My OperaJose Padilla sentenced to 17 years, judge insists previous 5 years in solitary confinement was not harsh enough.
Saturday, September 24, 2011 10:30:20 PM
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/09/20/padilla/index.html
Padilla was, like Greenwald recounts, arrested in Chicago in 2002. And he has since been held in solitary confinement - without charge. And has likely been tortured while in confinement (though appeals-judges have not been able to confirm this, since the tapes from his interrogations were "lost"). An unlikely scenario for an American citizen, perhaps. But it still happened.
After the government was then forced to either bring Padilla to trial - even military special tribunal, or a trial in the civil system - Padilla was charged on something completely different from what he had allegedly been held for (the "Dirty bomb" scenario, where terrorists from "24" would detonate a dirty bomb in a city, etc), as no actual evidence materialised for that accusation.
Padilla was still held, however, and then sentenced for "materially" aiding terrorism, by apparently having signed a registration form for participating in a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. I do not know how I have missed these circular letters from Al-Quida, since I'm a liberal socialist communist myself. But allegedly Padilla had signed such a letter, and he was found guilty.
Suspicious minds would perhaps think that Padilla's lawyer insisted on Padilla admitting to this charge, because the potential punishment would be expected to be below the five years he had already been held in solitary confinement. And that if he was found guilty, he would then be released.
This was not to happen, and Padilla has now been sentenced to 17 years - on top of the five years in solitary confinement, while he was also subjected to what official sources have described as harsh and mentally and physically damaging conditions.
The majority of the judge panel then insist that this is "too lenient".
You can say what you want about this travesty of a trial, and maybe feel a twinge of compassion for the guy whose life has been ruined. But as the circumstances of the case are fairly public - it's not a secret that Padilla has been held on suspicion, and were arrested following a PR push from the Bush-administration. And because of this, because the circumstances are so apparent - it's maybe worth noting the chilling effect this will have on public opinion.
I've been commenting before on the fact that there's very little chance of actually getting arrested for speaking out in public about the US and it's foreign policy. But lately we have actually had people being sentenced to jail for uploading a youtube-video with al-Quida propaganda to the internet. Along with quite a few arrests of people considered associated with possible terrorist organisations. Few of these have actually ended in a trial, though, because there's... no evidence.
And Padilla's case is perhaps considered by the usual "right"-minded people as more important than normal primarily because of the signal-effect. That it is a good way to state an example. Of how the anti-terrorism legislation is strong. And that you will not be "excused" by legal technicalities if the charge is serious enough. And that of course the government isn't admitting to being incompetent.
In fact, the argument I've heard several times is that even if Padilla was only sentenced for "material support", and then released citing the previous confinement - that in itself would legitimise the view that he was held unjustly. That admitting the jail-sentence had been carried out before the trial, would be a problem, etc. And that therefore the sentence should not be merely upheld, but increased. And such that sentencing Padilla to additional jail in maximum security prisons would be a requirement.
Note that none of these arguments actually address the legal question, or whether he is at all guilty. Instead these are all political decisions. Something that, arguably, the arrest was as well - triggered as it was by a wish by the Bush-administration to produce results on the anti-terrorism front.
In other words, just like a number of other operations that were affected by political pressure. Perhaps the most famous of them, the terror plot in England where the British police was pressured to make arrests on fairly flimsy intelligence, rather than aim to gather evidence to secure a trial. This isn't really about law or, even pretence of law.
Yesterday, a federal appeals panel of the 11th Circuit issued a ruling, by a 2-1 vote, rejecting each and every one of Padilla's arguments. It then took the very unusual step of vacating the 17-year-sentence imposed by the trial court as too lenient and, in effect, ordered the trial judge to impose a substantially harsher prison term:(...)
Padilla was, like Greenwald recounts, arrested in Chicago in 2002. And he has since been held in solitary confinement - without charge. And has likely been tortured while in confinement (though appeals-judges have not been able to confirm this, since the tapes from his interrogations were "lost"). An unlikely scenario for an American citizen, perhaps. But it still happened.
After the government was then forced to either bring Padilla to trial - even military special tribunal, or a trial in the civil system - Padilla was charged on something completely different from what he had allegedly been held for (the "Dirty bomb" scenario, where terrorists from "24" would detonate a dirty bomb in a city, etc), as no actual evidence materialised for that accusation.
Padilla was still held, however, and then sentenced for "materially" aiding terrorism, by apparently having signed a registration form for participating in a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. I do not know how I have missed these circular letters from Al-Quida, since I'm a liberal socialist communist myself. But allegedly Padilla had signed such a letter, and he was found guilty.
Suspicious minds would perhaps think that Padilla's lawyer insisted on Padilla admitting to this charge, because the potential punishment would be expected to be below the five years he had already been held in solitary confinement. And that if he was found guilty, he would then be released.
This was not to happen, and Padilla has now been sentenced to 17 years - on top of the five years in solitary confinement, while he was also subjected to what official sources have described as harsh and mentally and physically damaging conditions.
The majority of the judge panel then insist that this is "too lenient".
You can say what you want about this travesty of a trial, and maybe feel a twinge of compassion for the guy whose life has been ruined. But as the circumstances of the case are fairly public - it's not a secret that Padilla has been held on suspicion, and were arrested following a PR push from the Bush-administration. And because of this, because the circumstances are so apparent - it's maybe worth noting the chilling effect this will have on public opinion.
I've been commenting before on the fact that there's very little chance of actually getting arrested for speaking out in public about the US and it's foreign policy. But lately we have actually had people being sentenced to jail for uploading a youtube-video with al-Quida propaganda to the internet. Along with quite a few arrests of people considered associated with possible terrorist organisations. Few of these have actually ended in a trial, though, because there's... no evidence.
And Padilla's case is perhaps considered by the usual "right"-minded people as more important than normal primarily because of the signal-effect. That it is a good way to state an example. Of how the anti-terrorism legislation is strong. And that you will not be "excused" by legal technicalities if the charge is serious enough. And that of course the government isn't admitting to being incompetent.
In fact, the argument I've heard several times is that even if Padilla was only sentenced for "material support", and then released citing the previous confinement - that in itself would legitimise the view that he was held unjustly. That admitting the jail-sentence had been carried out before the trial, would be a problem, etc. And that therefore the sentence should not be merely upheld, but increased. And such that sentencing Padilla to additional jail in maximum security prisons would be a requirement.
Note that none of these arguments actually address the legal question, or whether he is at all guilty. Instead these are all political decisions. Something that, arguably, the arrest was as well - triggered as it was by a wish by the Bush-administration to produce results on the anti-terrorism front.
In other words, just like a number of other operations that were affected by political pressure. Perhaps the most famous of them, the terror plot in England where the British police was pressured to make arrests on fairly flimsy intelligence, rather than aim to gather evidence to secure a trial. This isn't really about law or, even pretence of law.
