Padilla Convicted

[Nullifidian]

My response to this will have to be to paraphrase Rumpole from "Rumpole and the Miscarriage of Justice":

The prosecutors did this extraordinarily skillfully. No evidence that Padilla had discussed any violent plots. No evidence that the "Mujahideen Data Form" was his. No evidence that he could even write Arabic fluently. Anybody can secure a conviction on the evidence, but it takes a legal genius to get one without it!

In fact, it appears that when it comes to the prosecution of terrorism cases, no evidence is the best evidence (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSNASU8130120070813).

Wiretapped phone conversations between Padilla and Hassoun demonstrate that Padilla was patient and secretive, Frazier said.

"This is why he was a star recruit," he said.

There were only seven wiretapped conversations where Padilla spoke, and none of them mentioned any violent plots. This is what the prosecutor means by "patient and secretive"; that there's no evidence, and therefore Padilla must be guilty. Not only does it turn logic into a pretzel, the prosecutor is stating, in closing, facts which were simply never offered into evidence. There was never any evidence that Padilla was thought of as a "star recruit", so the prosecutor is committing an act of prosecutorial misconduct by arguing facts in the closing which were never adduced in trial.

MSNBC points up (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20298703/) that the government initially claimed he was involved in a dirty bomb plot that never materialized as an indictment. They also supply a possible reason for the timing of the indictment in the Holy Land Foundation case:

James Cohen, criminal law professor at Fordham University, said the [alleged Mujahideen Data] form likely cinched the case for many jurors.

“The fingerprints on the application, combined with the claim that Padilla’s purpose was humanitarian when various Muslim charities are accused of being mere fronts for terrorism, adds up to a difficult defense,” Cohen said.

So it's rather convenient that those indictments came down when they did. A little government-based jury tampering would never happen in a criminal case, would it?

Lastly, I find it disturbing that Padilla was convicted on the strength of this alleged form, because (and here I probably am going to be most controversial) the thing is a fake. It surfaced over a year and a half ago (Michelle Malkin put it up on her blog (http://michellemalkin.com/2006/01/13/document-drop-padillas-al-qaeda-form/)). When I saw it, I was convinced at once it was a fake. The use of regular European numerals (http://v2.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/padilla1.jpg) (they're called Arabic numerals, but they're really not) for the birthdate was the first thing I noticed. Arabic has its own version of numerals, called Arabic-Indic, and these are taught to students of Arabic at the same time as they're learning the alphabet. If Padilla had the skill in Arabic to complete this form, why didn't he use Arabic-Indic numerals? Anyone else who knew Arabic would have, even if they were not a native speaker. I know; I'm not a native speaker. There are other problems, like Arabic "letters" which don't resemble Arabic letters, even contextualized, which really make me think that this was put together by an American who didn't really know Arabic at all, and was just copying it out of a book or some more innocent application form. It really reads like something--bar the questions clearly designed to look "terroristic"--that someone would fill out to attend religious training classes. Otherwise what's the purpose of asking about how many years of religious training one has, whether one has trained under a recognized shaikh, etc. and mixing that in with demographic information about spouses, children, even hobbies? The government did find an 'expert witness' to authenticate the document, but the 'expert' they chose never actually had any experience with Islamist terrorism before he restyled himself in the wake of 11/9/2001, routinely makes claims which are disputed by actual intelligence experts, claims sources he couldn't have consulted, puffs up his c.v., and generally has a severe credibility (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/20/1058545648013.html) problem (http://www.sangam.org/ANALYSIS/Sachi_9_12_03.htm).

The government has faked evidence to obtain a conviction in a terrorism case before, as in the case of Edwin Paul Wilson, falsely convicted of selling weapons to the Libyans before he was freed in 2003, after twenty years, when his conviction was overturned. Maybe they just didn't learn their lesson.

[yguy]

When I saw it, I was convinced at once it was a fake. I don't doubt that for a minute. I DO doubt, however, that your certainty has anything to do with the contents of the document itself. More likely you're convinced of its fraudulence for the same reason Dan Rather was convinced of the authenticity of the Killian memos. ;)The use of regular European numerals...If Padilla never put a pen to that application, he knows it's fake; yet according to your MSNBC link, his attorney had this to say:

Padilla’s lawyers insisted the form was far from conclusive and denied that he was a “star recruit,” as prosecutors claimed, of the North American support cell intending to become a terrorist. Padilla’s attorneys said he traveled to Egypt in September 1998 to learn Islam more deeply and become fluent in Arabic.

Is the attorney unaware that it's fake? If yes, how is that possible? If no, what does he have to gain by holding back?

[Nullifidian]

What is it? Did you think that a second throw of the dice would yield a different response? I'm not interested in talking with you, and the reason is that your statements are absolutely content-free. The first is a baseless 'observation' which you state is somehow more "likely" than the alternative (And, pray, how did you calculate that probability distribution?) and the second requires me to claim some sort of mindreading ability. I will not claim that, despite your assumption of that role yourself.

The best I could do is point out that Padilla identified so closely with the government that he was damn near a textbook case of Stockholm Syndrome (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/16/1416242), and so was not competent to assist in his own defense, and since defense lawyers are hamstrung by the wishes of their client (in this case, a client who got very angry at his defense team for making the government look bad) they had an extremely limited set of options.

Or maybe it was just intimidation or incompetence. In 90% of cases where forensic DNA is used, the defense doesn't even request the lab reports in discovery because of the intimidation factor. This case posed different, but related problems. I can understand being intimidated by the thought that the prosecutors are introducing evidence one cannot read and that the government is the the one and only with a handle on terrorism, and thereby not adequately cross-examining their inexpert expert witness.

Either find another leg to hump or start putting forth some responses with something substantative for me to respond to.

[D. Scarlatti]

In 90% of cases where forensic DNA is used, the defense doesn't even request the lab reports in discovery because of the intimidation factor.

Where did you get this information?

[Nullifidian]

In 90% of cases where forensic DNA is used, the defense doesn't even request the lab reports in discovery because of the intimidation factor.

Where did you get this information?

Finally I have an answer for you! I used this reference in a zine I wrote, then like an idiot I forgot to get a hard copy made for myself. Ugh!

Thompson WC, Ford S, Doom T, et al. (2003) "Evaluating forensic DNA evidence: Essential elements of a competent defense review." The Champion, 27:3 16-25.

In our experience, examination of the underlying laboratory data frequently reveals limitations or problems that would not be apparent from the laboratory report, such as inconsistencies between purportedly "matching" profiles, evidence of additional unreported contributors to evidentiary samples, errors in statistical computations and unreported problems with experimental controls that raise doubts about the validity of the results. Yet forensic DNA analysts tell us that they receive discovery requests from defense lawyers in only 10-15% of cases in which their tests incriminate a suspect.

[yguy]

What is it? Did you think that a second throw of the dice would yield a different response? That question would have interested me then no more then than it does now, which is not all.I'm not interested in talking with you, and the reason is that your statements are absolutely content-free. More shame on you, then, for being fool enough to respond to them.The first is a baseless 'observation' which you state is somehow more "likely" than the alternative (And, pray, how did you calculate that probability distribution?) Trade secret. Suffice it to say I'm just that damn good. That's all you need to know. :cool:The best I could do is point out that Padilla identified so closely with the government that he was damn near a textbook case of Stockholm Syndrome (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/16/1416242), That doesn't quite compute, since he was evidently afraid his attorneys were government plants (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20304286/site/newsweek/page/2/).Either find another leg to hump or start putting forth some responses with something substantative for me to respond to.KMA, ya whiny little twit. Either that or go snivel to somebody who cares.

[Nullifidian]

KMA, ya whiny little twit. Either that or go snivel to somebody who cares.

Wow, what a combination of vitriol and projection. I'm merely telling you what you have to do to get a seriously-intentioned response from me. If you find it too difficult not to troll, then go find a leather club and pay a dominatrix to abuse you for your daily dose of negative attention.

In fact, I'll even take the first step. You're off my ignore list as of now (and so is zeke and mickthinks). However, any further response from me is predicated on you providing me with something to respond to other than insubstantial trolling.

[yguy]

KMA, ya whiny little twit. Either that or go snivel to somebody who cares.

Wow, what a combination of vitriol and projection. I'm merely telling you what you have to do to get a seriously-intentioned response from me. Again, thanks for nothing. I couldn't care less what you want. The purpose of the yguy account is not to provide responses acceptable to you, it's about saying what I think. If you don't like reading what I think, then do something else.

Idiot. :rolleyes:

[Nullifidian]

KMA, ya whiny little twit. Either that or go snivel to somebody who cares.

Wow, what a combination of vitriol and projection. I'm merely telling you what you have to do to get a seriously-intentioned response from me. Again, thanks for nothing. I couldn't care less what you want. The purpose of the yguy account is not to provide responses acceptable to you, it's about saying what I think. If you don't like reading what I think, then do something else.

Idiot. :rolleyes:

But the problem is that you don't think. You're nothing more than a little ball of inchoate prejudices. And the whole concept of being on a message board is that one engage in conversation, not solipsistic navel-gazing. I used to try to deal with people like you, and I don't any more because of the massive amounts of time wasted. While it might have been of interest to a student of psychopathology (say an Oliver Sacks writing a sequel titled The Man Who Mistook His Colon for a Hat), it's just not worth anyone's time to deal with someone who will simply put up an impenetrable mental block when the conversation takes a turn they don't like. Like you. Rather than deal with the problems I outlined, you just foamed at the mouth: Rather! Typesetting-gate! (or whatever it is they call it).

Your opinions are, therefore, nothing more than congealed talking points and you introduce them with a contextual irrelevance that looks for all the world like a wingnut's Tourette's Syndrome. So unless you want to go around for the rest of your life in an echo chamber, I highly suggest trying to deal with the points that you disagree with in an informative and substantative way.

This is not about what I want. I would be perfectly content never talking with you again. This is me trying to tell you what you ought to be doing in all your future conversations, not just any ones with me (which seem to be a distant, fading possibility at this point).

[yguy]

I would be perfectly content never talking with you again.Well then there's no problem. I'm happy being right, and you're happy being stupid. :)

[But]

:trollx:

[Watser?]

yguy is useful as a bullshit detector: you know he is always wrong so once you start agreeing with him an alarm signal should go off.

[Nullifidian]

yguy is useful as a bullshit detector: you know he is always wrong so once you start agreeing with him an alarm signal should go off.

What I seriously cannot fathom about yguy is how he finds it acceptable to simply let other people do his thinking for him. Even if what he said were flawless, he wouldn't be right; the people he's getting his talking points from would be the ones who are actually right. There's no process of analyzing a concept and synthesizing it into his understanding of the world to be found. It seems he's let tribalism overwhelm his critical faculties, if he ever possessed any. However, to pretend that his tribe is "right" requires not only ignoring the popular sentiment but also the plain facts.

It also requires not recognizing the shades of gray which make a wide variety of contradictory political opinions tenable. However little esteem I hold neo-cons in has nothing to do with the viability of conservatism as a political philosophy. I'm pretty certain it can be, after all I used to be one. I left it not because it's not a tenable solution to governance, but because it's not a tenable solution for those things I came to value: human dignity, human rights, sustainable living, ensuring a basic quality of life (I firmly believe that you can measure the quality of a society by, for example, how many people it allows to be homeless), etc. In fact, I say only half-jokingly that I'm what happens to a conservative who completely loses his faith in capitalism and government.

And what happens is...this! :anarchy: <cue: scream and fainting spell>

So I engage in conversations to share experiences and judgments (not beliefs, which can be unanalyzed and unfounded, like yguy's) to find out if I'm wrong. I've already been at four significant clashes with our increasingly militarized police (WTO in 1999, the DNC in L.A. in 2000, Miami in 2003, and RNC in N.Y. in 2004) and if I'm wrong I think I should definitely know before I get maced and shot with rubber bullets again. ;)

[Stormlight]

It's sad, really. He's the model of the citizen the current US administration plays to: addicted to fear and ready to believe and accept anything if he thinks it would make him a little bit "safer".

[Nullifidian]

It's sad, really. He's the model of the citizen the current US administration plays to: addicted to fear and ready to believe and accept anything if he thinks it would make him a little bit "safer".

That pretty much sums up the limitations of this administration. It may be somewhat reassuring that there's only so far you can go with fearmongering before people become more afraid of what the government has the power to do than what the "other" whatever it is, can do, and that the administration hasn't solidified its position enough to use that fear of the government to squash dissent. People have seen just enough to get angry (and if they had seen what I've seen, they'd be outraged--one reason why I hope the Battle in Seattle movie will be good).

What makes me uncomfortable is that there are some authoritarians in the government and their shills in the pundit class, like the one who floated the idea of a Bush dictatorship (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13707), who will say "See? That's where we went wrong!"

[Adam]

It may be somewhat reassuring that there's only so far you can go with fearmongering before people become more afraid of what the government has the power to do than what the "other" whatever it is, can do...

Let me know when we get there, will you?

[Adam]

Back on topic, btw, one of thee most interesting, and horrifying, bits form the interview with the psychologist who examined Padilla is the fact that he, apparently, was afraid of being found innocent:

He was convinced that — I mean, I think in words he endorsed — even if he won his case, he lost, because he was going back to the brig if he managed to prevail at trial. And essentially, if hypothetically one were to offer him a really long prison sentence versus — with a guarantee that he wouldn’t go back to the brig — versus risking going back to the brig, the chance that he might go back to the brig, he would take the prison sentence for a very long period of time. I think he would take almost anything rather than go back to that brig.

[livius drusus]

That passage reminded me of Murder in the First (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_First). After 22 months spent in the hole at Alcatraz, Henry Young preferred the death penalty to the prospect of returning to Alcatraz.

[Nullifidian]

It may be somewhat reassuring that there's only so far you can go with fearmongering before people become more afraid of what the government has the power to do than what the "other" whatever it is, can do...

Let me know when we get there, will you?

Heh. :D

It's a different tipping point for everyone. I don't know to what degree the anti-Bush sentiment can be generalized into an anti-authoritarianism sentiment, but I think the latter does have something to do with the former. In my case, getting beaten up by the cops has a wonderfully clarifying effect on one's delusions about the benevolence of government power, but I wouldn't recommend it for everyone. ;)

[yguy]

What I seriously cannot fathom about yguy is how he finds it acceptable to simply let other people do his thinking for him. You'd save yourself a lot of mental frustration if you would not insist on basing your cogitations on premises where are both unfounded and false.However, to pretend that [he] is "right" requires not only ignoring the popular sentiment but also the plain facts.I'm just dying to hear you tell me what I've said which contradicts the facts.

Betcha can't. :)It also requires not recognizing the shades of gray which make a wide variety of contradictory political opinions tenable. You can have clarity and understanding, or you can have your precious "shades of gray". You can't have both.

[fragment]

You can have clarity and understanding, or you can have your precious "shades of gray". You can't have both.
On the other hand, you're strikingly good evidence that it's possible to have neither.

[Nullifidian]

However, to pretend that [he] is "right" requires not only ignoring the popular sentiment but also the plain facts.I'm just dying to hear you tell me what I've said which contradicts the facts.

Really? Well, either the above passage is hyperbole, in which case you already have your example, or it isn't and withholding any other answer would produce a result which would be most gratifying.