Thanks to David Markus, I have an e-copy of Padilla’s motion alleging outrageous government conduct. Have it in the original .rft or in my conversion to .pdf.
(Earlier post: Padilla Torture Claims Detailed.)
Thanks to David Markus, I have an e-copy of Padilla’s motion alleging outrageous government conduct. Have it in the original .rft or in my conversion to .pdf.
(Earlier post: Padilla Torture Claims Detailed.)
George Allen’s defense to the revelation that he had failed to disclose stock options to the Senate as its rules require was that the options were worthless and thus not worth disclosing (never mind that the Senate rules require disclosure regardless of value, and that even options with negative value are a potential conflict since there might be incentive to move the stock to a position where the options become profitable).
Well, it turns out that Allen lobbied the Army for one of the firms at a time he held their options. And, those “worthless” options? They were worth $1.1 million at their peak. I guess that’s “worthless” only if you’re a Republican.
Bonus: Here’s the latest anti-Allen ad from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committe:
The Washington Post’s Marc Fischer thinks George Allen’s latest commercial is economical with the truth: George Allen’s Zen Ad: Can You Be Misquoted If You Were Never Quoted? It’s a nasty ad, and might be effective unless the counter-story gets out. An example of how money can tell in the last weeks of a campaign.
Incidentally, a commentator on Fischer’s blog has a real zinger: Senator Allen “isn’t so much an empty suit, as an empty sheet.”
The real question is whether Webb’s lawyers are going to ask stations to take down the ad on the grounds that it is simply false. Not that half of them would care. (I see that the DSCC has issued a press release, but that’s not the same thing.)
David Markus has put up his summary of the key allegations in Padilla's claim of torture at Southern District of Florida Blog: Update on Padilla motion to dismiss for outrageous government conduct.
I urge you to read it. In addition to isolation and sensory deprivation, it alleges a great deal of brutality. If only parts of it are true, I think this makes out a claim of cruel and unusual confinement; if more of it is true, it's torture. Here's a sample,
In an effort to gain Mr. Padilla’s “dependency and trust,” he was tortured for nearly the entire three years and eight months of his unlawful detention. The torture took myriad forms, each designed to cause pain, anguish, depression and, ultimately, the loss of will to live. The base ingredient in Mr. Padilla’s torture was stark isolation for a substantial portion of his captivity. For nearly two years – from June 9, 2002 until March 2, 2004, when the Department of Defense permitted Mr. Padilla to have contact with his lawyers – Mr. Padilla was in complete isolation. Even after he was permitted contact with counsel, his conditions of confinement remained essentially the same. He was kept in a unit comprising sixteen individual cells, eight on the upper level and eight on the lower level, where Mr. Padilla’s cell was located. No other cells in the unit were occupied. His cell was electronically monitored twenty-four hours a day, eliminating the need for a guard to patrol his unit. His only contact with another person was when a guard would deliver and retrieve trays of food and when the government desired to interrogate him.
His isolation, furthermore, was aggravated by the efforts of his captors to maintain complete sensory deprivation. His tiny cell – nine feet by seven feet – had no view to the outside world. The door to his cell had a window, however, it was covered by a magnetic sticker, depriving Mr. Padilla of even a view into the hallway and adjacent common areas of his unit. He was not given a clock or a watch and for most of the time of his captivity, he was unaware whether it was day or night, or what time of year or day it was.
In addition to his extreme isolation, Mr. Padilla was also viciously deprived of sleep. This sleep deprivation was achieved in a variety of ways. For a substantial period of his captivity, Mr. Padilla’s cell contained only a steel bunk with no mattress. The pain and discomfort of sleeping on a cold, steel bunk made it impossible for him to sleep. Mr. Padilla was not given a mattress until the tail end of his captivity. Mr. Padilla’s captors did not solely rely on the inhumane conditions of his living arrangements to deprive him of regular sleep. A number of ruses were employed to keep Mr. Padilla from getting necessary sleep and rest. One of the tactics his captors employed was the creation of loud noises near and around his cell to interrupt any rest Mr. Padilla could manage on his steel bunk.
…
Mr. Padilla was often put in stress positions for hours at a time. He would be shackled and manacled, with a belly chain, for hours in his cell. Noxious fumes would be introduced to his room causing his eyes and nose to run. The temperature of his cell would be manipulated, making his cell extremely cold for long stretches of time. Mr. Padilla was denied even the smallest, and most personal shreds of human dignity by being deprived of showering for weeks at a time, yet having to endure forced grooming at the whim of his captors.
A substantial quantum of torture endured by Mr. Padilla came at the hands of his interrogators. In an effort to disorient Mr. Padilla, his captors would deceive him about his location and who his interrogators actually were. Mr. Padilla was threatened with being forcibly removed from the United States to another country, including U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he was threatened his fate would be even worse than in the Naval Brig. He was threatened with being cut with a knife and having alcohol poured on the wounds.
It's an allegation; the source is something of a thug. I deeply want this not to be true. But I regret that I can't summon up the same degree of skepticism I do for wild allegations by others.
The motion asks for the charges to be dismissed in light of what it calls nearly three years and eight months of torture. Unfortunately, I don't know enough criminal law to know if this relief even lies within the court's power. Further, and supposing it does not, I'm unclear on this court's authority (as opposed to one hearing a civil claim for damages) to look into the history of past abuse except as they may be relevant to evidentiary claims or claims of ill-motivated prosecution. Any crim law mavens in the audience?
Say hello to the new Nieman Foundation Watchdog Blog:
it seems to us that it could be important, even vital, to have sympathetic, knowledgeable, respected writers offer a little guidance and commentary and, every now and then, show us how our work is supposed to be done.
We took NiemanWatchdog.org online in May 2004 with a focus on having experts from Harvard and elsewhere pose questions the press should ask. Since then weve had more than 130 contributors and 440 or so items. We are of course continuing that.
Today we launch the Watchdog Blog, to supplement those efforts.
The blog features an interesting list of contributors although the large majority of them seem to tend to the, um, very experienced end of the spectrum.
OBDisclosure: My brother is the deputy editor of Niemanwatchdog.org.
Billmon notes that capitalism can tolerate dissent — when it is popular — quoting from a news report about Olbermann:
Whiskey Bar: The Price of Dissent — Olbermann said he hasn’t spoken to NBC Chairman Bob Wright or anyone at corporate owner General Electric Co. about his commentaries. No one’s asked him to tone things down; in fact, “I’ve had to calm them down a little bit,” he said.
Such is the almighty power of the Nielsen meter.
“As dangerous as it can sometimes be for news, it is also our great protector,” Olbermann said. “Because as long as you make them money, they don’t care. This is not Rupert Murdoch. And even Rupert Murdoch puts `Family Guy’ on the air and `The Simpsons,’ that regularly criticize Fox News. There is some safety in the corporate structure that we probably could never have anticipated.”
Meanwhile, back at Reuters, they just canned a guy who wrote a book critical of a right-wing extremist. Apparently, the fact that this person routinely calls for her opponents to be killed does not suffice to make criticism of her conform to Reuters’s policy that “that the integrity, independence and freedom from bias of Reuters shall at all times be fully preserved.”
Too soon to say before we see the book, but you have to wonder if Reuters are just frit. I suppose we can explain it as non-camera employees not having much market power. Which should give most of us great comfort, shouldn’t it?