The Fallout from Padilla

I have yet to comment on the conviction of Jose Padilla, mostly because have had a difficult time wrapping my mind around the facts of the situation. So far, the "facts" (as I see them) are: 1. Padilla was arrested for suspicion of plotting a "dirty bomb" attack against the US. 2. Padilla was detained and tortured for almost 4 years without formal charges or a trial. 3. When it seemed that the courts would force movement, Padilla was finally formally charged with something quite different than terrorism. 4. Padilla was convicted of "conspiracy" (the most loosed defined crime in existence - basically 'thought crime') with almost no evidence against him beyond an application to an Afghan camp that Padilla apparently touched. Looking at this, it is hard to see the justice in the conviction. However, depending on the sentencing, it may well be the appropriate response to the crime. I don't think, though, that the crime itself is what is being debated. Instead, it is the way in which Padilla was treated before the judicial process was allowed to begin. This treatment is independent of the legal proceedings that ultimately led to his conviction for conspiracy, and it is important to see the distinction between the two.. The best explanation I have read is this post by Scott Horton: Important questions remain, therefore, concerning the mistreatment in detention of Jose Padilla. First, even as Padilla is convicted and sentenced, when will those who perpetrated crimes again him be prosecuted for their misdeeds? Even as rhetorical as it is, the question must be asked. Even if there is no possibility of holding the captors accountable, publicizing that impossibility will help to develop a grass-roots opposition to this type of heavy-handed statism. ...Second, how is the court to take into account the three-year imprisonment and torture of Padilla in rendering sentence? This is an interesting question, and i will discuss further once the sentencing is available. ...The Jacoby Declaration makes clear that “breaking” the subject is in fact the object of the process. The psychiatrists’ report shows that Padilla was essentially brainwashed. He could not really even mount a defense to the charges against him because he loved George W. Bush and he found it physically impossible to oppose him. This has a literary corollary - no need to cite it: He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother. Continuing from Horton: In the end this concept—of thought crime as a major tool for the enforcement of national security concerns—is the gravest issue to arise from the Padilla case.... If our legal system becomes one of attempting to punish supposed intent - before any action occurs - we will become dangerously close to a regression into Pre-Revolutionary witch hunts, where suspicion of a crime is as good as evidence of a crime. Justice may, fairly meted out, involve punishment for Jose Padilla. But the time must come when his tormentors face justice as well. Don't count on it.