a relationship of trust, dependency, and rubber hoses

U.S. Asks Judge to Deny Terror Suspect Access to Lawyer, Saying It Could Harm Interrogation

In a new court filing, the government disclosed that Mr. Padilla has been under interrogation by military personnel for several months. The government said letting a lawyer into the process "would threaten permanently to undermine the military's efforts to develop a relationship of trust and dependency that is essential to effective interrogation." That could "set back his interrogations by months, if not derail the process permanently."


7 Responses:

  1. evan says:

    What is unclear about the sixth amendment?

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to ... have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


    • greyhame says:

      ah, don't forget, they're insisting that suspected terrorists are actually enemy combatants, not criminal suspects--yet, in an astounding feat of doublethink, in the same breath they insist with equal conviction that those being detained on no charges are not prisoners of war.

      • jwz says:

        And also that a state of war does not exist, as that would require an act of Congress.

        • greyhame says:

          Yeah, but they've got precedent on their side in getting away with that dodge.

        • waider says:

          Does the, uh, War on Terror™ not count? And aren't they still "mopping up the last few strongholds" in Afghanistan?

          Mind you, I wasn't paying too much attention to Congress. I don't think I was alone in that, either.

      • bdu says:

        Exactly. The Padilla case is the test case for the rights of all american citizens to a fair trial. The evidence against Padilla is sufficiently slim that if the courts rule for the govt on this one ANY of us could be locked up without access to a lawyer indefinitely on trumped up charges.

  2. flipzagging says:

    interrogations of detained enemy combatants [...] "helped to thwart an estimated 100 or more attacks against the United States and its interests since Sept. 11, 2001."

    This is the most stomach-churning motherfucking bald-faced lie. Even setting aside the obvious point that they are free to dream up *any* number, when shielded from scrutiny.

    Where were the 100 anti-U.S. terror incidents in the year before Sept. 11th?

    I suppose all the terrorists (decentralized, and of multifarious purposes) were holding their fire until the exact moment that the U.S. law enforcement agencies started tearing up the rulebook. Silly me.