I thought he was currently at the federal detention center in Miami, that list was from the brig where he got the sensory deprivation treatment for no apparent reason.
Why does the fact that 'you have no problem with it' have any bearing on the discussion at all except as the basis for exposition of factual reason and evidence? In another thread you settled on your own definition of terrorism and used it as proof of your case. Here you state that you have no problem with isolation but instead of using that as a springboard to explain why your position is rational and well thought, you act as though your opinion is in and of itself the deciding and supreme evidence. There are external facts of objective reality that you don't get to alter based on your opinions. Extended absolute isolation has proven to be intensely and persistently psychologically damaging. The fact that it doesn’t bother you ultimately has no bearing on the discussion unless: You are omnipotent and are able to change reality through the power of your will. You provide some objective factual evidence that shows that your opinions are based on more than random whims. For instance, I don't think Hitler had a problem with killing Jews. Is this reason enough that he was right, is it only you who have the power to decide reality, or is your statement on the subject vapid and meaningless?
Yes, I am omnipotent. Check the mirror - you now have donkey ears. Actually in the other thread I proposed a definition of terrorism and gave reasons why it was a good one to use. That appears to be the very next step you call for above - a springboard explaining why it is rational etc, so not sure who stuck a corncob up your ass. In this thread I asked what the problem was with it and then said I didn't have one as an invitation for someone to counter why they thought being in isolation and sleeping on a hard bed was inhumane. Unfortunately the discussion hadn't moved past 'read the Count of Monte Cristo' which I don't think is the exposition of undeniable fact you seem to believe it is. Further, Padilla isn't in 'absolute' isolation now or maybe I missed one of your external facts of objective reality. I'm also a little confused about the story we're getting re: Padilla. The lawyers are claiming that he is psychologically damaged because of the isolation, that he can't/won't help with his defense. But the Guardian account of the story says: "In court papers, Padilla claimed that he was forced to stand in painful stress positions, given LSD or some other drug as a ``truth serum,'' subjected to loud noises and noxious odors, and forced to endure sleep deprivation, extreme heat and cold, and harsh lights." http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6258416,00.html Isn't that 'helping his defense' and 'talking about his case with his lawyers?' Further, as far as we know this type of isolation has been ruled on and is not a violation of the 8th Amendment. Supermax facilities across the country hold inmates in strict isolation, with lights always on, always shackled outside their cells, always fed through the door, almost no outside contact or exposure.
Isolation is one thing, complete sensory deprivation (which is what Padilla appears to have gotten) is another. (Even the supermax guys, btw, get like an hour of exercise outdoors per week if the discovery channel is any reputable source, IIRC). Also, the "supermax" inmates are generally guys who are extreme security risks in GP and have ultra-violent reputations.
No, but the point is that isolation itself is not inhumane, or at least has not been ruled as such. He has been charged now, btw.
It is very clear to me that people have in various ways attempted to indicate in response to your query that extended isolation has a deleterious effect on the human psyche. The next logical step would be for you to dispute this fact, or come up with some way in which the deleterious effects could be justified. Perhaps they were too subtle in their statements, because instead you continued to simply say that you had no problem. I have trouble seeing how you could miss that point but I suppose it is possible. If you disputed this fact, the next obvious response would be presentation of evidence both for and against. If you had a logical reason why the effects were justified the appropriate response would be your exposition as to why this is so. So do you deny that prolonged periods of isolation have an extended deleterious effect on the human psyche? If you allow this point do you believe that there are reasons to justify this damage? In other words, why does it still not bother you?
The sum of those various ways are rimrocker's plea to 'google some psych studies' and 'read the Count of Monte Cristo,' as I already stated. Apparently you find that a clear and ample response ? Other than that there isn't any response about isolation but rather a couple of comments about the totality of the alleged treatment Padilla got. Again, not sure what set you off but you're making baseless accusations. The next obvious step was to wait for someone to back up the assumption that isolation IS inhumane. Saying google some studies is hardly a sound rebuttal much less 'external objective reality' as your proposed earlier. My assertion that 'it is not inhumane' is just as valid or equally vapid/meaningless (depending on your viewpoint) as someone saying 'it IS inhumane and look it up if you don't believe me.' I believe the Courts have ruled that prolonged periods of isolation are permittable, not cruel and unusual. I believe prison itself could have 'an extended deleterious effect on the human psyche,' but I wouldn't advocate opening the gates and letting criminals walk. I have also contended that the diagnosis that Padilla is a mumbling head case that is unable to help with his own defense is contradicted by his functional descriptions of his treatment, exactly the kind of help his lawyers argue he isn't capable of making anymore. The SuperMax prisons have similar isolation policies and so no, it still doesn't bother me. I don't think anything indicates Padilla is experiencing complete sensory deprivation. The descriptions of the supermax facilities and Padilla's experience match up pretty well. One description: "In the OSP almost every aspect of an inmate’s life is controlled and monitored. Incarceration there is synonymous with extreme isolation. Opportunities for visitation are rare and are always conducted through glass walls. Inmates are deprived of almost any environmental or sensory stimuli and of almost all human contact. Placement at OSP is for an indefinite period, limited only by an inmate’s sentence." http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-495.ZS.html OK. Terrorists qualify I think.
This is the first time that you have made the assertation that is not inhumane. We are making progress. Once we see that you specifically disagree with a point we can go forward. It is much easier than having people guess why you still don't have a problem with it. See how that works? Actually their treatments are not equivalent to those described for Mr. Padilla. They don't deprive people of information concerning the date or time. They don't cover up windows. They don't engage in novel interrogation techniques and they generally do allow visits with attorneys. Furthermore, supermax prisons are used for people who have been convicted of a crime and are placed there because it has been determined that they pose a continuing threat of violence against other inmates and jailers that justifies the poor conditions. I specifically see information in the story that indicates that this does not apply to Mr. Padilla. On a more general note, I also think it is fairly clear that there were two periods of detainment of Mr. Padilla - the 'before charges' period and the 'after charges' period. It is reasonable to assume that the White House was concerned about how the Supreme Court would view the constitutionality of some aspects of the 'pre charges' period or they would have not brought charges when they did. But you seem to be bringing up 'post charges' instances and occurrences as refutations for concerns about injuries incurred during 'pre charges' confinement and interrogation.
If they're convicted, sure. Until then, you don't give an American citizen the 'supermax treatment' without conviction, and in this case without even charging him and affording him his right to due process. If you already believe that he's guilty and therefore deserved such treatment, that's your prerogative; that's not how the system works...at least in theory.
Oh, gee. Sorry about that. I thought we're supposed to be taking logical leaps and connecting the dots and all. I guess I was too subtle for you on the point when I said it 'wasn't truly horrible, IMO;' and when I said: I guess it's just me but since you're the master of this kind of stuff I thought you could take from that the position that I didn't think it was inhumane. I'll try to be less subtle from now on although everyone else seems to have gotten the point but you. A little strange considering your attitude, but hey... He is getting visits from attorneys, there is no indication they have clocks or windows and he is not being interrogated. I guess you missed the part where I specifically listed the things I wouldn't object to. Again, I'm sure that's my fault since someone specifically enumerating what they find acceptable is pretty darn vague and I can see how you'd be confused by that. My contention is that isolation has been deemed acceptable and hence is not inherently inhumane. Why other inmates are in isolation doesn't affect that contention. I don't see any information that is determinant one way or the other as for present condition other than that of his defense team, which does carry inherent bias. I don't see any problem keeping a terrorism suspect under the highest security. Not at all. My statement was that I don't see anything wrong with the list I posted, and that I would not protest him incurring the same treatment (as I listed) in his current facility. I already agreed that not charging him/giving due process is problematic. OTOH I'm not sure why if you are charged and given due process you couldn't be put under the highest level of security. I don't think it makes sense to put a terrorist in general pop or the county jail.
Umm, blackout goggles, ear covers and hoods to go to the dentist do not seem like the normal course of business even at a supermax prison, IMO. Like I said, life at a supermax prison appears far different - some of them even have TVs. Here's the description on the ADAMAX facility, where the absolute most notorious federal criminals in the land are kept: that's a far cry from what Padilla went through, IMO. Tabling the fact that he's not been judged to be a terrorist, and apparently never been a problem inmate or shown any violent conduct inside (he's got one aggravated assault on his record from his old days but that's it), that's doubtful. Prison guard's don't make the decision on how to treat inmates based on their crime but on their conduct while incarcerated. It's quite obvious to any observer that, if these accounts are true, they decided to give Padilla the full scale torture approach, seemingly for no good reason. Ted Kaczynski is a terrorist by any definition and he' s not treated like that. Same with the shoe bomber, Richard Reid (who got MUCH further along in his plot than Padilla) isn't treated like that, to my knowledge. Terry Nichols, who successfully masssacred a lot of people, isn't treated like that..... I can name names all day. Even the guys at Guantanamo aren't given that treatment and they have been much more combative towards the staff (and they're actually real enemy combatants and not US citizens on US soil)
Fair enough. I am not saying Padilla's experience with the alleged treatment is the same as experienced in a SuperMax. However, the SuperMax's include extreme sensory and physical isolation as described earlier. That some of the inmates have tv's or radio's doesn't change the fact that some don't - again only to show that the ability to do so has not been judged inhumane. Again, a description of the conditions: "For an inmate placed in OSP, almost all human contact is prohibited, even to the point that conversation is not permitted from cell to cell; his cell’s light may be dimmed, but is on for 24 hours; and he may exercise only one hour per day in a small indoor room. Save perhaps for the especially severe limitations on all human contact, these conditions likely would apply to most solitary confinement facilities (same link as previous)." Not necessarily. You could be put in a SuperMax for your crime, not just for your in prison behavior. Not sure about 'no good reason' if he had information about terrorism then that is a good reason, if one believes there is any reason to do what is alleged to have been done (which I also don't think should be characterized as 'full scale torture'). I'm ok with Ted K, RR, and TN being in isolation too.
If I remember correctly, Hayes was the one whining about the penalties for a DWI conviction being too severe. Yet he is remarkably unconcerned about severe treatment of those who are not convicted of anything. I guess when it's not your ox being gored things look really different.
Hmmm, don't think a DWI is quite on par with terrorism but that could just be me. Personally a terrorist just goes intuitively in another class for me, especially when they are part of a larger network. However, I can agree with you that this is severe for someone yet to be convicted and that such a position is more emotional than reasonable. As for the whole torture issue, I know I would have no problem with it in the 'ticking bomb' scenario but am not in favor of the other end of the spectrum where police can torture at will. Where the 'no' point is I don't really know. btw those accused of DWI's are punished from the get go, not from conviction.
Hayes: I'm proud of you for managing to admit that, at a minimum, his lack of a formal charge of a crime and concurrent lack of access to lawyer and/or recourse of any sort during 3+ years of solitary confinement was, at best, beyond your current capability to rationalize and/or convince yourself of appreciable merit; regardless of the decaying attitude our country manifests for the civil liberties this nation was founded upon. Bravo. *claps hands*
