Jose Padilla Sues U.S. Over Mistreatment During Confinement

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Trials
Posted on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:25:12 PM EST
Tags: Jose Padilla (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Jose Padilla has sued 59 goverment officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, over his mistreatment during his confinement in the S.C. military brig. His primary claim: psychological torture.

He's not doing it for the money: He's only asking for $1.00 damages from each official:

"Mr. Padilla suffered gross physical and psychological abuse at the hands of federal officials as part of a scheme of abusive interrogation intended to break down Mr. Padilla's humanity and his will to live," the 30-page complaint says.

"The grave violations suffered by Padilla were not isolated occurrences by rogue lower-level officials," the suit says. Besides Mr. Rumsfeld, it names Defense Secretary Robert Gates, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and former Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lowell Jacoby, among others, who "personally ordered and/or approved Mr. Padilla's detention and interrogation program."

Related: Lindsay of Majikthise has a new article in In These Times, Perverse Justice, questioning whether detainees who are subjected to long periods of extreme isolation can receive a fair trial.

< Lindsay Lohan Gets One Day in Jail for Drugs, DUI | N.J. County Providing Laptops to Inmates for Legal Research >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Jose Padilla Sues U.S. Over Mistreatment During Confinement | 40 comments (40 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Good for him. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Edger on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 11:10:28 PM EST

I thought he would do this, or at least that his lawyers would advise him to.

another State's Secrets trial? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by tnthorpe on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 11:27:52 PM EST

Is the ultra-secretive Bush Administration going to invoke the state secret privilege in an attempt to shut the trial down as they are in the 9th Circuit Al-Haramain case? Is torture a state secret now? Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln must be rolling over in their graves.


: I'm not a lawyer (none / 0) (#3)
by Edger on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 11:32:51 PM EST

but this will be a civil suit, not a criminal trial, and who knows? The Wilson's civil suit against Cheney was dismissed...

now just you wait one flapping (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by cpinva on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 11:48:52 PM EST

moment here! according to jim, our resident constitutional scholar, this was all part of mr. padilla's "due process". clearly, his claims are baseless, absent the showing of a brand on his body (a lovely, gilt "NSA" would work), preferably on a scrotal sack.

without clear evidence, mr. padilla's assertions, against the "dear leader" and his minions, are meritless.

: Ahh...hahaha (none / 0) (#5)
by Edger on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:17:53 AM EST

Well there is that. Heh.

Jesselyn Radack (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:35:55 AM EST

Has this excellent diary up at DK right now 'Fourth Circuit to Reconsider Case of "Enemy Combatant" al-Marri: Why the Administration is So Scared'

: from the 2-1 4th Cricuit decision (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by tnthorpe on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:51:34 PM EST

by Judge Motz: "For in the United States, the military cannot seize and imprison civilians -- let alone imprison them indefinitely" link here Looks the the cowboy in chief is being told no, finally.

cpinva (1.00 / 3) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:17:36 PM EST

I do declare, but I am beginning to think that you could not keep facts straight if we gave you bucket to carry them.

My recent comment regarding the object of your deep concern, just convicted terrorist wannabe Padilla, made careful note that he had been in custody for three years.

I then noted that what we need to have some rational discussions to see if we can enact laws that would protect the country and the individual.

So naturally you didn't want to talk about that.

In the meantime I find your smears "Squeakyish:"

Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

In case anyone wants to read the comment, this link will get you. But be warned. In it you will find such outlandish things as:

I am not an attorney and my knowledge of the law is sketchy at best.
I have no reason to believe that a "standard" USCJ trial will protect the country in every case.
I have no reason to believe that lengthy interrogations are needed in every case.
I don't claim to have the answer. I do claim to understand that we have a serious problem. It will be interesting to see if those who screamed about Padilla will admit that the problem needs to be solved with laws that protect both the country and the individual, or will they cling to trying to defend the status quo?

I apologize for making such radical comments, and hope no children are exposed to the concept of problem solving through discussion.

Laws (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Edger on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:28:36 PM EST

that would protect the country and the individualwas exactly what the situation was until Bush was installed as president and with the help and advice of people like Yoo, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Wolfowitz and others began a seven year spree of violations of international law and treaties and violations of his oath of office and probable commitment of felonies.

It will be interesting to see if any Bush supporters will be the change they claim to wish to see in the world and start at home through avoiding denial and improving their own intelligence and knowledge.

Or will they cling to trying to defend the status quo?

And you ran away from that question here. I imagine you'll do your best to avoid it and divert again.


edger and his strawmen (1.00 / 1) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:03:29 PM EST

You're right. I see no reason to try and explain to either of those two that the vast majority of Iraqi civilians have been killed by other Iraqis and various radical Moslem terrorist groups.

As for your complaints, you provide no proof. BDS in full bllom.

In he meantime, we note that since you don't believe there terrorists, it is understandable that you see no reason to have plans to defend against.

As you wrote:

Posted by edger at December 4, 2005 08:12 AM
(I had written) Insurgents don't use car bombs to kill civilians or give booby trapped dolls to children. That is terrorist work, edgey.
(You replied) That is not "terrorist work" in the way you try to twist it to mean, at all. It is the work of the Iraqi people - the very people BushCo thought would throw flowers - fighting to kick the US out of Iraq"

Strange how that one comment, almost two years old, answers both of those by you above.


No, ppj. (5.00 / 0) (#11)
by Edger on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:12:35 PM EST

All it does is one more time, just like all the other times before on so many different topics, show that avoidance and diversion are all you know to do.


edger - quit stomping your feet and (1.00 / 2) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 12:36:00 PM EST

holding your breath. It would be terrible if you induced a stroke on yourself.

I gave you the courtesy of several answers, if you are incapable of understanding them, then that isn't my fault. Perphas a diet high in fish oil would help.

But then if you admitted that I was spot on, you wouldn't be living up to your admitted goals.

First of all, (none / 0) (#67)
by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:18:25 PM EST
Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

So we can read that and understand you are not interested in any kind of reasonable discourse.


:Still: trooling & trying to avoid and divert? (5.00 / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:10:38 PM EST

There's only one way to deal with people who are incapable of doing anything more than that.

Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.


Still stomping your footsie (1.00 / 1) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 03:17:28 PM EST

I see.


: Just can't deal with it (none / 0) (#20)
by Edger on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 03:30:22 PM EST

Can you? You have no clue, do you?
Heh! You remind me of Mr. Jones.
Here, maybe this will help you. Probably not, though.

pick one (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Jen M on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 08:53:24 AM EST

My recent comment regarding the object of your deep concern, just convicted terrorist wannabe Padilla, made careful note that he had been in custody for three years.
I then noted that what we need to have some rational discussions to see if we can enact laws that would protect the country and the individual.

JSN (1.00 / 1) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 12:17:21 PM EST

Padilla was held because Bush believed he had the right. When he more or less, I'm not sure of all the ins and outs, lost, the government then brought him to trial.

You may not like that, but what I see is a difference of opinion over law, settled in the courts.

As for new laws, how about changing probable cause?

If the government can convince a judge that they are MOST LIKELY to have a terrorism/terrorist case, then they can keep the suspect for N number of months for interrogation. If the judge rules no, then the warrant is issued as a standard probable cause case and we have a standard/usual full up CJS trial??

I realize that isn't perfect, but it does insert a judge into the process..

Your turn. How would you do it?

My guess. You wouldn't.


For starters (5.00 / 0) (#16)
by Edger on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:29:22 PM EST

enact [or rather, not subvert] laws that would protect the country and the individual

by charging Padilla within a day or two of his arrest with and bringing him to trial as speedily as possible, as the Constitution intends.

And arrest and charge just as speedily, in full respect and honor of their rights as American citizens, the people who subverted the law and Constitution and had Jose Padilla held for years without charges.

Like George W. Bush. And Dick(less) Cheney as well.

You do believe that Bush and Cheney, and yourself, deserve better treatment than was given to Jose Padilla, yes ppj?


edger can't turn loose (1.00 / 1) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 03:43:07 PM EST

of Padilla.

BDS in full bloom.


You didn't lose BOTH the other two did you? (5.00 / 0) (#27)
by Edger on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 03:46:52 PM EST

Sheesh. How clueless can you be? Jeezus... Ok - here's another one. But three's your limit. You're on your own from here on. Deal with it. If you can.


So??? (1.00 / 1) (#31)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 04:04:15 PM EST

I never pay a lot if attention to those who have accused me of lying and when proved wrong will not apologize.

That is you edger, and we both know I have the facts to prove it.

So snark away. I'll bring it forward when ready.


Go ahead. (5.00 / 0) (#35)
by Edger on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 04:49:15 PM EST

You can produce on instance of a error (which you do repeatedly).

But not the lies you post here continually, and daily.

So back to the topic of this thread.

You do believe that as American citizens Bush and Cheney, and yourself, deserve better treatment than was given to Jose Padilla, yes ppj?

Padilla too, of course, yes?

Or no, ppj?


An error?? You called me a liar. (1.00 / 1) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 11:05:18 PM EST

Edger (none / 0) (#65)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:54:28 PM EST
Since you want to get back into the subject, I note that even when you are proven wrong, you can't bring yourself to apologize for calliing someone a liar.
Link
----------------
Re: deleted comments? (none / 0) (#120)
by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 08:17:50 AM EST
Jim. The Nola/Red Cross thread has 59 comments (59 topical, 0 hidden).
Comments 1 thru 59 are all there, Jim. No comments were deleted...
Why do you lie, Jim? Even when you know you'll be held accountable?
And more importantly, why do you do this to yourself, Jim? No snark - I really am concerned for you.
--------------------
Edger - Here they are (none / 0) (#123)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 09:02:10 AM EST
Lie? Here they are. I just copied them.
Edger, you need help.
(Comments shown on original)
---------------------------------------------
Oh yes, right Jim. (none / 0) (#127)
by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 09:29:23 AM EST
I remember now. .....
---------------
Edger (none / 0) (#129)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 10:14:11 AM EST
So, you call me a liar and when proven wrong you don't apologize, you just make an excuse...
----------------
Whatever, Jim (none / 0) (#130)
by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 10:19:08 AM EST

You define yourself.


: Life sure is tough (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Edger on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 12:10:16 AM EST

when you get what you give, isn't ppj?
You are a liar. Continually. Every day. Multiple times. You've been called on it here more times than can be counted.
Quit your whining and sniveling.

who are you? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by Jen M on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 03:48:37 PM EST

That you have never noticed stories on guantanamo here? Guess what. unless every single detainee is named "padilla"?

You can't let go of the nasty horrible fact that some americans like our rights, and don't want them to turn into priveledges. YOU may have no use for them, your family may hate those rights, but some americans actually want to keep them. Why do you object so strongly to keeping your rights?


What a strawman collection. (1.00 / 1) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 04:00:53 PM EST

Are you incapable of understanding that the issue I am addressing is US citizens and foreigners who are suspects in terrorism related crimes committed inside the US?

I have not written they should be kept in GITMO.

Instead of your continual snark, why not an attempt to criticize my suggestion??


Here you go. (5.00 / 0) (#32)
by Edger on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 04:17:03 PM EST

They should NOT be kept in GITMO.

And Bush and Cheney, and yourself, deserve better treatment than was given to Jose Padilla.

You agree of course, yes? Or no?


so are we (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Jen M on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 04:24:12 PM EST

: We don't do spam here (none / 0) (#42)
by Edger on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 11:31:43 PM EST

No one will click your spam link, and like your user account, your link won't be here very long either.

Well, ppj... (none / 0) (#18)
by Edger on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 02:18:39 PM EST

Are you again going to ty to divert to something else and avoid answering this question, as you do with all others?

You do believe that Bush and Cheney, and yourself, deserve better treatment than was given to Jose Padilla, yes ppj?

: edger's strawmen (1.00 / 1) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 03:44:42 PM EST

Do you have a real question that relates to my proposed solution?
No?
I didn't think so.

what the hell (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by Jen M on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:41:57 PM EST

does how we treat SUSPECTS
again I say SUSPECTS

you know NOT TRIED OR CONVICTED YET

this is so hard for so many americans to understand

NOT YET TRIED OR CONVICTED

do you understand that?
do you know what that means?

If you become a suspect through no fault of your own you are perfectly happy to be treated like Padilla was then?

Must be.

What part of illegal do you not understand?


What the hell yourself. (1.00 / 2) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 03:38:54 PM EST

Turn loose of Padilla and move on to trying and fix the problem.

What did you not understand about my comment?

Again claiming that I am not a lawyer, although cpinva has declared I am the resident constitutional expert, or something like tha, I opine that such things as the severity of the charges, probability of flight, apparent soundness of the government's case already determines whether or not suspect receives bail and the amount of such bail. So I don't think I am plowing much new ground.

And remember. This is only US citizens or foreigners who have committed crimes the government calims are terrorist/terrorism related inside the US.


: of course (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Jen M on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 03:44:49 PM EST

no one here at talkleft has ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever mentioned how the us treats detainees. It is completely unheard of.
None of us have ever called, written our senators or congressmen for the past 4 years ever. Not a single solitary one.
Oh no, never ever ever ever ever ever ever.
Not that anyone here also objects to the same treatment of others. Nope no one.
And you are? I haven't ever seen you here before. Obviously this is your first time on talkleft.

: Here. (none / 0) (#23)
by Edger on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 03:41:43 PM EST

In case you lost the first one.

Reality is different (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by tnthorpe on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 03:36:27 PM EST

Bush broke the law, straight up, no mumbo jumbo over difference of legal opinion. You cannot hold a citizen without charges, without representation. Period.
You will no doubt go on to make this out to be a bleeding-heart case for Padilla. Wrong again. I'm disgusted with the disregard for the law that the Bush Administration has repeatedly shown. It is because of their contempt for basic rights that instead of focusing on what actually works against terrorists, we're trying to protect our Constitution here at home from the homegrown sabotage of the legally ridiculous "unitary executive." Impeach Bush and Cheney!


I understand that you hate Bush. (1.00 / 1) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 03:54:30 PM EST

Padilla is no longer the issue. His case is just an attempt to keep his name in the press and has zero chance of coming to trial.

What I have proposed is a way to get the government's case reviewed by a judge, and if deemed worthy, to give the government a fixed amount of time to interrogate the suspect before he is brought to trial. If not, the case must proceed as in any other trial.

I can see no other way to be fair to the people, and to the individual.

You simply cannot treat a terrorism suspect the same as you someone who robbed a 7-11.


You don't understand much of what I write (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by tnthorpe on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 04:24:27 PM EST

We have a Constitution and a legal system that works. Bush broke the law, that's what I hate. I also know that he can't do it without enablers who look the other way because it's politically expedient--bluedog democrats who are mostly DINO, republicans who know better like Sen. Warner, Sen. Snowe--or because they simply lack the fortitude to go toe to toe with the lawbreaking Bush Administration.
Your proposal doesn't address the basics. Detainess aren't held under specific charges, so how can one defend one's self? They're not allowed effective counsel, the ability to gather their own evidence, or do what is necessary to challenge their detention. Further, a person has the right to challenge their incarceration, not to have a judge simply hear one side of the story. Warrants are issued by judges on such a basis, but the legal contest between a defendant and their accuser must include both parties and that contest is ajudicated by a judge. Hence, the basic right to habeas corpus that is enshrined in law needs be respected by the Bush Administration. Rather than spend time on legal novelties like military tribunals that admit evidence obtained through torture or fraud, the Bush Administration needs to stop breaking the law and do what is legally required. This would put more genuinely dangerous people away and show the world that we respect the rule of law.
As for Padilla, if his case can help expose the illegality of our present administration, all power to him.


tnthorpe (1.00 / 1) (#37)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 11:00:26 PM EST

We have a Constitution and a legal system that works.

Yes, and it has been amended time and agaun.

And Bush acted in what he believed to be a proper manner. Your problem us that you can not acknowledge that fact. He lost, more or less, the first around. But that may not happen again.

You also demonstrate an inability to read, or understand.

One more time. I am not speaking of detainees. I never have been. I have specified that point time and again.

Why do you keep going back to it?

What I proposed was:

And that would be for:

And remember. This is only US citizens or foreigners who have committed crimes the government calims are terrorist/terrorism related inside the US.

Tell me. Is it your position that detainees have the same rights as US citizens??


: Bush (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by tnthorpe on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 11:36:20 PM EST

can believe the earth is flat for all I care, it just isn't so. The cowboy in chief overreached and now he's got a problem. The point you don't acknowledge is that to hold someone you must charge them with something. The person charged gets to see what that charge is and is able to defend against it. I don't see your proposal doing that very effectively. Your proposal is authoritarian and while it may be efficient, it isn't Constitutional. Why introduce novelties when the law we have actually already works?