Jose Padilla, once accused of plotting with al Qaeda to blow up a radioactive “dirty bomb,” was sentenced Tuesday to 17 years and four months on terrorism conspiracy charges that don’t mention those initial allegations.

An analysis of the events surrounding José Padilla’s incarceration will reveal that the government has changed its accusations of what exactly his crime was, and obtained it by very questionable methods. Two words might help you in your study of the issue: dirty bomb.

Let’s analyze this in a different example. Suppose I am arrested on charges of robbing a bank, yet those charges are later changed to say that I was helping the robbers of the bank. This, the government claims, was discovered because some of my fingerprints were found on a form at a teller’s desk. During the time I awaited trial (after three and a half years when no such option was afforded me) I was mercilessly beaten, tortured, spit upon, neglected, and starved.

Should not any of those factors weigh into the case itself? Can the government act as a tyrannical bully and have such actions not affect the verdict in the slightest? I realize that there are other methods and avenues for recourse, but certainly the treatment, conditions, and legal protection (or lack thereof) administered to the detainee would have an impact on the government’s claims of my involvement in said robbery.

How can one trust the prosecution at all when the charges were changed and obtained originally through highly questionable methods. How can such trust exist when the detainee’s rights were thrown to the wind? How can the jury trust the facts provided them when such facts omit crucial details about his case?

Yes, an injustice has occurred. The fact that it was not brought up in his trial saddens me, yet I hope that his mother holds true to her statement when she told reporters that there would be an appeal. Habeas Corpus hangs on a thread, and the precedent our government is trying to establish with this case should scare every liberty-loving American.

DR. ANGELA HEGARTY: What happened at the brig was essentially the destruction of a human being’s mind. That’s what happened at the brig. His personality was deconstructed and reformed.

The entire interview with Dr. Hegarty can be found on Democracy now at:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/16/1416242

Thanks for the clarification, and I’m glad to hear that you’re not so dismissive of his treatment. Still, those words seem to condone past behavior based on future results. That may not have been your intent, but that’s how I read them.

Yes, Padilla’s treatment should be brought to light. Yes, the government should apologize and make retribution (and sadly, the only way they can do that is by exonerating him and giving him taxpayer’s money). Yes, the government should use this precedent to publicly state that no other “enemy combatants” will be denied Habeas Corpus.

But I’m not holding my breath.

Indeed. Pile on top of that the conditions in which he was subjected to live during that time:

According to court papers filed by Padilla’s lawyers, for the first two years of his confinement, Padilla was held in total isolation. He heard no voice except his interrogator’s. His 9-by-7 foot cell had nothing in it: no window even to the corridor, no clock or watch to orient him in time.

Padilla’s meals were delivered through a slot in the door. He was either in bright light for days on end or in total darkness. He had no mattress or pillow on his steel pallet; loud noises interrupted his attempts to sleep.

Sometimes it was very cold, sometimes hot. He had nothing to read or to look at. Even a mirror was taken away. When he was transported, he was blindfolded and his ears were covered with headphones to screen out all sound. In short, Padilla experienced total sensory deprivation.

During length interrogations, his lawyers allege, Padilla was forced to sit or stand for long periods in stress positions. They say he was hooded and threatened with death. The isolation was so extreme that, according to court papers, even military personnel at the prison expressed great concern about Padilla’s mental status.

Uncle Sam’s response?

The government maintains that whatever happened to Padilla during his detention is irrelevant, since no information obtained during that time is being used in the criminal case against him.

“Irrelevant,” says the government. Or, in Dan’s dismissive words, “eh, he’ll be okay”.