Padilla "Confession" Extracted After Months of Brutal Torture

[mhendo]

@Liberal

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.

Never said they didn’t. And i support many of their positions on these issues. The recent wave of eminent domain property confiscations undertaken to serve private interests (shopping malls, etc.) in this country is an absolute scandal. (I think we’ve discussed the issue on these Boards before; those interested can read about some of the most egregious instances here.

The point that i was trying to make is that i believe that society is actually better off when we have mechanisms in place to help the less forutnate, and i also believe that such mechanisms are often usefully coordinated by the government. I made very clear in my earlier post that i have social democratic tendencies, so don’t act as if i’m being disingenuous. Just because i happen to disagree with some libertarian positions doesn’t mean that i have to disagree with all of them, and just because i agree with some, doesn’t mean that i have to agree with all of them either.

The fact remains that, in a society that has “social programs” for the rich and for the poor, the latter will be most devastatingly affected by the curtailment of their programs. I don’t think that there’s anything especially problematic with wanting to get rid of government handouts for the rich, while wanting to maintain some of them for the poor. I know that you as a libertarian probably believe otherwise, but i think this is one instance where nominal equality under the law actually serves to penalize the poor even further.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids both rich and poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

Anatole France

[bordelond]

@SimonX

What are the odds of being killed or injured do to terrorism?

1:?
How does this rank against say homicide or auto accidents?

I’m looking at it from a completely different angle:

@bordelond

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.

[annaplurabelle]

@Sam Stone

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.

In that case, sorry for the snippy tone.

One thing to note if you do reply - these targetted arrests/detentions don’t compare, strictly speaking, to the Padilla case.

If you want more specific examples, consider the cases of Iyam Faris and Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri:

"In March 2003, federal prosecutors secretly arrested the 34-year-old Faris, a naturalized US citizen from Kashmir accused of plotting to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge and derail a train in Washington, DC, held him incommunicado for two months, and then made him an offer: he could cop a plea and cooperate with the FBI, or they would designate him an enemy combatant. Faced with disappearing into the black hole of indefinite military detention, he accepted the certainty of a plea bargain and a long sentence.

Faris’s lawyer, J. Frederick Sinclair (himself a former federal prosecutor), cooperated with prosecutors to draft a plea agreement in which Faris pled guilty to “material support of terrorism,” signed a five-page “statement of facts” regarding the alleged plot, and waived all rights to obtain his case records under the Freedom of Information Act or to appeal his sentence or conviction. These waivers make it nearly impossible for anyone to determine whether the statement Faris signed is true. Indeed, Faris told interrogators in June that the “facts” were a lie. Jail authorities then medicated him with antidepressants and antipsychotics.

Nevertheless, Faris stood up during his sentencing hearing in October to insist that he had pled guilty because of pressure by prosecutors and federal agents. He was sentenced to 20 years.

Within days of announcing Faris’s plea bargain, the Justice Department showed what happens to those who refuse to cooperate. Qatari student Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, accused of lying to the FBI and engaging in allegedly terrorist-related credit-card fraud, tried to call the prosecutors’ bluff by pleading not guilty, presumably believing he would be able to defend himself successfully before a jury of ordinary Americans in a public trial. His lawyer, Lawrence Lustig, was optimistic, telling the New York Times that he and his client “thought he had a powerful defense.”

But one month before al-Marri’s scheduled trial, the Justice Department announced that “national security interests” required that he be held as an enemy combatant. He is now in military custody, with no access to his lawyer.

This pair of cases illustrates how prosecutors can use the threat of enemy-combatant detention to condition a prisoner’s access to the civilian justice system upon the prisoner’s agreement to plead guilty and read a government script. What kind of trial is it when the alternative to going along with the script is rotting in an enemy-combatant twilight zone? Before 9/11, prosecutors were assumed to have no such power over anyone, either American citizens or foreign nationals."

Note that al-Marri was detained for 1 year as a material witness prior to being charged. He is currently held in the same Charleston brig as Padilla.

There are others…

[PatriotX]

@bordelond

I’m looking at it from a completely different angle:

SO the quantity of mayhem, death and destruction, potential and otherwise, has no bearing on your thoughts?

It seemed you were concerned that a new threat to American safety would develop. I’m just asking how grave of a threat is it that you’re talking about. How does the threat of terrorism becoming a commonplace and trusted method of encouraging societal change stack up against other, currently tolerated threats to our safety?

[bordelond]

@SimonX

So the quantity of mayhem, death and destruction, potential and otherwise, has no bearing on your thoughts?

It does, but not in the same way as you, I don’t think. I’m not buying a comparison between terrorism and death by auto accidents, say. I’m not yet ready to accept terrorism as an unavoidable risk of living in the 21st century.

And yet I can accept that death by criminal activity (say, a mugging or a random shooting) is a valid risk of living in America today. There is a difference to me – random criminals are not trying to effect the policy of nations.

@SimonX

It seemed you were concerned that a new threat to American safety would develop. I’m just asking how grave of a threat is it that you’re talking about. How does the threat of terrorism becoming a commonplace and trusted method of encouraging societal change stack up against other, currently tolerated threats to our safety?

In deciding which course to follow, I’m not regarding terrorism so much as a bodily threat to individuals (even though it is). For a society, there’s more to lose than the lives of individuals. I’m looking at the proliferation of global terrorism as a threat to the our way of life. I’m worried about the advent of a world in which popular representation is dead everywhere, and in which no-conscience thugs regard the various nations of the world as so many marionettes.

That prospect, for me, easily trumps any other tolerated threats to our safety. YMMV.

[monstro]

@bordeland

I’m looking at the proliferation of global terrorism as a threat to the our way of life. I’m worried about the advent of a world in which popular representation is dead everywhere, and in which no-conscience thugs regard the various nations of the world as so many marionettes.

If fear and paranoia are now going to determine the course of this country’s internal and external policies, then we are already a damn marionette.

I’m worried that supposedly intelligent people are willing to trust that their government will break the rules for the right reason. IMHO, once we give the government permission to break a single rule, then we’ve given them the power to break all of them. And then all that talk about “preserving our way of life” will be so much horseshit.

If the Feds blow their chance to charge Padilla with an actual crime*, then Al-Queda wins and it will be us that loses.

*They can’t hold him indefinitely and forever, right?

[Squink]

@SimonX

What are the odds of being killed or injured do to terrorism?
1:?
How does this rank against say homicide or auto accidents?

In 2001, Americans were 10 times as likely to be killed by septicemia than at the hands of a terrorist.

[Fear_Itself]

@bordelond

I’m not yet ready to accept terrorism as an unavoidable risk of living in the 21st century.

And I am not ready to accept compromise of individual liberty as an unavoidable consequence of the war on terrorism.

[PatriotX]

@bordelond

It does, but not in the same way as you, I don’t think. I’m not buying a comparison between terrorism and death by auto accidents, say. I’m not yet ready to accept terrorism as an unavoidable risk of living in the 21st century.

‘Terrorism’ no more likely to be wiped out than crime. It’s not a new phenom. Been around since there were people. It’s a risk of living in any century.

@bordelond

And yet I can accept that death by criminal activity (say, a mugging or a random shooting) is a valid risk of living in America today. There is a difference to me – random criminals are not trying to effect the policy of nations.

Doesn’t make much difference as to the effect- dead is dead regardless.

@bordelond

In deciding which course to follow, I’m not regarding terrorism so much as a bodily threat to individuals (even though it is). For a society, there’s more to lose than the lives of individuals. I’m looking at the proliferation of global terrorism as a threat to the our way of life.

To preseve our way of life your willing to change it. And your willing to change it in response to the actions of terrorists. Making these sorts of changes, where the gov is goven a pass on abiding by the ususal Constitutional restrictions of its power, is the tantamount to allowing terrorists to influence policy.

The threat to our way of life is fear itself.

@bordelond

I’m worried about the advent of a world in which popular representation is dead everywhere, and in which no-conscience thugs regard the various nations of the world as so many marionettes.
That prospect, for me, easily trumps any other tolerated threats to our safety. YMMV.

I’m worried about the advent of a world in which popular representation is dead everywhere, and in which no-conscience thugs regard the various nations of the world as so many marionettes too. Except that i’m worried about no-conscience thugs doing so from public office. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but one day a corrupt politician will come to power. We owe it to future Americans to preserve Liberty even at the cost of lives.
Statiscally, it would seem that terrorism represents relatively little threat to the safety of the populace.
It’s the fear of terrorism that gives terrorists their leverage. W/o that fear, they’ve no way to influence policy.

[bordelond]

@monstro

IMHO, once we give the government permission to break a single rule, then we’ve given them the power to break all of them. And then all that talk about “preserving our way of life” will be so much horseshit.

Your points are well taken. I am not yet convinced of the “break one–break them all” sequitir, though. That said, the government can’t legitimately push the envelope too much further AFAIC.

Also, at the end of the day, the current Powers that Be can be voted out. At the moment, that gives me some peace. I can’t think of a plausible, non-drastic way corrupt politicians can rescind the vote within the span of four – or even eight – years.

[Zakalwe]

@monstro

*They can’t hold him indefinitely and forever, right?

Well, as I understand, yeah, they think they can hold him until the the war on terrorism is over. That might well be forever…

[bordelond]

@SimonX

‘Terrorism’ no more likely to be wiped out than crime. It’s not a new phenom. Been around since there were people. It’s a risk of living in any century.

I think the stakes have been raised substantially, though. If what you’re saying is absolutely true, 9-11 would have had no impact on Americans, as it would have been old hat.

@SimonX

Doesn’t make much difference as to the effect- dead is dead regardless.

My murderer affects only me and perhaps an additonal few. Terrorists have the ability to affect society at large.

@SimonX

To preseve our way of life your willing to change it. And your willing to change it in response to the actions of terrorists. Making these sorts of changes, where the gov is goven a pass on abiding by the ususal Constitutional restrictions of its power, is the tantamount to allowing terrorists to influence policy.

Only so much change … no way do I support a totally free pass for the government. As far as terrorists influencing policy … I’m thinking wider scale policy influence, like overturning elections or enforcing a state religion.

@SimonX

The threat to our way of life is fear itself.

Living in perpetual fear is certainly not an option. If successful means of countering terrorism are found within the pre-9-11 legal framework, then I’m all for it.

@SimonX

I’m worried about the advent of a world in which popular representation is dead everywhere, and in which no-conscience thugs regard the various nations of the world as so many marionettes too. Except that i’m worried about no-conscience thugs doing so from public office. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but one day a corrupt politician will come to power. We owe it to future Americans to preserve Liberty even at the cost of lives.

Again, I’m not yet convinced of the slippery slope argument.

@SimonX

Statiscally, it would seem that terrorism represents relatively little threat to the safety of the populace.
It’s the fear of terrorism that gives terrorists their leverage. W/o that fear, they’ve no way to influence policy.

Essentially true. The quibble is over what’s considered “policy”. While changes in the legal framework are policy changes, I was thinking broader.

…

I still see the same problem – terrorists on the left, the government on our right. Both charging in fast. We can vote out the government. The terrorists … what to do?

[Bongmaster]

@bordelond

I know that terrorism can’t be eliminated, but I do believe that with an acceptable (to me) scaleback in liberty, terrorism can be severely crippled.

Its this very attitude that will lead us down the slipperly slope of fascism. It does not happen overnight, it happens a little bit at a time. This is another (big) piece of liberty that you and I will never get back.

[PatriotX]

@bordelond

I think the stakes have been raised substantially, though. If what you’re saying is absolutely true, 9-11 would have had no impact on Americans, as it would have been old hat.

Even though rape is ‘old hat’, when it happens to you it suddenly has a fresh impact. Even though terrorism is as old as humanity, when it happens to you it has a fresh immediacy.

@bordelond

My murderer affects only me and perhaps an additonal few. Terrorists have the ability to affect society at large.

Your murderers effect everyone who hears the news. Aren’t there certain parts of big cities that you would rather avoid? Murders effect society at large as well. 3000 murders have more effect than one.

@bordelond

Only so much change … no way do I support a totally free pass for the government. As far as terrorists influencing policy … I’m thinking wider scale policy influence, like overturning elections or enforcing a state religion.

Seems to be about the same scale as effecting changes in the the fundamental basis of the form of government, the Constitution.

@bordelond

Living in perpetual fear is certainly not an option. If successful means of countering terrorism are found within the pre-9-11 legal framework, then I’m all for it.

What if the methods counter terrorism just as well as more reprehensible ones?

@bordelond

Again, I’m not yet convinced of the slippery slope argument.

It’s your own. Didn’t you recognize it? Or are you challenging the idea of a corrupt politician?

@bordelond

Essentially true. The quibble is over what’s considered “policy”. While changes in the legal framework are policy changes, I was thinking broader.

What’s broader than the fundamentals by which policy is determined?

@bordelond

I still see the same problem – terrorists on the left, the government on our right. Both charging in fast. We can vote out the government. The terrorists … what to do?

Act against terrorists. Acting against Constitutional protections doesn’t help.

[bordelond]

@SimonX

What if the (Constitutional) methods counter terrorism just as well as more reprehensible ones?

Then, no problem.

It’s not that I savor the idea of scaling back liberties. I think the prospect is prettty damn bad. To me, this is a classic lesser-of-two-evils proposition. No option looks all that appealing.

Perhaps events in the near term will cast more light.

[bordelond]

@Bongmaster

Its this very attitude that will lead us down the slipperly slope of fascism. It does not happen overnight, it happens a little bit at a time. This is another (big) piece of liberty that you and I will never get back.

Perhaps politicians who favor a return to the pre-9-11 legal framework can be voted in.

…

BTW, doesn’t the Patriot Act in toto have a sunset clause? Doesn’t it have to be voted on again in the near future?

[PatriotX]

@bordelond

BTW, doesn’t the Patriot Act in toto have a sunset clause? Doesn’t it have to be voted on again in the near future?

I remember Bush getting applause in his SotU when he mentioned thar it was set to expire.
I don’t know if the whole thing or parts.

[jshore]

@Sam Stone

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.

These are pretty weak safeguards though, which is why most civil libertarians believe you need more than just democracy to guarantee civil liberties. And count me as one who doubts your “willy-nilly” claim. As long as such arrests are directed against a certain small group of people (e.g., those who are of Arabic descent or are converted Muslims), it is not clear how concerned everybody else is going to be. So far, as annaplurabelle’s listing seems to suggest, the answer seems to be “not very”.

[monstro]

@bordeland

Your points are well taken. I am not yet convinced of the “break one–break them all” sequitir, though. That said, the government can’t legitimately push the envelope too much further AFAIC.

As long as Bush can continue to make Americans cower in fear and paranoia, he can get away with pushing the envelope as far as he’d like.

But it’s not just the government that I’m worried about. I’m also worried about the citizens. We’re not supposed to like that the government broke the law. We’re supposed to hold the government responsible to the Constitution. We aren’t supposed to just shrug our shoulders and defend illegal activities as “no big deal”. The fact that many people don’t seem bothered by this makes me wonder just WHAT would bother them. When people say America’s the land of the free, just what do they think that means?

Also, at the end of the day, the current Powers that Be can be voted out. At the moment, that gives me some peace. I can’t think of a plausible, non-drastic way corrupt politicians can rescind the vote within the span of four – or even eight – years.

Just because someone can be voted out doesn’t mean they will be. Politicians are very skilled liars, and constiutients are very good followers. As the last election showed, all the administration needs is a considerable portion of the electorate behind them. We have 100% proof the federal government broke the law, and yet we still have enough people in this country to put Bush back in office. I don’t have faith in our government to do right by us, and I sure as hell don’t have faith in us to do right by us.

[jshore]

@jshore

So far, as annaplurabelle’s listing seems to suggest, the answer seems to be “not very”.

To be fair, in addition to the civil libertarians on the left, there have been a few brave souls on the right like Bob Barr who have expressed concern. But, too many others seem willing to go blindly along.