Justice Defiled

"You can't believe Padilla when he says we tortured him because
he's crazy from all the things we did to him."
--Jack Balkin, Balkinization

"If Padilla was abused, then it was for a righteous purpose--to reveal the truth"
--Capt. Bryce Lefever, Navy psychologist and former SERE school instructor

_________

America has mutated its criminal justice system by executive fiat. It is now officially o.k. to torture suspects to arrive at the truth. That is a long way from Miranda and Escobedo.

I wonder how it works now. Do you read the Miranda rights to a suspect before or after they are tortured? Or are Miranda rights not required in our brave new post-GWB world? Brilliant: The U.S. sacrificed greatly to defeat Nazis, Fascists and Communists, only to have U.S. agents co-opt their totalitarian legacy.

The Padilla case is heralded from both the right and the left as a great triumph of democracy, but we can not share in the gleeful end to this inconsequential and bungled case. One of the biggest apostasies little focused upon was the testimony delivered incognito by a CIA operative.

First, are we to believe that a sleazy, slimy CIA operative who tortures prisoners and holds them in secret prisons is a credible witness dedicated to truth and justice?

Second, the documents were not kept in any "chain of evidence" sequence and as such are questionable. This is not reliable evidence as the authenticity is in question.

Third, the alleged agent was allowed to testify wearing a disguise and using a cover name. That is an absolute travesty of justice. How can anyone believe beyond a reasonable doubt anything to which such a person would testify?

Department of Defense spokesman Navy Commander J. D. Gordon said, "there is no direct evidence presented that Padilla was tortured." However, he was held in sensory deprivation-like solitary confinement for years.

Further, Padilla was denied reading material, including the Koran, slept on a metal bed without mattress or pillows and the light in his cell never turned off. For three years, seven months, he never saw another person except his tormentors. Padilla was so confused by the time of his trial, he actually offered to help the President. Stockholm Syndrome, anyone? What is your definition of torture?

The corruption of morals and legality evident in this case is so egregious that it cannot in any way be tied to the concept justice.

Aside from the dismissal of our constitutional system, the expense of this wild goose chase hardly seems justifiable. Padilla was not a mover and a shaker in the world of terrorism. By all accounts, not the sharpest pin in the cushion, even before we blunted him.

It is reminiscent of the gargantuan, futile waste surrounding the five year detention of recently repatriated German national, Munat Kurnaz. The Washington Spectator opens its survey of that debacle as follows:

"FIFTEEN AMERICAN SOLDIERS WATCHED over a man, shackled to a seat in the cargo bay of a C-17 Globemaster the Air Force workhorse that usually moves Abrams tanks, Chinook helicopters or infantry vehicles. Wearing goggles that shut out all light, a soundproof headset and a mask that covered his mouth so he could not speak, spit or bite, the prisoner arrived at Ramstein Air Force Base in Kaiserslautern, Germany, under the tightest security. The plane had burned through 36,000 gallons of jet fuel and had refueled in flight. During the seventeen-hour ride, the prisoner was provided with neither food nor water. Nor was he allowed to stretch his legs or relieve himself."

"This was how what had been the world's greatest democracy when George W. Bush took the presidential oath in 2001 repatriated an innocent man who'd never represented a security threat to the United States. . ."

We are great showmen, but this fanfare is poised to gain us little in the project of protecting America from terrorist attacks. We at Ranger can not share in the gleeful end to this inconsequential and bungled case.

As Tim Grieve at Salon (via Norwegianity, 8/16/07) wrote:

"That Padilla was finally tried in a court of law is hardly a cause of celebration. After all, the only reason why, after almost four years, the administration finally charged Padilla with crimes was because it wanted to avoid a looming U.S. Supreme Court ruling on whether the President has the power to imprison U.S. citizens without charges.

"By finally indicting him, the administration was able to argue, successfully, that the Court should refuse to rule on that question on the ground that the claims were now "moot" by virtue of the indictment. As a result, a ruling by a very right-wing appellate panel in the Fourth Circuit, which held that the President does have these imprisonment powers, still remains valid law, and the administration still claims the authority to imprison U.S. citizens with no charges. "

No one emerged as a victor in the Padilla trial. The conviction of Padilla was the indictment of a system. The President, Congress, the military and the judicial branch all behaved in a reprehensible matter.

Padilla may be pond scum, but our system of justice must rise above the miasma. The treatment of Padilla from start to end vindicates the propaganda of our adversaries.

This Ranger is shamed by official actions. Fear-mongerers and rabble-rousers are not leaders worthy of the title. These leaders are criminals and patriot poseurs.

Someday, Ranger hopes that a real court will address U.S. actions in this Phony War on Terror.

Eh-Oh

Terrifying, eh? They are none other than the Teletubbies, the now-defunct program for preschoolers featuring characters with viewing screens in their abdomens. You will understand the graphic when you arrive at Ranger's final comment.

-------------------------

The headline for the article covering the selection of jurors for the Padilla trial says, "Potential Padilla jurors cite 9/11 Doubts.'' But aren't we comparing apples and oranges here?

These jurors had to fill out a 115-question form prior to questioning. Question #60 "asks " for an opinion about responsibility for the Sept. 11 terror attacks." 9/11 is not on the table in the upcoming Padilla trial. Could this questionnaire ostensibly seeking to weed out bias actually be sowing a bit of ill-will prior to seating?

In any event, the jurors seem flummoxed by the question:

"There are too many ifs, too many things going on," one male juror said. "I don't know the whole story."

Others say they just don't pay close enough attention to world events to be certain.

"I'm oblivious to that stuff," one prospective female juror said during questioning this week. "I don't watch the news much. I try to avoid it."

"I don't have an opinion. I don't tend to trust the news media," she said.

The article observes, "In the Padilla case, what's notable is not so much conspiracy theories as the lack of any views at all." Presiding Judge Marcia Clarke said, "I've been surprised at the number of our jurors who don't have an opinion about 9/11.''

My take: if these confused or uninformed folks are avid watchers of commercial television--but not NCIS, 24 or The Unit--they may be unconsciously developing a sympathetic view towards Middle Easterners, as liberal Hollywood tries to correct for racial bigotry at large. This may work in Padilla's favor.

Be that as it may, Padilla is a low-level punk, and the entire evil of al Qaeda cannot rest upon his shoulders, contrary to what GWB and Ashcroft would like for us to believe. Unfortunately, MSM was complicit in printing their accusations and attempting to convict Padilla in the court of public opinion.

Padilla, a U.S. citizen held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant, is accused of applying for an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan. He was previously accused of an al-Qaida plot to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a U.S. city, but that allegation is not part of the Miami case.

Enemy combatant. . . would somebody please advise Ranger as to the definition of enemy combatant within U.S. code? Going on civilian logic, the term breaks down into "enemy" (someone who attacks you, for instance) + "combatant" (someone who performs combat, like a soldier.) So it would seem to the uninitiated into government-speak, that U.S. soldiers might be enemy combatants (to their adversaries), too.

The article continues,

Many jurors seem to be unwilling to state the al-Qaida connection as fact because they don't have firsthand knowledge. An older male juror said he answered "al-Qaida and bin Laden" on his questionnaire because "that was what the news said."

These are either all brilliant skeptics, holding out on a declarative stand as they troll the plethora of alternative news to arrive at a personal reality, or they're just dumber than dirt and totally disinterested in world affairs.

My take is that the U.S. population in general has their heads so far up their asses they need plexiglass belly buttons to see what's happening in the world.

Ah, how prescient were the Teletubbies.

--by Jim and Lisa