Guilty across the board, per MSNBC

Guilty

Zed? Guilty as charged on all 3 counts

Oy Vey…

Whats the verdict?

Guilty on all three counts!

What?

Crap.

All three defendants were found guilty on all three counts, per CNN.

all are guilty on all counts

whoa!

What bullshit.

OMG – I was hoping that the short deliberations would be acquittal

this country is in seriously deep doo-doo…

Turley is speaking now on CNN — and he is absolutely correct that there are a number of appealable issues, and that Padilla will have a strong argument on a number of them.

Wonder if his 3.5 years of being tortured will be deducted from his sentence…

That blows.

I’m really torn – I trust and believe in the jury system, but this guilty seems so, so wrong.

Well my friends. That is it. The justice system as we know it is kaput.

America has officially entered a post democratic, banana republic phase.

If they can do it to an American, we are all now in jeopardy.

-GSD

If enough evidence is suppressed, the desired verdict can be obtained.

well, all I can say is the fat lady at the court of appeals or the Supreme Court haven’t sung.

Now show the jury that torture evidence.

zmulls @ 14

Wonder if his 3.5 years of being tortured will be deducted from his sentence…

Time served….

Damn. Those men’s lives are ruined. And, in the process, the justification for the miserable FISA legislation was realized. Crap! Crap! Crap!

About what you might expect when the defense is denied the use of evidence that would demonstrate the lies on prosecution side. Appeal prospects: not much. (You know that the WH will want to fast track the appeal process using their shiny new rules, because they can.)

Nothing would be more satisfying that subjecting the prosecutors and jury to the same mind-destroying tactics that were used on Padilla

Here’s hoping this outrageous travesty gets corrected on appeal

[CHS notes: see my comment below — but this skates far too close to the line. Think before you post.]

Well since this worked out so well for the torturing class and their hired/recruited gunsels one can only wonder: WHO IS NEXT?

Open season on Mexicans, as per Orcinus.

Unfortunately, my guess is that the jury didn’t care if he was innocent because a) he was a Muslim and b) he was Hispanic, so they figured he deserves it.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 13

Turley is speaking now on CNN — and he is absolutely correct that there are a number of appealable issues, and that Padilla will have a strong argument on a number of them.

I certainly hope so — and I hope that Padilla’s lawyers use Lew’s briefs here in their appeal.

zmulls @ 14

Wonder if his 3.5 years of being tortured will be deducted from his sentence…

Actually a good question. This absolutely should be considered as “credit for time already served” toward the ultimate sentence. The government will likely fight that to the bitter end though. This is a sad day. Padilla arguably should be in prison, but over his gang activity, not this.

KingCranky at 25 — I know you are peeved — but don’t even begin to act like the person you despise. And do not make threatening comments on this blog — even in jest — about public officials. That puts Jane and I in the untenable position of having to turn over information to authorities with a lawful subpoena if they ask for it — please think before you post. Thanks.

Pete Williams MSNBC in ref. tp appeals says that any info derived from torture was not used in case.

And how the hell would he know?

Sparkles the Iguana @ 20

Now show the jury that torture evidence.

Exactly.

what a horror …

updated above with Turley’s comments

Listen, why are you folks talking about this? Jenna Bush has just announced her engagement!

Bush and Rove still playing cute games as America melts into a puddle.

-GSD

KingCranky@25: The jury shouldn’t be tortured: remember, they probably made a point of picking people who didn’t know the background.

how could they have actually deliberated in that time?

Hey maybe Bush will give him a Libby pardon!

nomolos at 31 — Because the judge made rulings to that effect during the case.

If you can trust our peer’s findings when it comes to Libby, you should trust our peer’s findings when it comes to Padilla.

I think a lot of other factors helped:

The “plot” to blow up JFK airport “One of the most chilling plots imaginable could have resulted in unfathomable damage, death adn destruction” United States Attorney Roslynn Mauskoph, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

Watch who you calling cranky there, you…you famous femblogger!

Yep. Very short time for deliberation…

I am sure Alberto Gonzales is flying over right now to expedite the death penalty as we write.

-GSD

Pete Wiiliams knows what “administration officials” tell him! Period.

Does the judge do the sentence? I’m guessing it is required sentencing under guidelines?

cancer_cures @ 38

If you can trust our peer’s findings when it comes to Libby, you should trust our peer’s findings when it comes to Padilla.

Sorry – it’s not all or nothing. Juries do make mistakes.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 37

nomolos at 31 — Because the judge made rulings to that effect during the case.

Thanks much. Question though did the judge tell the gov not use use evidence derived from torture…. admitting torture? Or did they agree to not bring some evidence that they may have gotten from the tooth fairy?

I gotta tell you…I’m having trouble processing this.

Lew at 40:

Are you surprised at either the verdict or its speed?

GSD @ 43

I am sure Alberto Gonzales is flying over right now to expedite the death penalty as we write.

-GSD

That would be a case of perfect timing, wouldn’t it?

Pete Williams is Cheney’s former mouthpiece. I don’t believe a word that escapes from his corrupt pie-hole.

-GSD

Lew at 40 — I think Padilla wasn’t helped by the tactical decision not to put on any evidence on his behalf by his attorneys. But I also know that second guessing that sort of thing from the outside is just plain wrong — because you have no idea what all the factors were in coming to that point. It’s a very, very difficult call to make on behalf of your client to defend that way — and it is tough for a jury not to find someone guilty without something to hang some doubt on, which usually although not always, comes from defense case testimony.

This was a tough case to pull off at trial. But it is a much, much easier procedural and civil liberties argument on appeal. Not to say they will absolutely win, but they do have some very strong arguments. And this was Padilla’s only way to get to the appeals court — through a trial.

Anthony Natale called no witnesses, simply claimed that the government had not proven its case. Is this, among other things, an appeals strategy?

Max sentence Padilla faces is life. Death penalty is not an option.

It just seemed that the Govt case had a lot of smoke and mirrors to it. I expected a jury to at least have some misgivings. What was so compelling that they would find guilty in a day and a half?

I think this means that the 87 “torture” tapes of Padilla being interrogated in the brig will remain closed.

There is hope in Turley’s comments, that even though they are guilty according to what the jury knows now, that upon appeal the real meat of the story will come out. It’s not over yet, and exposure of the torture tactics in court is sorely needed.

Lew Koch @ 48

I gotta tell you…I’m having trouble processing this.

Aren’t we all. I commented in your post yesterday that he would be found guilty on all charges. I just have no faith left in the uninformed juries of this country. Not to mention we have to all get under the bed when terrorism is mentioned. I am sick and disgusted.

Lew Koch @ 55

I think this means that the 87 “torture” tapes of Padilla being interrogated in the brig will remain closed.

They could not be brought forward in an appeal?

Peterr @ 54

Max sentence Padilla faces is life. Death penalty is not an option.

The Decider may decide otherwise. It is a matter or grave importance and the unitary executive has a lot of leeway.

-GSD

Kevster @ 55

It just seemed that the Govt case had a lot of smoke and mirrors to it. I expected a jury to at least have some misgivings. What was so compelling that they would find guilty in a day and a half?

Probably the Pakistan flight. After all, who goes to Pakistan?

Lew Koch @ 48

I gotta tell you…I’m having trouble processing this.

Me too Lew. This is really bad.

Lew Koch @ 48

I gotta tell you…I’m having trouble processing this.

I was kidding about the rapture in the last thread. But this really feels like the end of something. The end of privacy, the end of personal freedom…the end of liberty and justice for all. It’s just tough to get your head around right now. It just sucks.

This was a tough case to pull off at trial. But it is a much, much easier procedural and civil liberties argument on appeal. Not to say they will absolutely win, but they do have some very strong arguments. And this was Padilla’s only way to get to the appeals court — through a trial.

How were the closing statements? It seemed that the defense was betting on a leaky govt case that they could blow open on close-thoughts?

If I were the defense, I would be asking for a directed verdict from the judge, notwithstanding the jury’s conclusion. No reasonable person could convict Padilla on such flimsy evidence, even absent the information about the torture. This is a shocking result and a very sad day for this country. Those jurors will soon read more about the case and learn to their sorrow that they have collaborated in a monstrous injustice. I would pity them, except that their hasty verdict betrays a stunning lack of seriousness.

itwasntme @ 17

I’m really torn – I trust and believe in the jury system, but this guilty seems so, so wrong.

This reminds me of the trial in To Kill A Mockingbird. There the defendant was convicted essentially of being black. Here Padilla was convicted of being a Moslem.

It also reminds me of Camus’ The Stranger where the protagonist is convicted for being an unsympathetic individual.

In short, Padilla was convicted not for what he did but for who he is. This is not the way our justice system is supposed to work. It is a sad day.

There are no words.

Let’s not forget that the internet has been declared the “new Afghanistan” when it comes to breeding Al Qaeda and terrorists.

-GSD

Lew — agreed. Having trouble processing this. I tend to be trusting of juries.

Have we really become such a cowardly nation that we quail at paper-thin threats? And become willing to torture people to try to alleviate our fears?

MSNBC spouting “jihad” fear talk … argh

Christy Hardin Smith at 51 and Jane Hampsher at 52–

I think there has always been a strong feeling that the Padilla case would be resolved/solved by the Supreme Court>

As for which attorney is responsible for the decusion David Marcus at Southern District of Florida says that Michael Caruso carried heavy water,

Pop quiz:

Which of the following could never possibly be perpetrated by the United States of America, given its strong stance on civil liberties?

(1) The treatment of Jose Padilla?
(2) Bypassing FISA.
(3) Satellite surveillance of Americans?
(4) Torture.

Jane — It happens for a number of reasons. In this case, they really couldn’t put Padilla on the stand — he was utterly broken from his confinement, and they made a very powerful argument about him not being competent to stand trial — the judge just didn’t feel that it met the standards required to have that happen. So, with your own client unable to testify, you have to find other witnesses who could be helpful and compelling.

Lew and I were talking about this the other day — a lot of those would have been people that Padilla might have met overseas. How do you find these people when you are defense counsel? And, when you do find them, if they are horrible potential witnesses, you have to make a decision on whether you should call them – or whether they would hurt your case.

You also have to decide if by calling no one, you are sending a message to the jury that the case against your client is weak. Sometimes when you have very limited potential for witnesses, that’s all you have.

I’m not certain what the thinking was on the strategy. But it may be that what they were really heading for was an appeal, where they can argue more forcefully on constitutional grounds than they can with a jury on evidentiary grounds.

The America that all of us grew up believing in lies in ruins.

That is a fact.

-GSD

barbara at 71

Thank for for the pop reality quiz.

Apologies for my harsh rhetoric on your blog

Jane Hamsher @ 53

Anthony Natale called no witnesses, simply claimed that the government had not proven its case. Is this, among other things, an appeals strategy?

IANAL but I think the rule is not raised at trial not raisable on appeal.

The Padilla story, the earlier, “Texans to Bush: Stay Off Our Lawn” story, and the following heartbreaker reprinted from Christian Science Monitor

http://www.alternets.org/waroniraq/59733

(about a US soldier in Iraq who refuses to kill and is on trial) all really fall in the same general category, i.e. Humanity.

Are we going to be human/humane? Or are we going to revert to our reptile brain?

Kevster @ 55

It just seemed that the Govt case had a lot of smoke and mirrors to it. I expected a jury to at least have some misgivings. What was so compelling that they would find guilty in a day and a half?

well, if they invite you to jury duty, the government clearly knows where you live. and if the Padilla case shows one thing, it’s : we’re next. the jurors just realized earlier.

I cannot begin to express what an utter travesty this is…

Hugh @ 66

In short, Padilla was convicted not for what he did but for who he is. This is not the way our justice system is supposed to work. It is a sad day.

Harper Lee’s character did even less, he was convicted for having been desired by a white woman, and being black.

Camus character actually did kill an Arab on a beach (if I recall the song correctly) but I think you are correct in that the case was made against him because of his lack of sympathy, not out of concern for the victim.

Both good examples of existential literature; but, the reality of this case is that the men will be made scapegoats for a policy directed at curtailing personal freedoms in this country. That’s just hugely terrible.

GSD at 74 — Wrong. That America is only gone when people stop standing up for the Constitution. And I’ll be damned if I’m giving up on that, thank you very much.

Siun @ 70

MSNBC spouting “jihad” fear talk … argh

I had to laugh when one of the commentators referred to the difficulties faced by the prosecution in not being able to use information gathered from Padilla when he had no attorney present. Paraphrasing here, he said the government had a “tortured” path to follow to make its case.

Not exactly the word that the government would have chosen, I’m sure, in describing their troubles in presenting evidence.

cancer_cures @ 39

If you can trust our peer’s findings when it comes to Libby, you should trust our peer’s findings when it comes to Padilla.

Thank you.

If it does go to the Supreme Ct, than it seems a done deal…I have more faith in juries of uniformed than I do the SCOTUS…

Who realistically expected anything else?

The jury, if it was chosen in a representative fashion, ifi it was a true cross-section of America, would convict 90% of the time under these circumstances.

Two foreigners and a gang-banger. Even if they didn’t do what they were charged with, they probably did something else.

I’m surprised the jury was out as long as they were. And I doubt if being able to mention the 3 1/2 years of torture would have changed anything.

That’s America. Ask Sacco and Vanzetti.

Hugh at 77 — They raised all of the constitutional matters in pre-trial motions and arguments, which should preserve them for appeal later. Plus, whatever cross-examination was done with all the witnesses also preserves issues for appeal. There is a hefty record in this case for use on appeal.

Superb editorial in the Christian Science Monitor from before the verdict:

One protection from Islamic terrorists lies in clinging to the civic virtues that terrorists seek to end. Such values are a source of safety and should not be eroded in trying to kill, capture – or prosecute – suspected terrorists.

One of America’s strengths in this war lies in being able to rally other nations to its side by upholding universal principles. That same strength also weakens terrorists.

The jury may well find Padilla guilty, but it may also see the injustice done in his case, and decide otherwise.

Victory in war is sometimes a victory simply for the rule of law.

Regardless of all the dirty tricks played by the government (the supposed protectors of the judicial system), there still was not evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The best argument, probably, though usually unsuccessful on appeal, is the insufficiency of the evidence. There is no evidence, really. Another other strong ground is throwing Padilla in with these guys (for whom the evidence is insufficient as well, as I see it) and letting in all the A.Q. stuff to inflame (and terrorize) the jury.
The jurors gave these guys no deliberation at all, in my opinion. None. I’m sick.

GSD @ 74

The America that all of us grew up believing in lies in ruins.

That is a fact.

-GSD

Elections have consequences. We just need to work harder to have them go our way. It’s tempting to be despairing but we are stronger and better than that.

Padilla wasn’t allowed to bring up torture in his defense, was he?

In any case, there’s another verdict here that you guys seem to be missing. That is: the criminal system works for terrorists too! It totally erases all the arguments for opening Guantanamo and all that stuff. If you can get a terrorist in jail for life through our criminal justice system, why do we need all these new “laws” just for terrorists?

Siun @ 70

MSNBC spouting “jihad” fear talk … argh

In addition to their prisons, predators and murderers doc block series. All fear all the time.

Christy Hardin Smith at 72

All along, I have contended that Padilla was no poster boy, trying to find God or Allah or whatever. He was a cold blooded murderer at 15.

No one here (I hope) believes that Padilla wasn’t having conversations with some very bad people. He was.

My contention all along was — as Christina notes — Padilla was a jamoke incapable of pulling over any kind of terrorist deed except for maybe blowing up his own ass.

But to believe he was capable of, as the indictement claimed, “murder, kidnapping and maiming” — nope. No way, Jose. All of you are familiar with his arrest record. He fired pistol shots at a motorist who cut him off. Delayed gratification was not in his vocabulary,

Christy Hardin Smith @ 14

Turley is speaking now on CNN — and he is absolutely correct that there are a number of appealable issues, and that Padilla will have a strong argument on a number of them.

The only healthy response is pure skepticism. There is no justice here in this country. While there are arguments to be made, there is no objective party to hear them.

raven @ 84

cancer_cures @ 39

If you can trust our peer’s findings when it comes to Libby, you should trust our peer’s findings when it comes to Padilla.

Thank you.

There was a big difference in the judges and the prosecutors. In the Libby trial, they were upstanding and outstanding. In the Padilla case, they were hacks.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 73

I’m not certain what the thinking was on the strategy. But it may be that what they were really heading for was an appeal, where they can argue more forcefully on constitutional grounds than they can with a jury on evidentiary grounds.

Interesting.

Kevster @ 90

GSD @ 74

The America that all of us grew up believing in lies in ruins.

That is a fact.

-GSD

Elections have consequences. We just need to work harder to have them go our way. It’s tempting to be despairing but we are stronger and better than that.

What consequences? Congress has ceased doing the will of the people. Period.

We scream and yell when the wingnuts scream and yell about how unfair the Libby verdict is and then we scream and yell because this verdict is so unfair.

I’m certain that Padilla’s not particularly sympathetic history did not help.
The government’s case was flimsy, but the defense’s total reliance on ‘innocent until proven guilty’ was challenged by Padilla’s history.
That is what makes this case particularly threatening.
The example has been set.

Osama bin Forgotten is laughing his head off. Look at how he was able to affect so many things. Justice. Our economy…

GeorgeSimian at 90

No reference to torture allowed

raven @ 98

We scream and yell when the wingnuts scream and yell about how unfair the Libby verdict is and then we scream and yell because this verdict is so unfair.

But the former is based on ideology and the latter is based on the rule of law.

Christy,

I am sorry but the government has been changed under our own feet. It hasn’t changed our ideals about what the government should be and I don’t advocate giving up or not fighting, but I will repeat, the government that we grew up believing in is gone, gone, gone.

It doesn’t matter what we think, it is the reality of what has been done.

-GSD

Also, the Libby trial was procedurally fair because it involved one of the Bush/Cheney inner circle.

This Padilla trial is and was a sham from beginning to end.

Loo Hoo. @ 100

Osama bin Forgotten is laughing his head off. Look at how he was able to affect so many things. Justice. Our economy…

9/11 changed everything.

N=1 @ 102

raven @ 98

We scream and yell when the wingnuts scream and yell about how unfair the Libby verdict is and then we scream and yell because this verdict is so unfair.

But the former is based on ideology and the latter is based on the rule of law.

Never mind, I should know better.

N=1 at 94 — Really? Because I worked in the judicial system every day when I was a lawyer. Every single day. And I managed to do a very good job of finding justice for my criminal clients in private practice and in meting it out for those I prosecuted. And I know a large number of very decent people who do the same thing every day.

Do not make the mistake of visiting the sins of the Bush Administration on the whole of the judiciary. They need to carry their own tainted water — but I’ll be damned if I’m picking it up for them because I sure as hell earned my own clean bucket and I know a lot of people who take their jobs — and their ethics — just as seriously in doing their work.

Lew Koch @ 56

I think this means that the 87 “torture” tapes of Padilla being interrogated in the brig will remain closed.

Let’s not put the word torture in quotation marks. It is an abuse of language.

I refer to the interrogation tactics as torture, by definition.

When you see a photo of Padilla or the Guantanamo prisoners in earmuffs, goggles, manacles, etc., you are seeing torture as it happens. Sensory deprivation is a torture technique, again by definition, and part of the torture program.

Bringing it into the open doesn’t just desensitize citizens and the public–it allows (many of) us to pretend it isn’t happening at all.

raven @ 98

We scream and yell when the wingnuts scream and yell about how unfair the Libby verdict is and then we scream and yell because this verdict is so unfair.

Big difference – in the Libby trial there was actual evidence of criminal behaviour.

I seriously hope they put Padilla on a suicide watch. This does not come from any information but a growing interest in the stories of those who were tortured that I’m now examining.

Lew @ 93
Thank you for the perspective.

From the LA Times site but written by Madeline Bar Diaz for the S. FL Sun-Sentinel:

Padilla verdict may cast a long shadow
Whatever they rule, jurors could in effect decide if ‘enemy combatants’ who are U.S. citizens can be kept in military lockups.

MIAMI — When jurors announce their verdict in the trial of Jose Padilla, they could be seen as either endorsing the government’s long detention of Padilla or questioning the controversial policy of keeping so-called “enemy combatants” in military jails.

“If the verdict comes back guilty, the government is going to say, ‘We were right all along,’ ” said Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at American University in Washington, D.C. “I think a not-guilty verdict would be a very interesting prospect.”

PB (peanut butter) @ 80

I cannot begin to express what an utter travesty this is…

Thanks to Lew, FDL and Siunshine for bringing this trial to us.

I need oxygen.

Could this have been the defense’s intention all along, that is to get a guilty verdict and then go to appeal where there might be a more favorable outcome?

It sounds weird to me but I’m not a lawyer nor do I play chess but there’s something in the back of my head that this isn’t over by a long shot.

rich at 106

Thank you. Quotes will be left off from now on.

I don’t even doubt that there is a solid criminal case against Padilla, but the sham, the banana republic thug tactics that surrounded his arrest and detainment should have made any, ANY judge declare a mistrial.

We witnessed a sham of justice that would have made Stalin smile.

-GSD

Christy Hardin Smith @ 106

N=1 at 94 — Really? Because I worked in the judicial system every day when I was a lawyer. Every single day. And I managed to do a very good job of finding justice for my criminal clients in private practice and in meting it out for those I prosecuted. And I know a large number of very decent people who do the same thing every day.

Do not make the mistake of visiting the sins of the Bush Administration on the whole of the judiciary. They need to carry their own tainted water — but I’ll be damned if I’m picking it up for them because I sure as hell earned my own clean bucket and I know a lot of people who take their jobs — and their ethics — just as seriously in doing their work.

Christy:

there is no doubt that individuals are carrying their load and then some. But there is no longer any assurance that the body of the justice system is working. When one has to rely on the hope that an individual may be ethical and work within the rule of law, instead of being able to presuppose that all officers of the court and judges will uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, then the system is broken.

It is an indictment of a broken system, and not of people such as yourself who labor within it.

Does anyone know how this landed in the Florida courts?

That aspect alone raises doubts for me.

N=1 @ 102

raven @ 98

We scream and yell when the wingnuts scream and yell about how unfair the Libby verdict is and then we scream and yell because this verdict is so unfair.

But the former is based on ideology and the latter is based on the rule of law.

The other difference is that the Libby decision will stand up on appeal due to some supurb lawering and a competent judge.
The Padilla trial was not in the same court, literally or figurativly.

But I also know that second guessing that sort of thing from the outside is just plain wrong — because you have no idea what all the factors were in coming to that point.

Does this apply to the jury as well?

Jane Hamsher @ 96

Christy Hardin Smith @ 73

I’m not certain what the thinking was on the strategy. But it may be that what they were really heading for was an appeal, where they can argue more forcefully on constitutional grounds than they can with a jury on evidentiary grounds.

Interesting.

I saw your (CHS) comment about the probable unavailability of potential defense witnesses. That is a valid point; however, I wonder if the attorneys themselves considered moving for determination of counsel status under the theory that THEY were witnesses, and in fact the only ones who could likely be presented. doing so would stir up several legal issues, depending on how it played out.

The criminal justice system worked all along!

N=1 @ 102

raven @ 98

We scream and yell when the wingnuts scream and yell about how unfair the Libby verdict is and then we scream and yell because this verdict is so unfair.

But the former is based on ideology and the latter is based on the rule of law.

The rule of law says innocent until proven guilty. He was found guilty. We may disagree with the verdict, and there may be a reversal upon appeal. But this is how the system works.

I’m wondering if the defense strategy backfired. They called no witnesses, didn’t put up a case and argued (correctly in my view) that the prosecution hadn’t come close to proving its case. But putting up witnesses who would talk about who Padilla was would have humanized him, to a jury that could otherwise see him as a monster.

Could I hear from a lawyer or two who’s had some experience with a swift jury return.

Padilla’s trial was a Soviet show trial, not what I understand American justice (however flawed) to be. Under the American system, a defendant is allowed to see the evidence against him and torture is prohibited. Under the Soviet system, the verdict is pre-ordained by the government in a rigged presentation and torture is allowed. The bottom line is, we don’t know what Padilla is guilty of, if anything. He still hasn’t been tried under our system of justice.

Those who have done all these many destructive things to our country feel no shame. Considering that it has all been done in our names, I do feel great shame. And disgust, but
somehow I don’t feel surprise. I do not want more of the same! I do not want republican
‘lite’! I think we deserve something much more humane and human. Our country deserves better, much better. Our children deserve much better. As of now, the loyal opposition had best become alot more ‘opposition’ and a good deal less ‘loyal.’ If Hilarious is to be the ONLY choice then she had better become something more than the lesser weevil!

Christy Hardin Smith @ 87

Hugh at 77 — They raised all of the constitutional matters in pre-trial motions and arguments, which should preserve them for appeal later. Plus, whatever cross-examination was done with all the witnesses also preserves issues for appeal. There is a hefty record in this case for use on appeal.

Yes, my point was just on the narrow grounds of the defense not presenting a case.

johnSwifty at 81. As Camus wrote:

‘Dans notre société tout homme qui ne pleure pas à l’enterrement de sa mère risque d’être condamné à mort.’

GSD at 115 — It isn’t done yet. He will appeal — and that is where the heavy lifting on the governmental tactics will get done. And chewed over publicly in arguments and opinions.

This has taken far, far too long from Padilla’s personal perspective. And the Bush Administration should never, ever have held an American citizen as an enemy combatant picked up on American soil — I cannot begin ot describe all the ways that is wrong, let alone their interrogation methods.

But this case is far from over today. And we all do well to remember that.

This is a judge and jury ratification of criminal government behavior.

Look, the witches in Salem got a trial too. Should we argue in favor of the process in those cases too?

-GSD

Whups! I see CHS already covered my question in a previous point. Next time I’ll read all the posts before commenting.

GSD @ 129

This is a judge and jury ratification of criminal government behavior.

Look, the witches in Salem got a trial too. Should we argue in favor of the process in those cases too?

-GSD

Argue what you want to.

Hugh at 126

I am a Camus lover but do not read French. Please translate

raven at 119 — It absolutely does. I’ve learned never to try and second guess a jury unless and until jury members start speaking out about factors involved in the decision-mking which call the verdict into question. You can have no idea what did or did not go on in terms of deliberation — and I don’t believe I’ve second-guessed them here today, have I? I have substantial problems in how the government has handled this from start to finish — but the jury is confined to a discrete bit of facts and evidence and information allowed in at trial, and nothing else.

Lew Koch @ 132

Hugh at 126

I am a Camus lover but do not read French. Please translate

‘Dans notre societe tout homme qui ne pleure pas a l’enterrement de sa mere risque d’etre condamne a mort.’

In our society any man who does not cry over the burial of his mother risks being condemned to death.(that’s what I think it says)

Hugh @ 127

johnSwifty at 81. As Camus wrote:

‘Dans notre société tout homme qui ne pleure pas à l’enterrement de sa mère risque d’être condamné à mort.’

Well, we don’t know overly much about the protagonists mom; and, I have my suspicions about Camus relationship with his own mom, but it made a damn good song!

No this is not how the system works. The system doesn’t allow people to be secretly arrested and held incommunicado and turned into fucking vegetables by repeated, systematic governmental abuse.

Good God.

-GSD

Another sad day in America…..

What I’ve been curious about is counsel’s decision to allow Padilla to be tried with the two co-defendants rather than insisting on a separate trial. Christy, any thoughts?

Joe Buck @ 122

I’m wondering if the defense strategy backfired. They called no witnesses, didn’t put up a case and argued (correctly in my view) that the prosecution hadn’t come close to proving its case. But putting up witnesses who would talk about who Padilla was would have humanized him, to a jury that could otherwise see him as a monster.

If you were a potential for witness the defense, read : a muslim foreigner with connections to islamic organizations, would you really dare to come forward and present yourself to the US government ? Off to Guantanamo you go.

Loo Hoo. @ 99

Osama bin Forgotten is laughing his head off. Look at how he was able to affect so many things. Justice. Our economy…

Maybe not. If Padilla was working with al-Qaeda (maybe not driven by agenda, but driven by possibilities like money), or if Padilla was working with other evil-doers, then bin Forgotten (if he’s still living), and others, know we’re going to bend the rules to bust them.

I don’t see him excited over the fact that we’re bending court rules to get some minion busted. His home country, and Afghanistan, and Pakistan, aren’t necessarily civil liberty beacons. I’m sure he’s not thinking ‘great, we got America stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, AND they bent their own civil rules to bust one of my henchmen!’

Lew @114

No prob. Thanks for staying all over this story.

Though I can keep up with many of these stories in detail, maintaining my own area of expertise as well stretches me a bit thin.

It’s the unremarked photos of goggled and earmuffed prisoners in orange jumpsuits I find particularly disturbing. News anchors and even legitimate journalists see that–and say nothing. But it’s a critical component of torture programs.

Lew at 124 — Sometime they come back quickly with a solid guilty verdict, sometimes a not guilty, and sometimes a mixed verdict. You can never tell — but I’ve had them do all three. Really, you can never, ever tell what they are going to do untilt he verdict is read — long or short deliberations notwithstanding.

I doubt Padilla himself is capable of appealing the verdict and he sure as hell can’t get his mental faculties back. The verdict is in on our government: guilty as charged of sheer evil in the name of justice.

Raven at 98:

I’m furious that the government was rewarded for the most abominable behavior imaginable: arbitrary detention and torture.

My fury is partially with the judge (but I note that my fury might be better directed at the law that bound the judge), and with the state of the universe (I’m sure it wasn’t hard to convince people using FUD that Padilla was either “extremely dangerous” or maybe just “technically guilty”), with the government’s prosecutors, and with the Bush administration’s actions.

I have *no* anger at the jury.

I don’t think the case should have been allowed before a jury, but they were there, I wasn’t, and I assume they did their best in making their decision.

I’m not even intimating that their decision was wrong; for all I know, Padilla actually committed the crimes he was accused of. And even if Padilla wasn’t guilty, maybe they still came to the right decision. If there’s enough damning evidence, it might well be right to convict; guilty beyond a reasonable doubt isn’t guilty beyond any doubt.

What makes me furious is that the government did not and does not deserve to be rewarded for what they’ve done. They should have done their jobs right; they didn’t. And now, they’ve been told “it’s okay; you can still win the conviction.”

And might it be overturned on appeal? Sure. But the rabid authoritarians will then blame the courts once again, swearing that they did right, but the horrible, evil courts overstepped their bounds.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 133

raven at 119 — It absolutely does. I’ve learned never to try and second guess a jury unless and until jury members start speaking out about factors involved in the decision-mking which call the verdict into question. You can have no idea what did or did not go on in terms of deliberation — and I don’t believe I’ve second-guessed them here today, have I? I have substantial problems in how the government has handled this from start to finish — but the jury is confined to a discrete bit of facts and evidence and information allowed in at trial, and nothing else.

No, I was just using the quote as an example. I’ve been on three criminal juries and each one of them had a different makeup (obviously). I understand how frustrated people here are and I am sure Mr Koch has given an accurate view of the proceedings. I just have trouble with people going ape-shit on the jury. It has nothing to do with what you said and if it does I apologize (again).

Longhairedweirdo @ 144

Raven at 98:

I’m furious that the government was rewarded for the most abominable behavior imaginable: arbitrary detention and torture.

My fury is partially with the judge (but I note that my fury might be better directed at the law that bound the judge), and with the state of the universe (I’m sure it wasn’t hard to convince people using FUD that Padilla was either “extremely dangerous” or maybe just “technically guilty”), with the government’s prosecutors, and with the Bush administration’s actions.

I have *no* anger at the jury.

I don’t think the case should have been allowed before a jury, but they were there, I wasn’t, and I assume they did their best in making their decision.

I’m not even intimating that their decision was wrong; for all I know, Padilla actually committed the crimes he was accused of. And even if Padilla wasn’t guilty, maybe they still came to the right decision. If there’s enough damning evidence, it might well be right to convict; guilty beyond a reasonable doubt isn’t guilty beyond any doubt.

What makes me furious is that the government did not and does not deserve to be rewarded for what they’ve done. They should have done their jobs right; they didn’t. And now, they’ve been told “it’s okay; you can still win the conviction.”

And might it be overturned on appeal? Sure. But the rabid authoritarians will then blame the courts once again, swearing that they did right, but the horrible, evil courts overstepped their bounds.

I’m witcha

Christy Hardin Smith at 132

Look we all here at the Lake have the advantage of seeing from a much wider perspective. Most here take advantage of reading wide and far, commies and conspiracy theorists. I’ve tried to knock down somethings and support others. I am deeply, deeply saddened because Gonzales and Bush will see this a a “victory” for their way of conducting business. Contrary to what some of you here indicate, I think the Supreme Court will toss it out on its ass. I’m betting pizza and I’m taking all comers.

Christy, not to invoke the wrath of Godwins’ law but at what point in Germany was the system so corrupted that the rule of law meant nothing except whatever the tyrants wanted it to mean?

-GSD

Lew Koch @ 132

Hugh at 126

I am a Camus lover but do not read French. Please translate

‘Dans notre société tout homme qui ne pleure pas à l’enterrement de sa mère risque d’être condamné à mort.’

In our society any man who does not cry at the funeral of his mother risks being condemned to death.

It was not that Meursault shot an Arab (because the sun was in his eyes) but that he was seen as unsympathetic that condemned him.

The jury is being allowed to meet with journalists – in a locked room – to discuss their deliberations. Hopefully some of the reporters present will give us some insight into their process.

“Dirty Bomber” was an unspoken phrase in the courtroom, but the initial injection of it into the skull is permanent. The verdict proved that today, as it came back quickly enough for me to assume that the prosecution’s case (which started back in June 2002) was made before they ever stepped foot into the courtroom.

I look ahead as well, to the appeals process. Everyone must understand though, that if Padilla goes from sentencing straight into gen pop, there are shanks with his name on it being made as we speak.

He’s completely unequipped for survival in that environment at this point. Television keeps going back to that initial dark-skinned, fierce mug shot…we all know that’s not him today.

So watch now as the MSM shouts out the actual coverage from this trial. The vast array of print we’ve been privvy to, a revival of sorts…watch it revert back to the thumb-sucking repeat-repeat-repeat propaganda, and in a day’s time maybe Bush’s daughter will announce she’s pregnant, and Padilla becomes a ghost once more.

This is a sick place in a sick time. God bless you Lew!

Likely this is covered above, but . . .

I absolutely don’t understand what seems like failure to present Padilla in court.

I don’t understand why/how it is not relevant that the man has been tortured nigh unto death and absolute insensibility by his captors.

Irrespective of aspects of his past, he is no longer the man he was, by any definition. They are condemning the remnants of our own torture. Double jeopardy? Something??

Not having had a lot of time to absorb and digest,I still feel somehow saddened, like I’ve lost something dear to me.

What was the evidence that convicted the other two?

Lew wrote (at 93): “All along, I have contended that Padilla was no poster boy, trying to find God or Allah or whatever. He was a cold blooded murderer at 15.”

I’m personally not upset about the verdict. Yes, I understand the complaints, but the fact is they finally got a trial (yes, take that with salt).

The outrage is everything that happened before the trial. You remember? All that stuff that shreds our Constitution and invalidates our moral standing in the world?

Remember that? Torture? Imprisoned without charge? Denied due process?

I’m all for convicting terrorists and murderers. But I’m also all for the Constitution and Humane treatment. THAT’s what we’ve lost.

I’m betting pizza and I’m taking all comers.

Are you limiting the winner to ordering takeout from the Caffe Sacco, or does he or she get to eat in at La Trattoria Vanzetti?

CHS @ 106: Christy I respect you and your points of view. Maybe I shouldn’t even comment here because I can’t say I have followed this case as closely as the other commenters. But if the Padilla case was such a travesty of justice why no mass resignations from all the people of principle at DOJ? For that matter where have those mass resignations been throughout Bushco?

The argument over constitutional concerns and crisis is extremely important but I wonder about Padilla himself. If he was found innocent, this former gangbanger become pro-Bush, angry, ‘zombie’ (Amy Goodman interview w/doctor this morning), would need constant and expensive care. Care that he would not be able to afford (I mean, who would be able to afford it?)Perhaps the only place left or someone who has undergone the dehumanization and torture he has experienced is prison.

Sad to say. So our government now creates, now drives and turns people, into psychotic lifers fit only for permanent incarceration. There are fundamental human rights considerations here.

GSD at 147

If I am (and please correct me if I’m in error) but no laws were broken in Nazi Germany. Laws were passed that permitted excesses, even when those excesses led to what we call know happened.

GSD at 148 — At the point where people stopped speaking up and fighting back. You ready to give up, yet, because I sure as hell am not. Especially not with the sunlight that has been able to be shined on so many issues in such a short period of time: USAttys, DOJ politicization, war profiteering…none of that was openly discussed until the last couple of years. You want instant change — that isn’t going to happen.

But so long as people are willing to fight, it will happen, just more slowly than most of us would like. But only if we all keep fighting together.

Do not make the mistake of visiting the sins of the Bush Administration on the whole of the judiciary.

I think usually conflate these two entities because they link the administration (any administration) with the judicial system. They think: the “government” makes the laws. Well, the legislature makes the laws. Of course, this administration wants to make the laws.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 160

GSD at 148 — At the point where people stopped speaking up and fighting back. You ready to give up, yet, because I sure as hell am not. Especially not with the sunlight that has been able to be shined on so many issues in such a short period of time: USAttys, DOJ politicization, war profiteering…none of that was openly discussed until the last couple of years. You want instant change — that isn’t going to happen.

But so long as people are willing to fight, it will happen, just more slowly than most of us would like. But only if we all keep fighting together.

Well said!!!

jim oconnor @ 157

CHS @ 106: Christy I respect you and your points of view. Maybe I shouldn’t even comment here because I can’t say I have followed this case as closely as the other commenters. But if the Padilla case was such a travesty of justice why no mass resignations from all the people of principle at DOJ? For that matter where have those mass resignations been throughout Bushco?

Attorneys at the DOJ were required under the Bush regime to surrender their principles in the interest of ideology.

raven @ 98

We scream and yell when the wingnuts scream and yell about how unfair the Libby verdict is and then we scream and yell because this verdict is so unfair.

The two cases are not equivalent in any significant way. Do not set up the straw man for the wingnuts to burn the house down with.

Make them build their own.

jim oconnor @ 157

CHS @ 106: Christy I respect you and your points of view. Maybe I shouldn’t even comment here because I can’t say I have followed this case as closely as the other commenters. But if the Padilla case was such a travesty of justice why no mass resignations from all the people of principle at DOJ? For that matter where have those mass resignations been throughout Bushco?

Because the administration and DIJ are staffed with fellow travelers.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 160

But so long as people are willing to fight, it will happen, just more slowly than most of us would like. But only if we all keep fighting together.

I’m with you but I have to admit being demoralized in that it just seems to keep getting worse before it can get better. I would have thought it was bad enough quite a while ago.

jim oconnor at 157 — You mean, so they could be replaced with ideological politicos who would further pervert the system by being hired as career government employees whose tenure would vest during the Bush Administration and then would be virtually unfirable without cause? That’s where…

In Minnesota, we have the highly esteemed “Center for Victims of Torture.” I never dreamed, ever, ever in my life, that my country would be prepping people to seek that org’s ministrations. Never.

I am not surprised. Sorry for the tin-foil hattery here, but it became clear long ago that Padilla was not going to be released — ever — no matter what.

I don’t know the exact reason. It may have something to do with that theory that Padilla bears an odd resemblance to John Doe #2 from the OKC bombing. It may be something completely unrelated. But it has been clear that there were special pains being taken to not only lock Padilla up indefinitely but drive him completely nuts [Forced administration of hallucinogens? Come on?!?].

Now, if Padilla remembers anything, he has the credibility of a man with quite the tenuous grasp on reality.

Padilla’s treatment, even by this administration, simply cannot be explained by what we now know about the case. If he ever wins an appeal, I suspect that he will be so depressed that he hangs himself at the prospect of being released.

Will Padilla be allowed conjugal visits from Jenna?

Christy Hardin Smith @ 160

GSD at 148 — At the point where people stopped speaking up and fighting back. You ready to give up, yet, because I sure as hell am not. Especially not with the sunlight that has been able to be shined on so many issues in such a short period of time: USAttys, DOJ politicization, war profiteering…none of that was openly discussed until the last couple of years. You want instant change — that isn’t going to happen.

But so long as people are willing to fight, it will happen, just more slowly than most of us would like. But only if we all keep fighting together.

Thank you Christie, it’s easy to succumb to despair, but I think it’s important for us to keep fighting. Even though I sometimes lose hope, I can’t bring myself to surrender to these wingnuts trying to undermine our nation.

Lew Koch @ 158

GSD at 147

If I am (and please correct me if I’m in error) but no laws were broken in Nazi Germany. Laws were passed that permitted excesses, even when those excesses led to what we call know happened.

I think that was the point I made in my argument.

Torture in America no longer means torture as defined by most sane and reasoned people.

Torture has been redefined out of existence in America.

-GSD

Lew Koch @ 159

GSD at 147

If I am (and please correct me if I’m in error) but no laws were broken in Nazi Germany. Laws were passed that permitted excesses, even when those excesses led to what we call know happened.

Laws were implemented in the 3rd Reich that made their policies “legal.” No law/s, however, were implemented that made the “Final Solution” possible. That grew out of Nazi ideology that was then carried out by Party apparachiks that were carrying out the will of the Fuhrer. His will was the unspoken law of the land.

Al Swearengen at 150

If the MSM does revert (I don’t think that will happened with one case which was we know was over-hyped and drummed into our conscious, the smoking nuke bomb cloud thing. And the voters do seem to get it. But I want to raise a small issue: the location of the trial. Try the same case in San Fran, or Minneapolis or a hundred others cities that have not been permeated by sixty year of passion. Aelon (sp?) — I mean that was near insane. Miami is not representative of mainstream USA, and if that’s prejudice, so be it.

jim oconnor @ 156

CHS @ 106: Christy I respect you and your points of view. Maybe I shouldn’t even comment here because I can’t say I have followed this case as closely as the other commenters. But if the Padilla case was such a travesty of justice why no mass resignations from all the people of principle at DOJ? For that matter where have those mass resignations been throughout Bushco?

I thought there was a circuit court judge who resigned because he was so fed up with the Government’s shenanigans on this case. A very conservative judge. Wasn’t it Luttig? He’s now general counsel for some big corporation.

Lew, I’ll bet you a pizza the Supreme Court continues the king’s bidding.

Thank you for saying this – I have the same reaction.

rich @ 141

It’s the unremarked photos of goggled and earmuffed prisoners in orange jumpsuits I find particularly disturbing. News anchors and even legitimate journalists see that–and say nothing. But it’s a critical component of torture programs.

space – folks like Ron Suskind in his One Percent Solution have documented that the Cheney administration was desperately searching for a test case and came up with Padilla. Not for tinfoil reasons (OK, come on) but because he was a muslim convert who was not a sympathetic character…

Tenet and crew needed a new “dirty bomber” to prove they were making progress in the WoT and Padilla was a convenient target.

When we head off into tinfoil land, we miss the reality of how close to fascism we are right here, right now …

why no mass resignations from all the people of principle at DOJ?

With all due respect, there are no people of principle who could bring themselves to work for or serve this White House under any circumstance.

space @ 168

If he ever wins an appeal, I suspect that he will be so depressed that he hangs himself at the prospect of being released.

I mentioned this already…but I really believe it’s something we have to look ahead to, and that’s Padilla’s post-trial confinement. If he’s in the general population, the guy’s a walking trophy. He’s been abused and isolated for all these years.

Who here thinks he can defend himself?

Who here thinks the state or federal government give a damn?

His confinement situation will determine whether he’s still alive when it’s time to appeal.

‘Dans notre société tout homme qui ne pleure pas à l’enterrement de sa mère risque d’être condamné à mort.’

Yes. Meursault was condemned to death for not weeping at his mother’s funeral, not for killing the Arab on the beach.

Sally @ 176

Lew, I’ll bet you a pizza the Supreme Court continues the king’s bidding.

That’s a fools bet, Sally. If you win, you couldn’t stomach the victory.

N=1 @ 102

raven @ 98

We scream and yell when the wingnuts scream and yell about how unfair the Libby verdict is and then we scream and yell because this verdict is so unfair.

But the former is based on ideology and the latter is based on the rule of law.

Or is one side’s “rule of law” the other’s “ideology”…sitting on the other side it seems that way.

Another small earthquake in SoCal.

I remarked in one of Lew’s previous posts that the Moussaoui trial was also a circus so this Padilla trial does not come as a surprise.

I have been quoting from my scandals list a lot today so here I go again (with today’s update).

131. Jose Padilla. This is not about a bad and deluded man, but rather that an American citizen held in the United States could be held for 3 1/2 years (May 8, 2002-January 3, 2006) outside the purview of American courts and tortured. He was transferred to the regular US legal system only because his case challenging Bush’s power to declare him an illegal enemy combatant was wending its way to the Supreme Court. The transfer successfully pre-empted this when the Court declined April 3, 2006 to hear the case. The lack of a Supreme Court determination and passage of the Military Commissions Act mean that any American can still be declared an illegal enemy combatant and held indefinitely without charge, and if the MCA is to be believed (and unlike the Padilla case) without any right to habeas corpus.
On May 14, 2007, Padilla who was initially accused of being a terrorist mastermind behind a plot to detonate a dirty bomb inside the US was put on trial for being a minor member of a conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim outside the US. Among the many dubious and disturbing aspects of this case: the length and nature of detention, his mental fitness to stand trial, the change in jurisdiction from military to civilian, and the major reduction in the scope of the charges and Padilla’s role in them, the government claims it “lost” evidence, specifically a DVD of Padilla’s last interrogation as an enemy combatant from March 2, 2004. On August 16, 2007, he and his codefendants Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi were found guilty on all counts.

What does it say about a jury that returned a verdict so quickly? Mindless drones in the service of the Borg?

Dover Bitch @ 183

Another small earthquake in SoCal.

The gods are so pissed!

The judge listening to the AT&T case said something to the effect that,
the government is claiming that just because the Executive declares something a state secret…there can be no challenge, no litigation…..”the King could do no wrong??”..

See, there are good guys out there that don’t fall for the claims made by this Administration.

“I understand how frustrated people here are and I am sure Mr Koch has given an accurate view of the proceedings.”

But as Raven points out, as a juror you have to decide the case on the evidence presented. About fifteen years ago I was on a criminal jury and we all felt the dude was guilty as hell of car theft. But the prosecutor seemed lazy and wanted us to convict him on what I would categorize as socio-economic prejudices and didn’t really make much of an effort to present solid evicence for the guy’s guilt. We didn’t convict — even thougth we all felt he was guilty as hell. We let the guy walk because we felt the prosecutor was lazy. Recently the same defendant was jailed as recidivist but my rather rambling point is — when the judge instructs the jury not to take their own personal prejudices into consideration in the proceedings, the average Joe and Jane Jurror takes that message to heart. Let’s hope for the appeal process with Jose.

Al Swearengen at 178

Exactly which is why I’m asking for a permanent suicide watch.

(And if any of you have any suggestions about how to see those torture tapes, write me a Gmail.)

Lew Koch @ 173

Al Swearengen at 150

If the MSM does revert (I don’t think that will happened with one case which was we know was over-hyped and drummed into our conscious, the smoking nuke bomb cloud thing. And the voters do seem to get it. But I want to raise a small issue: the location of the trial. Try the same case in San Fran, or Minneapolis or a hundred others cities that have not been permeated by sixty year of passion. Aelon (sp?) — I mean that was near insane. Miami is not representative of mainstream USA, and if that’s prejudice, so be it.

Indeed – last stop on the forum-shopping train. It was by design. Not only to have the trial under the jurisdiction of a circuit court that was going to overrule every attempt to give Padilla a fair shake, but to make sure the jury had a good chance of being the type who would coordinate their wardrobe in the way that they did.

Bluetoe at 185 — Have you ever been on a jury? Or been part of a trial process? Sometimes juries come back quickly because they know the facts and reach a consensus early. Sometimes it takes a while because there are a few people on the jury who have doubts.

Don’t denegrate the jury system because you disagree with a verdict. The problem in this case was with the Bush Administration’s mishandling of Padilla from start to finish. By all accounts, this jury paid attention to the evidence presented to them in court. Unless you have evidence to the contrary?

johnswifty, I haven’t been able to stomach a lot of Bush’s victories. Fool that I am….

Hey Lew,
Digby is giving you a big shout out.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

Look, I haven’t advocated not fighting, not once dammit.

But I also am a realist and the real view is that the America we knew and loved is dead or is in its last throes.

No amount of hoping about the good people in whatever department in whatever branch is going to make that any better.

The bottom line is a few weeks ago the US congress allowed the further empowering of the the most tyrannical and corrupt man ever to have sat in the Whitehouse and the same congress allowed Alberto Gonzales the whimsical powers of expediting the deaths of citizens who have been tried in kangaroo courts on our soil.

I don’t advocate not fighting but I am also advocating that people get a grip about just how far gone things are here.

-GSD

Sparkles the Iguana @ 174

jim oconnor @ 156

CHS @ 106: Christy I respect you and your points of view. Maybe I shouldn’t even comment here because I can’t say I have followed this case as closely as the other commenters. But if the Padilla case was such a travesty of justice why no mass resignations from all the people of principle at DOJ? For that matter where have those mass resignations been throughout Bushco?

I thought there was a circuit court judge who resigned because he was so fed up with the Government’s shenanigans on this case. A very conservative judge. Wasn’t it Luttig? He’s now general counsel for some big corporation.

Yep, it was Luttig (Bush pere appointee). He quit the Fourth Circuit to work for Boeing. He was very pissed off at the way this administration handled the case and said it was harming its credibility before the courts.

GSD @ 171

Lew Koch @ 158

GSD at 147

If I am (and please correct me if I’m in error) but no laws were broken in Nazi Germany. Laws were passed that permitted excesses, even when those excesses led to what we call know happened.

I think that was the point I made in my argument.

Torture in America no longer means torture as defined by most sane and reasoned people.

Torture has been redefined out of existence in America.

-GSD

It has not. Torture means what it always has-no matter what the Bush/Cheney/Gonzalez dancing bears have offered up.

That is why WE FIGHT. I understand the frustration, and the hopefully temporary gnashing of teeth. But either help fix it or get the hell out of the way.

Bush has found his Emmanuel Goldstein.

All this establishes is that the government can scare a group of 12 individuals locked in a room to the point that reason escapes them.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 191

Bluetoe at 185 — Have you ever been on a jury? Or been part of a trial process? Sometimes juries come back quickly because they know the facts and reach a consensus early. Sometimes it takes a while because there are a few people on the jury who have doubts.

Don’t denegrate the jury system because you disagree with a verdict. The problem in this case was with the Bush Administration’s mishandling of Padilla from start to finish. By all accounts, this jury paid attention to the evidence presented to them in court. Unless you have evidence to the contrary?

I’m not sure those jurors were given much to work with.

Bluetoe at 185

I believe so firmly in the jury system, that I extend it to the process of jury nullification. I even think that the jury instructions should note that while the judge absolutely forbids it, it is, nevertheless an option for the jury.

ThinkProgress has a link to FBI chief Mueller’s notes. He wrote these after the Bedside Visit to Ashcroft. It is a 6 page pdf file.

It is not necessary to download it. The Torturer in chief Gonzales censored almost all of it.

Sparkles the Iguana @ 195

Sparkles the Iguana @ 174

I thought there was a circuit court judge who resigned because he was so fed up with the Government’s shenanigans on this case. A very conservative judge. Wasn’t it Luttig? He’s now general counsel for some big corporation.

Yep, it was Luttig (Bush pere appointee). He quit the Fourth Circuit to work for Boeing. He was very pissed off at the way this administration handled the case and said it was harming its credibility before the courts.

Wasn’t he in the running for the Supreme Court nomination, as well?

Christy Hardin Smith @ 190

Bluetoe at 185 — Have you ever been on a jury? Or been part of a trial process? Sometimes juries come back quickly because they know the facts and reach a consensus early. Sometimes it takes a while because there are a few people on the jury who have doubts.

Don’t denegrate the jury system because you disagree with a verdict. The problem in this case was with the Bush Administration’s mishandling of Padilla from start to finish. By all accounts, this jury paid attention to the evidence presented to them in court. Unless you have evidence to the contrary?

Surely being an attorney one must have a certain faith in the judicial “system” but to be intellectually honest it’s also necessary to recognize that juries can be manipulated to be nothing more than instruments of state policy.

I know it is childish, but can we get another Lieberman or Collins column. I feel like I need a punching bag. :-$

How many others have been disappeared and tortured in our name?

FDL deserves a special gold star for bringing us Lew Koch’s excellent coverage of this case.

Bustednuckles at 191

Wow! Thanks!!

From Mueller’s notes:

AG is in chair, feeble, barley articulate, clearly stressed.

-GSD

That is the new America for you.

Yep, it was Luttig (Bush pere appointee). He quit the Fourth Circuit to work for Boeing. He was very pissed off at the way this administration handled the case and said it was harming its credibility before the courts.

Went to work for Boeing! What a man of principle! I suppose he does pro bono representing down and out defense contractors.

JF @ 203

Sparkles the Iguana @ 195

Yep, it was Luttig (Bush pere appointee). He quit the Fourth Circuit to work for Boeing. He was very pissed off at the way this administration handled the case and said it was harming its credibility before the courts.

Wasn’t he in the running for the Supreme Court nomination, as well?

Yes. If I recall, he is so conservative that the WH figured they’d have a much easier time getting Roberts and Alito confirmed.

Candidates being considered for the SC are interviewed by Cheney at his residence. Once they get past Cheney, they go shoot the bull with GWB for a few minutes, to make sure they can talk sports and shit.

GSD @ 207

From Mueller’s notes:

AG is in chair, feeble, barley articulate, clearly stressed.

-GSD

That is the new America for you.

Was he covered in Cr*sco oil?

tbsa @ 178

why no mass resignations from all the people of principle at DOJ?

With all due respect, there are no people of principle who could bring themselves to work for or serve this White House under any circumstance.

Really? What about those of us who’ve worked for the Federal Government for the last 30 years? Are you really tarring those of us who were here before the Criminal-in-Chief with the same brush?

I was here before Crawford’s Idiot began his little dance, and by Goddess, I will still be here when he leaves…

Siun @ 178

space – folks like Ron Suskind in his One Percent Solution have documented that the Cheney administration was desperately searching for a test case and came up with Padilla.

I don’t buy it and I’ll tell you why. First, as a test case you’d ideally pick a guy who you had the goods on.

Second,if you were going to fabricate evidence, you’d do it in a convincing way. Not this crap the gov’t presented, which appears slammed together post-facto.

Third, why would Cheney need a test case? The statement implies that the administration was deliberately attempting to establish the precedent that it could indefinitely detain Americans on American soil and proceed to do so on a wider scale. Wow! How is that any less tin-foil-y than the idea that they wanted to disappear Padilla. The V.P. planning the widespread detention of Americans without due process is less conspiratorial?

Fern at 199 — And that, again, is not the fault of the jurors, is it? Within the frame of the case, a conspiracy charge and the other charges here, and the evidence presented, they had a very narrow set of facts, evidence and elements to consider. The government presented a lot of evidence, some of which, I thought was very sketchy — but then, I knew all of the outside problems with the case (torture, illegal detention, etc.) that was not allowed to be considered by the jurors.

It’s awfully easy tosecond guess when you aren’t the juror in the hot seat. It is an incredibly difficult thing to do as a juror — to declare a fellow human being guilty knowing that the verdict you render results in incarceration. Hell, it was tough for me to do that as a prosecutor to argue for life for murderers that I knew needed to go away for the public safety.

It should never be easy. And you have no idea what they did or did not argue in the jury room. I’ve seen any number of juries come back in my lifetime. And to a one, they were solemn and very serious about their charge — because they take an oath, and have to report bound by that oath, in a courtroom. To denigrate that without having an evidentiary foundation to do so is just wrong.

Lew Koch @ 188

Al Swearengen at 178

Exactly which is why I’m asking for a permanent suicide watch.

(And if any of you have any suggestions about how to see those torture tapes, write me a Gmail.)

I agree it’s important to remember how damaged individuals who have been tortured and subjected to a Kafkaesque system are. The German al-Masri who was kidnapped by the CIA later got into a clerk at a store (about an iPod) and then tried to burn the store down.

JF @ 203

Sparkles the Iguana @ 195

Yep, it was Luttig (Bush pere appointee). He quit the Fourth Circuit to work for Boeing. He was very pissed off at the way this administration handled the case and said it was harming its credibility before the courts.

Wasn’t he in the running for the Supreme Court nomination, as well?

On the short list for what became Alito’s spot.

I don’t know why you guys are so against this verdict. I’m sure they considered the evidence presented. Do you think they would have brought him to trial if they didn’t have a case?

Yeah, he was tortured and not given any rights, but that’s not the issue here. Is it?

Meanwhile, when the US military does actually kill and rape civilians, it’s pretty much a “time served” waiting for the cases to go forward situation.

Things are so messed up.

In terms of Padilla’s judges, MuKasey in New York who first heard the case till Padilla was stolen away and put in the brig, acted very honorably I think. When I stated that to him in a lengthy e-mail request for an interview, the response was
from his secretary was Thank you for your kind words but I do not grant interviews. Oh well

GeorgeSimian @ 217

I don’t know why you guys are so against this verdict. I’m sure they considered the evidence presented. Do you think they would have brought him to trial if they didn’t have a case?

Yeah, he was tortured and not given any rights, but that’s not the issue here. Is it?

Curious George – you are kidding right?!

Lew Koch @ 147

Christy Hardin Smith at 132

Look we all here at the Lake have the advantage of seeing from a much wider perspective. Most here take advantage of reading wide and far, commies and conspiracy theorists. I’ve tried to knock down somethings and support others. I am deeply, deeply saddened because Gonzales and Bush will see this a a “victory” for their way of conducting business. Contrary to what some of you here indicate, I think the Supreme Court will toss it out on its ass. I’m betting pizza and I’m taking all comers.

I sure would like to be buying you all some pizza with the works!

GSD @ 206

From Mueller’s notes:

AG is in chair, feeble, barley articulate, clearly stressed.

-GSD

That is the new America for you.

And James Comey and Robert Mueller moved to protect the constitution and the stressed AG from undue influence.

That’s why we fight.

Does anyone remember what our politicians and media were rampaging about on Capitol Hill on Sept 10, 2001?

Most likely not…so here ya go.

It’s amazing, just one day before the events of 9/11, Congress and the media were beginning to ramp up their coverage on a report that the Defense Department ‘misplaced’ 2.3 Trillion dollars of taxpayers money. Six years later.. an estimated 40 cents of every dollar spent on the war on terror goes to secretive sub ‘machine gun’ contractors and outsourced intelligence agencies with absolutely no oversight. Worse yet, we are now publicly arming the enemies of our enemies…again. Prepare for the impending ‘blowback’.

Read the full article..and watch Rummey testifying 1 day before the day that changed everything
http://newssophisticate.blogsp…..ld-on.html

The Prosecution proved that Padilla was associated with Al Quaeda and terrorism (e.i. 9/11). The wording of the indictment was so twisted that to a jury it was easy to basically prove the defendants to be guilty of conspiracy to maybe hurt some people someplace and sometime in the future. The prosecution did that.

Is it a crime that should not have been allowed to be prosecuted? No. Should it have been dismissed? Yes. That is what the Court’s primary or preliminary function is, to determine jurisdiction over the party and the subject matter. It should never have been given to a jury with such a fantastical claim of criminal conduct. It is almost if not completely the prosecution of a thought crime, which is completely against the constitution.

I mean hell in State Court’s you can’t even get a judge or law enforcement officer to anything to arrest or prosecute an abusive spouse or mate until they actually do something. If they had a membership to spouse beaters association and had witnessed threats to do harm and were seen practicing torture techniques you still could not touch the jerk until they actually caused harm.

The jury almost always will find someone guilty if you prove some kinda of connection. The Jury is always most likely to find guilt in federal prosecutions.

Surely there is and factual and legal insuffiency argument here.

That should read:

The German al-Masri who was kidnapped by the CIA later got into an argument with a clerk at a store (about an iPod) and then tried to burn the store down.

coming late to the discussion, and haven’t read all the comments yet – so if this has already been covered, i apologize… but wanted to make sure that everyone knew about this morning’s interview on democracy now! with ith forensic psychiatrist Dr. Angela Hegarty (she spent 22 hours with Jose Padilla to determine the state of his mental health)

an important interview that will break your heart… what have we become?

GSD @ 195

Look, I haven’t advocated not fighting, not once dammit.

But I also am a realist and the real view is that the America we knew and loved is dead or is in its last throes.

No amount of hoping about the good people in whatever department in whatever branch is going to make that any better.

The bottom line is a few weeks ago the US congress allowed the further empowering of the the most tyrannical and corrupt man ever to have sat in the Whitehouse and the same congress allowed Alberto Gonzales the whimsical powers of expediting the deaths of citizens who have been tried in kangaroo courts on our soil.

I don’t advocate not fighting but I am also advocating that people get a grip about just how far gone things are here.

-GSD

As sad as I am, I am dedicated to understanding reality. I have not found that GSD has done anything but think through and reflect on what is true. Stating truths does not mean more than that.

Could those of us who are dedicated to processing reality for what it is have some time to comprehend what has happened? Action is great. Fighting is great. But please respect those who take time to think deeply, make connections and share them with us.

space @ 213

Siun @ 178

space – folks like Ron Suskind in his One Percent Solution have documented that the Cheney administration was desperately searching for a test case and came up with Padilla.

I don’t buy it and I’ll tell you why. First, as a test case you’d ideally pick a guy who you had the goods on.

Second,if you were going to fabricate evidence, you’d do it in a convincing way. Not this crap the gov’t presented, which appears slammed together post-facto.

They don’t have the goods on anybody. This is why their cases are so flimsy. Are there real terorrists in America? Quite possibly, but you’d never know it from looking at these supposedly “terrorist” cases.

Carl Hamblin

The press of the Spoon River Clarion was wrecked,
And I was tarred and feathered,
For publishing this on the day the
Anarchists were hanged in Chicago:
“l saw a beautiful woman with bandaged eyes
Standing on the steps of a marble temple.
Great multitudes passed in front of her,
Lifting their faces to her imploringly.
In her left hand she held a sword.
She was brandishing the sword,
Sometimes striking a child, again a laborer,
Again a slinking woman, again a lunatic.
In her right hand she held a scale;
Into the scale pieces of gold were tossed
By those who dodged the strokes of the sword.
A man in a black gown read from a manuscript:
“She is no respecter of persons.”
Then a youth wearing a red cap
Leaped to her side and snatched away the bandage.
And lo, the lashes had been eaten away
From the oozy eye-lids;
The eye-balls were seared with a milky mucus;
The madness of a dying soul
Was written on her face–
But the multitude saw why she wore the bandage.”

Edgar Lee Masters, Spoon River Anthology

Christy Hardin Smith @ 214

Fern at 199 — And that, again, is not the fault of the jurors, is it? Within the frame of the case, a conspiracy charge and the other charges here, and the evidence presented, they had a very narrow set of facts, evidence and elements to consider. The government presented a lot of evidence, some of which, I thought was very sketchy — but then, I knew all of the outside problems with the case (torture, illegal detention, etc.) that was not allowed to be considered by the jurors.

It’s awfully easy tosecond guess when you aren’t the juror in the hot seat. It is an incredibly difficult thing to do as a juror — to declare a fellow human being guilty knowing that the verdict you render results in incarceration. Hell, it was tough for me to do that as a prosecutor to argue for life for murderers that I knew needed to go away for the public safety.

It should never be easy. And you have no idea what they did or did not argue in the jury room. I’ve seen any number of juries come back in my lifetime. And to a one, they were solemn and very serious about their charge — because they take an oath, and have to report bound by that oath, in a courtroom. To denigrate that without having an evidentiary foundation to do so is just wrong.

Whoa! I made that comment because I agreed with you on this particular point.

Anyone notice that the WH announced the engagement of daughter Jenna at the same time the verdict was due? Coincidence?

Lew and I were talking about this the other day — a lot of those would have been people that Padilla might have met overseas. How do you find these people when you are defense counsel? And, when you do find them, if they are horrible potential witnesses, you have to make a decision on whether you should call them – or whether they would hurt your case.

——————————————

Even if you found saintly potential witnesses, who in their right mind would travel to the US to appear as a defense witness in a terrorism case?

I know I won’t be travelling to the US as long as this administration is in power, and I don’t even like broccoli, let alone talk about the price of it.

Where is your exoneration now?

jwc @ 231

Anyone notice that the WH announced the engagement of daughter Jenna at the same time the verdict was due? Coincidence?

Probably.

Some things really are coincidences.

wow, off topic and on topic at the same time

check out this lead from think progress;

‘The most trusted name in news.’ In a battle of breaking stories, CNN chooses Jenna Bush’s engagement to a Karl Rove intern over the Jose Padilla conviction.

so, is it possible THIS is why rove resigned?

why would that cause him to resign anyway, I don’t get it but there it is

perris @ 235

wow, off topic and on topic at the same time

check out this lead from think progress;

‘The most trusted name in news.’ In a battle of breaking stories, CNN chooses Jenna Bush’s engagement to a Karl Rove intern over the Jose Padilla conviction.

so, is it possible THIS is why rove resigned?

why would that cause him to resign anyway, I don’t get it but there it is

What are you suggesting, that Jenna is pregnant by Karl and is engaged to this intern as cover?

Really? What about those of us who’ve worked for the Federal Government for the last 30 years? Are you really tarring those of us who were here before the Criminal-in-Chief with the same brush?

IMO, if you work there now and haven’t come forward to tell what is happening you are another player in the band.

Christy is upstairs.

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..s/#respond

Fern — Sorry, I think I read you inaccurately, then. Am trying to do eighty things at once at the moment. My apologies.

tbsa @ 237

Really? What about those of us who’ve worked for the Federal Government for the last 30 years? Are you really tarring those of us who were here before the Criminal-in-Chief with the same brush?

IMO, if you work there now and haven’t come forward to tell what is happening you are another player in the band.

I’d write something longer if I was not back in EPU-ville – but you are being extremely judgmental based on no knowledge whatsoever about this person’s circumstances.

Conspiracy cases like this one against Padilla are like the charges in US v. Dennis where members of the Communist party USA were convicted on conspiracy to overthrow the US govt. just because they were members of said party. I’m not saying it is necessarily right but it is consistent with US law that a person need only be shown to have ben a member of a violent organization that has commited terrorist acts to be a part of the conspiracy. And it sounds like Padilla did become a member.

Maybe I’m wrong and that is the issue. So one issue here is whether Padilla’s fingerprints got on an application during torture. Maybe, in other words, he was framed. Sounds like a good issue. He might have some others like denial of a speedy trial. I’m skeptical of justice in the right wing courts in this country but I’ve been surprised before.

jim oconnor @ 157

CHS @ 106: Christy I respect you and your points of view. Maybe I shouldn’t even comment here because I can’t say I have followed this case as closely as the other commenters. But if the Padilla case was such a travesty of justice why no mass resignations from all the people of principle at DOJ? For that matter where have those mass resignations been throughout Bushco?

Ooohhhwee … nasty question.

tbsa @ 237

IMO, if you work there now and haven’t come forward to tell what is happening you are another player in the band.

I don’t work at DOJ, so can’t speak to the situation of anyone there. What you don’t seem to realize, is that IF you work for ANY Federal Agency, you’re part of the Executive Branch. It seems like you’re blaming us for a situation we didn’t create. Hell, I never voted for the twit.

Now, I’ve never seen my job as “serving the WH” but as “serving the people.” I have no knowledge of any wrong-doing here at [my agency], so there’s nothing for me to testify about or to…

There are lots of ethical Federal employees who are dismayed at the policies and actions of the current occupant of the Oval Office, and it seems unfair to me to blame them for something they have no control over.

[CHS notes: Modified for your own protection, pal…]

Hugh @ 66

This reminds me of the trial in To Kill A Mockingbird. There the defendant was convicted essentially of being black. Here Padilla was convicted of being a Moslem.

It also reminds me of Camus’ The Stranger where the protagonist is convicted for being an unsympathetic individual.

In short, Padilla was convicted not for what he did but for who he is. This is not the way our justice system is supposed to work. It is a sad day.

It is truly sad and a horror as Siun said at 33.

Bluetoe @ 186

What does it say about a jury that returned a verdict so quickly? Mindless drones in the service of the Borg, drones in the service of the Borg?

Fern @ 200

Christy Hardin Smith @ 191

Bluetoe at 185 — Have you ever been on a jury? Or been part of a trial process? Sometimes juries come back quickly because they know the facts and reach a consensus early. Sometimes it takes a while because there are a few people on the jury who have doubts.

Don’t denegrate the jury system because you disagree with a verdict. The problem in this case was with the Bush Administration’s mishandling of Padilla from start to finish. By all accounts, this jury paid attention to the evidence presented to them in court. Unless you have evidence to the contrary?

I’m not sure those jurors were given much to work with.

The flipside of the OJ coin?

Sparkles the Iguana @ 228

They don’t have the goods on anybody. This is why their cases are so flimsy. Are there real terorrists in America? Quite possibly, but you’d never know it from looking at these supposedly “terrorist” cases.

If Cheney believes there are no real terrorists in the U.S.(highly doubtful that he believes that) then he has no reason for this so-called test case other than naked power-grabbing authoritarianism. Again, how is that less tin-foil-y than the theory that they delieberately disappeared Padilla for a reason unique to Padilla?

And if they thought there were real terrorists, they would have waited for a better case to make the argument.

What is interesting about the Padilla case is that unlike other areas of the WOT, where administration has been forced to make concessions (e.g. releasing U.K. citizens from Gitmo), there has been ZERO bending on a case that appears both weak and potentially damaging to the administration.

If Padilla really was a test-case, the government would have dumped it at the first sign that it was going sour, so to avoid bad precedent.

Shit. Shows what I know.

Back later.

Brisingamen @ 212

tbsa @ 178

With all due respect, there are no people of principle who could bring themselves to work for or serve this White House under any circumstance.

Really? What about those of us who’ve worked for the Federal Government for the last 30 years? Are you really tarring those of us who were here before the Criminal-in-Chief with the same brush?

I was here before Crawford’s Idiot began his little dance, and by Goddess, I will still be here when he leaves…

Really. You serving your country? Or this White House? Not needling you gratuitously here, but there’s a real distinction and it’s all too clear that not everyone knows what it is.

Are there good people in government? Clearly. Are people in government complicit in current policy? Clearly. If not all, then too many.

Why do I assert this? Because “people of principle”—or who consider themselves to be such—have no problem “just following orders” to carry out Bush’s policies. That you’ve been there 30 years prior and will remain there after Bush disappears says nothing about what you are doing or may be abetting now.

Further, these objectionable polices did not all begin with Bush and will not end when The Kinglet’s gone.

Ed Abbey got it right: “A patriot is someone who defends his country from his government.” And that is an intrinsically harmless stance due to its defensive, legal, & moral posture.

Carrying out policy with a business-as-usual attitude IS the problem. Endure. By all means, endure. Look what your approach got Padilla. He endured. Now think about your approach will serve the country. At minimum, Bush is setting precedents.

“Being there” as though that’s enough countenances those precedents—and displays as much conscious awareness as Peter Sellers did in the movie of the same name.

Rich, I’m so far down the totem-pole that I have no way of changing policy. The area I work for audits the programs the various agencies in Department run and fund.

My agency actually returns money to the government, sometimes from catching and prosecuting fraud, sometimes just mis-spent funds.

If you want to believe I’m an evil Bush supporter, nothing I can say will change that.

GeorgeSimian @ 217

I don’t know why you guys are so against this verdict. I’m sure they considered the evidence presented. Do you think they would have brought him to trial if they didn’t have a case?

Yes.

Yeah, he was tortured and not given any rights, but that’s not the issue here. Is it?

Yes.

Here’s a link to a discussion with forensic psychiatrist Dr. Angela Hegarty. She interviewed Jose Padilla for 22 hours to determine the state of his mental health.
EXCLUSIVE: An Inside Look at How U.S. Interrogators Destroyed the Mind of Jose Padilla

Brisingamen @ 249

Rich, I’m so far down the totem-pole that I have no way of changing policy.

Unresponsive and beside the point. The question is why every federal employee hasn’t ‘gone on strike’ or made a massive stink. Unless, that is, you equate being a “Good American” with being a “Good German.” It’s not your department, you say. There’s nothing you can do, you say. I was just doing my job. I was only following orders. In every respect, Americans are being asked to confront–and are evading, the essential existential question: what do I do? We should take care to remember no one is obligated to carry out or obey laws that are intrinsically treasonous/un-Constitutional in nature. While that may seem strong language, stating it is precisely the definition of America. Speaking the truth about America is weak tea compared to taking required action.

nomolos @ 31

Pete Williams MSNBC in ref. tp appeals says that any info derived from torture was not used in case.

And how the hell would he know?

Well, according to the government, what was used to get the information was not torture under their legal definition. I think torture under the “law” is organ failure that results in death.

The jury would have instead have awarded Padilla damages for ill-treatment during incarceration, if only they had been allowed to learn of it. I hope this travesty can be remedied in appeal. Or maybe ask Bush, pretty please, for a pardon.

The truth — because most Federal employees are living paycheck to paycheck, and I’m old enough that the odds of getting another job that would have the health coverage I need is very unlikely.

What am I doing? Writing and calling my Rep and my Senators, contributing money to candidates I deem worthy, and trying to convince others to do the same.

BTW — Federal employees are allowed to be Union members, but we are forbidden by law to strike. That’s one of the reasons the air traffic controllers lost their jobs.

rich @ 252

Brisingamen @ 249

Rich, I’m so far down the totem-pole that I have no way of changing policy.

Unresponsive and beside the point. The question is why every federal employee hasn’t ‘gone on strike’ or made a massive stink. Unless, that is, you equate being a “Good American” with being a “Good German.” It’s not your department, you say. There’s nothing you can do, you say. I was just doing my job. I was only following orders. In every respect, Americans are being asked to confront–and are evading, the essential existential question: what do I do? We should take care to remember no one is obligated to carry out or obey laws that are intrinsically treasonous/un-Constitutional in nature. While that may seem strong language, stating it is precisely the definition of America. Speaking the truth about America is weak tea compared to taking required action.

So Rich, you advocate anarchy at this point? I think every person must choose their battles carefully. You shoot your load too early and what leverage do you have? The time for those actions will be apparent to Brisingamen. With being a good civil servant comes the resposability of keeping the government running, even in transition and strife. I believe that Brisingamen’s agitating would jeopardize losing what is really needed, people who believe our government should work, in a place where they can help it run efficently.

Those men were systematically convicted before they entered the court. Padilla is an American citizen, which shows they too can be ‘railroaded’ by the Bush Administration.

There should be a discussion about the way Padilla has been held for the past five years in this country.

teknik AL, thanks for the vote of confidence. There have been many days when I’ve gone home and cried over many of the things the current Mal-Administration has done.

I’m also staying where I am because I believe sanity will return, and I’ll be in a position to help get my agency and my government back on track when it does.

Jonathan Turley — BRAVO!

The Jose Padilla case is a travesty of justice and a stain on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The case began as a sensational announcement employed as a scare tactic and devolved into a show trial worthy of the Spanish inquisition in which Padilla’s torture and illegal detention were ruled inadmissible by Bush appointee U.S. District Court Judge Marcia Cooke.

We are Jose Padilla — or could be — and therein lies the inherent problem with Bush’s self-proclaimed right to declare a U.S. citizen an “enemy combatant” and detain him in a black-ops brig in South Carolina, where he was subjected to torture, extreme isolation and sensory deprivation, denied the right to speak to a lawyer for two years, and severe violations of his civil rights under the Constitution and his human rights under Geneva Conventions.

Bush and his politicized Department of Justice operate on the theory that the king can do no wrong — but we’re not a monarchy.

Padilla has suffered too many egregious violations and abuses — including three years of isolation and torture — at the hands of his own government. He should be set free and given monetary compensatory damages to pay for the years of psychotherapy that he will surely need to deal with the damage to his mental health caused by the “harsh” interrogation to which he was subjected for three plus years in military custody.

For shame.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

rich at 252 — That is appalling rude and, beside the fact, it isn’t the way those governmental agencies work. The real work is, and has always been, done by the career folks who do their work for the good of the public, whomever is in office. You have a social security check coming in the mail — who do you think processes your account? You have a massive public corruption and fraud case, like Enron, who do you think prosecutes the case? You have drugs necessary for curing cancer or helping people in chronic pain — who in hell do you think does the public safety testing on them?

Jeebus, can people please think before they start typing in nasty invective at other commenters who are trying to keep our government from collapsing in on itself? Because this personal attack on the government employees because they aren’t sacrificing themselves on the alter of your purity bullshit is really starting to piss me off.

Let us not forget that it took years and years for a black defendant to get even a remotely fair hearing in the deep south. Was the judicial system broken? A number of appeals court have shown a great deal of fortitude in protecting the constitution and consistently pushing back against the Bush junta. It’s a terrible verdict. What’s worse, is that Padilla has to be returned to prison. But this may yet play out the right way.

The other important thing is to get a Democratic president elected so that the trend toward naming insanely right wing federal judges can be reversed. The judge in this case did some things that seemed blatantly against the defense. It is telling that she remarked to the prosecution that their evidence was very light. It’s too bad she didn’t have sufficient convinction to simply throw the case out for just such a reason.

teknikAL @ 256

While that may seem strong language, stating it is precisely the definition of America. Speaking the truth about America is weak tea compared to taking required action.

So Rich, you advocate anarchy at this point?

To the contrary. I advocate law, and I advocate it at this point.

The Geneva Convention holds it is a soldier’s “duty” to disobey an order if it violates Article 3. Are you prepared to hold American citizens to a lower standard?

I have every regard for courteousness, in substance and form. I make careful distinction between who carries out policy and who, working for other agencies, simply stand by. It’s the southern background, you see, the roots in Tennessee and West Virginia, that taught me to mind my manners.

Perhaps I raised an uncomfortable question.

In a democracy, though, all of us are responsible. As a society, that holds true as well. Anyone who studied the Holocaust, what led to it, and how citizens examined their consciences–or didn’t–is aware that certain excuses don’t wash (have no legal purchase) in the face of “law” that leads to a Gulag Archipelago or carries out the Holocaust. How do you think that happened? First they came for the Fourth Amendment (pick your favorite), and I said nothing.

I’m not looking for a scapegoat–you know what that leads to–but rather include myself in on the responsibility. My forebears studied under theologians who fled the Third Reich–Bonhoeffer, Tillich, Buber–at Union Theological Seminary in NYC. They grappled, as did (some) ordinary German and German-Jewish citizens, with just what do you do? So what does a Christian–an American-do under these circumstances? A valid question, even if you don’t like it.

We have legislators knowingly passing openly unConstitutional laws. A judicial branch ignoring, willy-nilly, precedent, case law, common-sense and the Constitution. Which isn’t new, mind you. And an executive branch that’s openly asserted, in plain English, Kingly Powers. Yet a largely silent legal community hasn’t glommed onto the internal contradictions inherent in it’s own profession. What’s the current legitimacy? Inalienable rights cannot, physically, be suspended: they are intrinsic, bodily, regardles of what’s been taught.

It’s more than fair to ask–ask, civilly–just which law applies (e.g., the First Amendment or its “legal” evisceration, etc., etc., etc.), and just who owes what to whom.

And we need to keep our eye on what is appalling here. I have great admiration for the bloggers here, Christy, but they have a real flair for frank language that is truthful, and an in-your-face rhetoric that veers close to offending the tender sensibilities of certain parlor denizens (i.e., Joe Lieberman, etc., etc., etc.). Jump to conclusions if you like, but hardly in a position to lecture about civility.

In short, I’ve never claimed purity. And I’d never call the body of work of the theologians who fled the Third Reich and grappled with their conscience either appalling or bullshit, nor would I ‘plaint that the lawyers at Nuremberg or the signers of the Declaration of Independence were uncivil.

It’s long past time to a) ask whether policing the flock on points of petty-quette should supercede the issue here—and to (neatly paralleling) b) acknowledge that, on the face of it, everyone knows America is a “free-speech zone,” no one needs a “permit” to exercise it, and we shouldn’t be afraid to say so. For example. So which of those do Americans observe, in practice? Prevails? Americans don’t drive 55, either, so which law’ll you fight for? It’s disingenuous to suppose that basically, interpreting these overarching laws out of existence—a practice that has led us to this juncture—prevails or is something any Americans does or should go along with. The intrinsic flaw is that arguing any position at all, at the expense of overarching principles, is bound to have larger consequences.

“Unitary executive.” It’s something that becomes possible when no shared ground at all—rhetorical, legal—none, is demanded or recognized in adversarial practice.

We mean well. But perhaps Americans need to ask themselves a few uncomfortable questions.

Ten years ago, one of my fellow doctoral students started doing research on the False Claims Act. Six months into his research, the university (Columbia) shut down his dissertation because he was uncovering so much mismanagement and corruption at the federal level (from GS5s on up) and Columbia was concerned about pissing off the fed (who heavily fund the university).

My classmate caved and, with great candor, said he couldn’t blame the federal employees for turning a blind eye to workplace corruption because he was doing the same thing in order to secure an academic career.

C’mon peeps, This is the real America. The America most of you wax poetic about was a fallacy, a figment of your imagination. Minorities, myself included, knew this about our country.

The situation we are witnessing now is this: This government is now willing to throw everyone, EVEN White America, under the bus in order to preserve the status quo. Remember, this is the same administration that claims to admire the autocratic practices of China.

Kevster @ 55

It just seemed that the Govt case had a lot of smoke and mirrors to it. I expected a jury to at least have some misgivings. What was so compelling that they would find guilty in a day and a half?

It is very easy to convict someone on charges when the law he is supposed to have broken was passed after the government already had him in prison, was unable to try him on the original charges (due to the torture and unlawful detention among other things) so they came up with a new law to fit this new crime of “aiding and abetting a terrorist organization” and then Bush/Cheney identified every organization Padilla had ever given any contributions to as a “terrorist organization” so voila! instant conviction.

Notice that the conviction was for aiding and abetting in ….Afghanistan – NOPE. ….Iraq – NOPE ……Bosnia – YUP, … Kosovo – YUP.

He also supposedly filled out an application to join Al-Quaeda. No one ever said he actually got in! The fact that he was thinking about joining is now considered evidence of a “conspiracy to commit violence” under the new law they charged him with violating.

All you need to do nowdays is to think about doing something and it is grounds for arrest and conviction.

Be afraid, be very afraid.