 |
| Jose Padilla's treatment while held without charge at the US Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C., shown in this aerial
photo, is the subject of a civil lawsuit against the government. Brad Nettles/The Post and Courier/AP/file |
In Padilla interrogation, no checks or balances
Oversight of the executive branch regarding treatment of terror detainees remains inadequate, say legal analysts.
from the September 4, 2007 edition
Page 3 of 3
PHR experts are assembling psychological reports and conducting exams similar to those done in the Padilla case, he says. They are gathering evidence from at least seven former detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the US detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
The report calls on the executive branch to stop using harsh interrogation tactics and to release all government documents related to such tactics. In addition, it asks Congress to exercise its oversight role and ban these interrogation methods.
Congress's oversight record
Two years ago, Democrats in Congress championed a proposal to establish a 9/11-type independent commission to investigate allegations of detainee interrogation abuses. The measure was sponsored by Senator Levin, who complained that the Republican-controlled Congress had failed to aggressively carry out its oversight responsibilities.
Republican opponents of the Levin amendment said the Defense Department had already conducted 12 major investigations into detainee treatment, and Congress had conducted 30 open hearings and 40 closed hearings.
Levin countered that the investigations and hearings had been selective and that large areas – including the legality of certain interrogation techniques – had never been investigated.
"These issues are not going to go away. They can't be swept under the rug," Levin said during the floor debate. "With each passing day, we have new revelations of detainee abuses."
The Levin amendment was defeated in a largely party-line vote in November 2005. The tally: 43 to 55.
A year later, Democrats took control of both houses of Congress. So far, the Democratic leadership has yet to undertake any significant public oversight – such as hearings, investigations, or legislation – on the issue of detainee interrogation.
Political analysts say civil liberties in the war on terror is not a winning issue for Democrats seeking to win the White House in 2008 and to expand their majorities in both houses of Congress.
The result: The conditions of Padilla's interrogation and confinement may remain shrouded in secrecy.
"The Framers believed they had created an independent judiciary and Congress that would check this kind of abuse by the executive [branch]," Professor Turley says.
"In the absence of judicial review, it is possible for Congress to seek legislative guarantees to prevent a repeat of this abuse," he says. "But Democrats appear terrified that they will be accused of supporting a terrorist."
| For further information: | |
| • | Psychiatric assessment report by Angela M Hegarty [PDF] |
| • | Report by Stuart Grassian, M.D. [PDF] |
| • | Forensic evaluation report by Patricia A. Zapf, Ph.D [PDF] |
| Please Note: The Monitor does not endorse the sites behind these links. We offer them for your additional research. Following these links will open a new browser window. | |
RSS feed
