almost all economic policies have social and cultural ramifications. The main problem for Cato and the other libertarian-type groups is that their long-time favorites, the Republicans, have now become their worst nightmare. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2004, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114/85 "2004-06-02T23:08:15Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally Posted by Apos_ > > There are numerous cases in this instance of people rotting in jail for years before getting any redress, hearing, or release. > > _Age Q replied with_ > Which is both tragic and true of the civilian courts, too. got any examples of US civilian court cases where folks were detained for 2 years w/o charges or access to lawyers, the outside world etc? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114/86 "2004-06-03T01:11:53Z")
Quirin applies in that it has an American who was not a member of the US military tried in the military justrice system. But, in contrast, the American was tried. Before that he was charged. The whole affair from arrest to sentence happened in months. There was no issue about the writ of habeas corpus. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114/87 "2004-06-03T03:38:00Z")
Let me join in here. First of all, I’m on the fence on this. On the one hand, my civil libertarian impulses recoils at the government being able to do this. On the other hand… It seems to me that the real problem here is that the law has not caught up with the times. Before the age of terrorism, we basically had sets of laws that applied to individuals, and codified agreeements between nations such as the Geneva Conventions. The rules of war give countries wide lattitude in attacking targets, executing certain prisoners, rules of evidence, and the like. Because it is recognized that the battlefield is not an antiseptic environment where rules of evidence can apply, and soldiers are not policemen who can take the time to read Miranda rights to suspects. So war is violent and somewhat indiscriminate. When soldiers of other nations are captured, they are treated as prisoners of war, because it is recognized that they are fighting on behalf of another power. When that power is defeated, the soldiers can be released because they are no longer a threat. On the other side of the coin, we can afford to be very strict about violating the rights of citizens, partly because they generally pose no threat to the state itself or to large numbers of people. We can afford to let many of the guilty go free to protect the innocent, because the consequences of this are not particularly severe at a national level. But terrorism is a whole 'nuther problem. First, suspected terrorists are not acting on behalf of a nation state. There is no one to demand surrender from, or to offer surrender. And if you capture them on a battlefield, it is extremely difficult to convict them in a court of law because there are no chains of evidence that can be tightly controlled, no impartial eyewitnesses, etc. So what do you do with them? Are they prisoners of war? If so, at what point can you release them? There will be no formal surrender. They aren’t in uniform, so can you execute them as spies? Probably not, because there is no nation they are spying for. And yet, you can’t just release them, because you know they’re just going to turn around and kill more Americans. And what do you do with American citizens that turn out to be terrorists? Again, are you going to drag each one through the legal system? What if the evidence against them is classified? Do you compromise national security? I don’t pretend to have the answers, but this issue is not anywhere near as black and white as either side tends to portray it. As for checks and balances, and what’s to stop the government from doing this to everyone… Are you forgetting that we live in Democracies? It seems to me there is already a ‘check’ in play here - Bush may lose the next election in part because of this. And if they started arresting people willy-nilly, you can bet that even ardent supporters would turn against them. As long as there are elections, there are safeguards against civil liberties being completely eroded. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114/88 "2004-06-03T03:56:25Z")
So again, we drop the rules of law and our rights when they become inconvient? Because that’s what this all boils down to. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114/89 "2004-06-03T04:56:41Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > And if they started arresting people willy-nilly, you can bet that even ardent supporters would turn against them. When someone corrupt enters into this power, I doubt if they would arrest people ‘willy nilly.’ It seems that the arrests would be very specifically targetted. ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114/90 "2004-06-03T05:26:42Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > It seems to me there is already a ‘check’ in play here - Bush may lose the next election in part because of this. And if they started arresting people willy-nilly, you can bet that even ardent supporters would turn against them. As long as there are elections, there are safeguards against civil liberties being completely eroded. Y’know, some people would say "they"ve ALREADY started arresting people willy-nilly (=with no, or no proved/public evidence) and NOW is the time to turn against “them”. I’m don’t know if I agree, but maybe. For that matter, yes, there are elections. But a government with the power to arrest anyone with no evidence might be able to influence them… ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114/91 "2004-06-03T06:17:50Z")
> [@](#): > > Y’know, some people would say "they"ve ALREADY started arresting people willy-nilly (=with no, or no proved/public evidence) and NOW is the time to turn against “them”. I’m don’t know if I agree, but maybe. Who would you count here? Padilla, and who else? > [@](#): > > For that matter, yes, there are elections. But a government with the power to arrest anyone with no evidence might be able to influence them… How? Arrest enough people to put a chilling effect on an election? You really think that’s a plausible scenario? Don’t get me wrong - I’m usually on the other side of this debate, arguing that government power will grow if not checked, and I’m pretty hard-core about it. I’m a pretty consistent civil libertarian. I’m just pointing out that the government DOES have a legitimate argument here - one worth seriously debating. We are facing a situation where none of our current laws apply very well, because they didn’t anticipate this type of war. ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114/92 "2004-06-03T06:50:59Z")
I don’t know who else. That’s why I didn’t say that they were, just that some people would say they were. Though if you agree Padilla is arrested ‘willy-nilly’, and the court upholds the government’s right to do it. I wasn’t imagining the government arresting all people who vote for the opposite party. But harassing vocal supporters, or the nephew of the guy who owns the company that make voting machines, or “disappearing” a security guard who caught some secret service men bugging the opposition’s election headquaters could all seem very tempting to an unscrupulous president. I don’t think GWB is that man, but if the power’s there someone’s going to be. I also see where you’re coming from about the new gray area. Think of WWII - Britain has a combined government during the war, which was basically, but which stepped down afterwards. AH got emergency powers, and that was the end of democracy. You need something to combat the terrorism? Maybe. But it needs more checks? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114/93 "2004-06-03T07:08:20Z")
Could be. I’m just saying it’s a debate worth having, without people one one side shouting the other side down as a bunch of nazis or a bunch of peaceniks who don’t care about security. We need to figure out what the right tradeoffs are, or what the costs are of taking a strictly civil libertarian stance. It’s an important issue, with dire consequences on both sides if we don’t get it right. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114/94 "2004-06-03T07:58:29Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Who would you count here? Padilla, and who else? You’re kidding, right? Arrested in 9/11 investigations: **1,200** [http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/2003/usa06022003.html](http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/2003/usa06022003.html) Arrested absconders from Muslim countries who were targeted to be kept in detention instead of deportation: **1,100** > **[DAWN - Opinion; June 24, 2003](https://www.dawn.com/news/1064703/dawn-opinion-june-24-2003)** > > The cost of trusting the general By Imran Khan GENERAL Musharraf’s defence for hanging on to power is based on his... Arrested based on the new entry system: **1,400** Attorney General Prepared Remarks On The National Security, Entry-Exit Registration System, June 6, 2002 [http://www.usdoj.gov:80/ag/speeches/2002/060502agpreparedremarks.htm](http://www.usdoj.gov:80/ag/speeches/2002/060502agpreparedremarks.htm) Detained during Special Registration: **2,783** AP June 16, 2003 [http://www.gwinnettdailyonline.com/GDP/archive/articleF0B6E08BA3844FA49C67596F11BA1CA0.asp](http://www.gwinnettdailyonline.com/GDP/archive/articleF0B6E08BA3844FA49C67596F11BA1CA0.asp) And this is just what we know of, culled from various official sources… On November 8, 2001, facing criticism that it had arrested so many people but had charged none with any terrorist-related crimes, the Justice Department simply announced that it will not issue a tally of its detentions. [U.S. to Stop Issuing Detention Tallies](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A64308-2001Nov8¬Found=true) Washington Post, November 9, 2001 On April 22, 2002, Ashcroft issued an interim regulation forbidding any state or county jail from releasing information about INS detainees housed in their facilities. [http://www.ailf.org/lac/lac\_otherresources\_execbranchactions.asp](http://www.ailf.org/lac/lac_otherresources_execbranchactions.asp) I wouldn’t say “willy-nilly” though. IMO, **SimonX** is correct to say “targetted”. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114/95 "2004-06-03T08:04:51Z")
**annaplurabelle** : When I said, “Padilla, and who else?” I didn’t mean to imply that there were no others. I literally was asking who all the people were. Thank you for providing some links. Unfortunately, it’s 2AM and I’ve got to work in the morning, so I’ll look at it tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![Yissnakk\_Lives](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Yissnakk\_Lives](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yissnakk_Lives)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114/96 "2004-06-03T10:23:53Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > Ben Franklin would say I deserve neither safety no liberty. He actually said “Those who would trade Liberty for Security deserve neither Liberty or Security” (or something very close…) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114/97 "2004-06-03T10:36:50Z")
> [@Mhendo](#): > > …the consequence of such conservative economic policies is often the gutting or abolition of social programs that provide a measure of assistance to the less fortunate members of society. I think you should have stopped while you were ahead. Cato (and libertarians generally) equally oppose social programs that benefit the rich, like corporate welfare, foreign aid, pork barrel spending, and so forth. They also oppose special legislative favor for the wealthy, as well as such power-grab tools as eminent domain and asset forfeiture. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114/98 "2004-06-03T12:09:27Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > […sigh…] I wish the vaunted intellects at Straight Dope would learn the difference between parody and satire. Well perhaps you should _educate_ instead of sighing and making unexplained wistful comments. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114/99 "2004-06-03T14:39:19Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > So again, we drop the rules of law and our rights when they become inconvient? The flip side is this: the rule of law and our rights might be getting us killed. I say “might” because I really would like to believe that a slight rights rollback will ultimately be unnecessary. Here’s how I look at it – taking our respective viewpoints together, there are two enemies looming on the horizon: terrorists, both foreign and domestic; and our government. We probably differ on which one is the greater threat. Personally, I think the fundamental gist of your stance is correct – the government absolutely must be held in some kind of check. What I don’t know is how you rate the relative dangers of terrorism versus dangers of the government. Against which should the greater counters be adminstered? That is where our opinions likely differ most. I don’t worry so much about repeat 9-11s as isolated incidents. What I worry about is a nation in which terrorism becomes a commonplace and trusted method of encouraging societal change. I worry that extremists of all stripes will begin to think that _terrorism works_ – that indeed, crime pays. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > We need to figure out what the right tradeoffs are, or what the costs are of taking a strictly civil libertarian stance. It’s an important issue, with dire consequences on both sides if we don’t get it right. Well said. I can’t help but be convinced that trade-offs of some kind will have to be made. I do believe that trade-offs can be relatively mild, in that nothing would change for all but a few dozen people nationwide. I’m not convinced that a sled ride down a slippery slope is the only consequence of a slight rights-for-security trade. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114/100 "2004-06-03T15:15:27Z")
What are the odds of being killed or injured do to terrorism? 1:? How does this rank against say homicide or auto accidents? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/padilla-confession-extracted-after-months-of-brutal-torture/248114.md?page=6)