Jury Convicts Padilla on All Counts:
News here. Talking head scripts here. Feel free to comment in the comment thread: What do you think?
UPDATE: My law school classmate David Markus adds comments at the SDFla blog.
UPDATE: My law school classmate David Markus adds comments at the SDFla blog.
US Citizens : 0
I won't bite on either meme.
What I will say is that this verdict is surrounded by deeply discouraging circumstances. Considering the way our government treated Padilla, I'm embarrassed as an American. Marty Lederman's most recent Rosetta Stone torture post lays it all out.
I'd be interested to read your reaction to Marty's Rosetta Stone post.
Citizens: Alive and Well
Terrorists: Locked up for life!
Um... Okay... What did he actually say during those phone calls?
"FBI agent John Kavanaugh testified that the calls were made in code, which Padilla used to discuss traveling overseas to fight with Islamic militants, along with side trips to Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan."
What was this code?
In my opinion, unless a person can answer the above two questions, he cannot form an opinion about Padilla's guilt or innocence.
I have no opinion about whether Padilla was guilty. Like others, I am troubled by the way the Department of Justice [sic] handled this case. Even Luttig wasn't pleased. (Then again, I think he was throwing a temper tantrum after not being nominated to the Supreme Court.)
Anyhow, for fun, I would like to store someone in my basement for 3.5 years. I'd be sure to deprive him of light and sound. I would ensure that each day he would not know whether he would live or die. This is good fun. And I'd throw in a little water boarding for good measure. At the end of those 3.5 years, I'd like to see what kind of "person" was left.
Any "law-and-order" stalwarts care to volunteer?
I didn't think so.
Yet this is how we "season the meat" these days. Disgusting.
Flash Gordon: What evidence was presented at trial that proved Padilla was a terrorist? Please be as specific as possible and do not cite conclusory news accounts. For example, quoting an article that said: "The government presented evidence tying Padilla to a terrorist cell" doesn't count. After all, we all know the "mainstream media" or "MSM" can't be trusted.
I especially await your summary of the "code" Padilla used to talk to other terrorists. What was this code? Also, using this code, please interpret Padilla's statements and tell me how those tied in to a terrorist plot.
I am ignorant of the evidence against him. Please educate me.
Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead.
Any "law-and-order" stalwarts care to volunteer?
The kind of person who are properly imprisoned for life, and are traitors, in effect, to the country that provides more opportunity to more millions than any other country in the universe.
BTW, the conditions of his confinement were quite normal and humane. Waterboarding isn't torture, and perfectly appropriate for enemy combatants.
I'm sorry you're so distressed because Padilla isn't free to kill our children.
Says the "Dog"
That's gonna leave a mark!
Says the "Dog"
1) Was it lawful for the government to hold him as a military prisoner in those circumstances?
2) Was his treatment in military custody lawful and morally humane?
The verdict in the criminal case has nothing to do with either of those questions. (And those questions, BTW, have nothing to do with the scripted talking points either way.)
What about the "Application to Join al-Qaeda"?
The key piece of physical evidence was a five-page form Padilla supposedly filled out in July 2000 to attend an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan, which would link the other two defendants as well to Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization.
The form, recovered by the CIA in 2001 in Afghanistan, contains seven of Padilla's fingerprints and several other personal identifiers, such as his birthdate and his ability to speak Spanish, English and Arabic.
I mean, not good, right?
Also, mysteriously, the White House has thanked the jury for its "just" verdict, rather than sticking to its position that it does not comment on ongoing criminal cases, such as Scooter Libby's.
I am ignorant of the evidence against him.
But you don't let a little thing like that prevent you from having a strong opinion of his innocence do you?
I wish the dirty bomb thing had been able to be tried. That sounded interesting.
You've fallen into the Administration propaganda trap. He wasn't accused of or tried on that allegation.
It was dropped and there wasn't a shred of evidence presented at his trial to suggest that it was in any way true.
one has to be alive to be embarrassed... think it over.
Flash Gordon :
Ha! I guess intercepting those phone calls with was a good idea after all. Certainly better than allowing this guy and his comrades to continue with their dirty bomb plot.
Ha! I guess intercepting those phone calls with was a good idea after all. Certainly better than allowing this guy and hisCOMRADEStoCONTINUE WITHtheirDIRTY BOMB PLOT.If the United States had enough evidence to convict on all counts beyond a reasonable doubt in less than 2 days of deliberations, they had far more evidence than necessary to hold Padilla as an enemy combatant for the duration of the war.
So does Lex Luthor's plot to cause half of California to fall into the ocean, but that doesn't make it real.
(1) Signing up to join terrorist groups is a serious crime
is not inconsistent with
(2) deliberately tormenting a prisoner for years is wicked.
You really can think both at the same time. Try it!
Judging by the verdict, it doesn't look like there was much of a "person" to begin with.
If I remember correctly, conspiracy requires proof of an agreement (and the form described above is surely evidence of that) plus a covert act, and the travel overseas qualifies as that. The jury found this - plus the taped phone calls - enough to convict Padilla of conspiracy to commit murder, etc. Not having seen any of the evidence or witnesses, it's a little hard to second guess the jury on this.
When did I say he was innocent? I said then, and I'll say now: I don't know. (I did say he was treated, as a procedural matter, unfairly. You are aware that procedure and substance differ?)
In any event, I'm still waiting for my education. What was the code? What did Padilla say that, interpreted according to the code, established his guilt?
Waterboarding isn't torture
People still make this argument? Anyhow, since you are so confident of his guilt.... Please tell us about the code that was used? Please... Sayeth something, the Dog.
Well, if the defense had any basis to challenge its authenticity, or tried to do so but was somehow hindered, then that's a good ground for appeal.
Otherwise, I would avoid going into Fuhrman-did-it territory, if I were you.
If the United States had enough evidence to convict on all counts beyond a reasonable doubt in less than 2 days of deliberations, they had no need to hold Padilla as an enemy combatant for the duration of the war.
Still, the bizarre idea that the executive can simply declare a citizen an enemy to the country and lock him away without trial is as alien to the founding principles of the country than any I can imagine. Certainly, it’s much closer to “tyranny” than most of the charges leveled against George III by Thomas Jefferson [and] the boys in 1776.
Brilliant! Post Hoc Justification for indefinite detention.
No need to try them before the detention! Just try them later and the number of days that the jury deliberates will be the retroactive proof that his torture and detention were justified--never-mind that his torture and detention and government claims of secrecy hampered his ability to defend himself...
Given that your latter comment is most likely wrong, why would I think it?
This torture story was put out by the same attorneys who claimed at trial that Padilla was a humanitarian sending money to Balkan "Islamic charities." There was no evidentiary basis for either tale. The court did not buy the torture story before the trial and the jury rejected the charity story after trial.
Perhaps you need to start thinking: "Terrorists lie as a matter or course."
Doesn't the overt act have to come after the agreement?
Police State : 1
US Citizens : 0
You can hate the enemy combatant rules, be against water boarding, be against wire taps, etc.
But it is morally and intellectually bankrupt to think this man should have been found not guilty and be walking the streets.
Nothing here is post hoc. The military had all of the evidence presented at trial before properly detaining Padilla as a wartime enemy combatant.
Rather, I cannot resist engaging in a little "I told you so" to all the brain dead who actually thought that the military was detaining Padilla because they had nothing better to do.
1) The Government apparently did not charge Padilla with the "dirty bomb" plot because he was questioned about it without having been Mirandized or given access to counsel. However, just because Padilla's confession was surpressed does not mean he is innocent, just that the Government lacked sufficient legal proof to convict him.
2) Whether or not the Government mistreated Padilla in the years between his arrest and his conviction is utterly irrelevant to his guilt of the crimes of conspiracy to commit murder, etc. I don't know why anyone is even discussing the conditions of Padilla's imprisonment as they have nothing to do with whether or not he committed the crimes he was charged with and convicted of.
3) Whether or not the Government did the right thing in holding Padilla as an illegal combatant, I don't know. It's a close question IMHO.
Waterboarding isn't torture. That's going to be news to the Japanese we prosecuted for war crimes...
One thing is for sure, if any government waterboarded US soldiers we'd call it torture. (Unless the Administration would be so craven as to condone the torture of US soldiers to cover up its own malfeasance...)
I am less likely to trust a jury's verdict in terrorism or white collar cases.
If the United States had enough evidence to convict on all counts beyond a reasonable doubt in less than 2 days of deliberations, they had far more evidence than necessary to hold Padilla as an enemy combatant for the duration of the war.
Then why did the government claim that it needed to hold Padilla as an enemy combatant? I will dig up news stories if you are a (wo)man of good faith. But I clearly remember the government saying, "We need to detain Padilla as an enemy combatant because it would be impossible to convict him in a civilian court."
Assuming this is true.... What was the implications? What does it say about our government when it keeps changing its stories (in a court of law, no less) just to get what it wants? Shouldn't we be a little worried about this?
My understanding of a police state must be radically different from yours. How is a criminal trialin open court, by a jury of ordinary American citizens any different than every other conspiracy conviction?
What am I missing? Was the outcome rigged? Was he not allowed to present witnseses on his own behalf? Cross examine? Was he presumed guilty? Was the burden of proof not beyond a reasonable doubt?
Do tell. Where is the departure from the accepted due process of American justice?
I'm not sure. It's also possible that the federal law in questions does not require an overt act, just an agreement (at least some federal conspiracy laws work that way).
More likely, the government did not wish to compromise its intelligence assets to bring the evidence they had into open court. This is a common problem trying spies.
Breathtakingly false. The court merely concluded that whether or not he'd been tortured was not relevant to his guilt or innocence.
As for the bizarre notion that Padilla's making it all up, the feds have admitted what they did.
What would be appropriate for this traitor is to be released into the general population at a high security federal prison and allow his fellow inmates to deal with him in their own ways.
What will most likely happen is that Padilla will serve a life sentence in solitary at the Supermax out here in Colorado.
1) You are under arrest.
2) There are no charges.
3) You don't get access to an attorney.
4) Habeus what?
If that was true they could have prosecuted him in civilian court initially rather than playing "hide the constitution."
My ulterior motive is that I want to see what the administration does should a judge order him released.
We already have called it torture.
What should never have happened is an American Citizen being detained for three years without trial based solely on the affidavit of the executive branch who fought tooth and nail the review of his detention.
In the end they tried him for comepletely different acts. Is he guilty, I don't know, I did not see the trial. His guilt or innocence though was never really the point.
Who has said this? Please cite one comment here where someone said he was not guilty.
I remember, now, why I quit getting into debates in the comments here. People like to make up arguments.
I never said he was guilty or innocent. I said a) the procedure by which he was tried was troubling; b) I don't know what the evidence against him was; c) most of the people praising the verdict do not know what the evidence against him was.
In my view, a person who praises the verdict but cannot cite the evidence in support of the verdict is an ignorant fool or a lamb. I wait until I actually know the facts before praising (or decrying) a verdict. I know, I know... We should simply spend 30-60 seconds reading a news article and then shake our fist in victory.
After all, we saw how well that worked in the Duke lacrosse case. Early reports told us of this great amount of inculpatory evidence against the defendants. Yet.... Well... We know how that all ended up.
Says the Dog Catcher.
Bart: The court did not buy the torture story before the trial
Breathtakingly false. The court merely concluded that whether or not he'd been tortured was not relevant to his guilt or innocence. As for the bizarre notion that Padilla's making it all up, the feds have admitted what they did.
The military denied nearly every allegation in the Padilla motion.
The Declaration which got Professor Balkin going merely says that the purposes of the interrogation of Padilla was to establish trust and dependency - which of course is the basis of all interrogation. As I asked Professor Balkin, are you really arguing that the purpose of interrogation should be to establish distrust and noncooperation by Padilla?
Well, that would be because some of us hold to the bizarre notions that the question of Padilla's guilt of the crimes of conspiracy to commit murder, etc. is not the only interesting question, and that his eventually being found guilty does not excuse any and all treatment of him by our government prior to that conviction.
The poor bastard is reportedly convinced that, no matter what, he's going to be sent back to the brig. I'm not sure he ever believed his own counsel were really on his side and not part of some elaborate gov't trick. Can't blame him, in his position.
It is certainly relevant to whether the United States is committing crimes, including the kind human rights violations we used to condemn with the sound knowledge that the US was above such things.
Second, you can't cite an alleged confession and at the same time dismiss the relevance of whether that confession was obtained illegally or, indeed, through torture.
We're the US. We are supposed to be the good guys and occupy the moral high ground. We don't as long as the current waterboarding administration is in power.
None of these things pertain to his trial and conviction, do they?
Why are people deliberately conflating mistreatment after arrest with the validity of guilt or innocence? Again, going to call that intellectually bankrupt.
Unless the government used evidence procured from Padilla during that mistreatment (which it did NOT), then the mistreatment is totally irrelevant to the validity of the conviction. The conviction doesn't advance any "police state" and should be applauded by anti-enemy-combatant advocates as a sign of the effectiveness of the criminal system.
I'm sure the whole "we're not putting on a defense because the gov't hasn't proved its case" defense didn't help disuade him of that thought, sadly.
Bart, I'm sorry to see you bringing your contempt for honest argument to this blog, having very nearly managed to eliminate comment threads altogether at Balkin's.
The declaration did not "merely" say that. It went to the extreme of saying that Padilla could not even be allowed access to counsel or courts.
And the military can't deny that Padilla was subjected to sensory deprivation straight out of the CIA torture manuals. There was a picture of Padilla, blinded and earmuffed for a walk down the hall to his dentist, in the New York Times.
None of these things pertain to his trial and conviction, do they?
What comes before trial? -> arrest
What comes between arrest and trial? -> a speedy trial.
Try looking up the 6th ammendment, then you will get it. I am not arguing about 'trial to conviction', I amn arguing about 'arrest to conviction'.
The technique is not new. The Soviets used isolation and sensory deprivation to identify and discredit political dissidents. US prisoners of war confessed to nonexistent war crimes in the Korean War after similar treatment.
Fear of "brainwashing" prompted the CIA and Defense Department to underwrite research in the 1950s and '60s into the impact of isolation and sensory deprivation. The findings were included in a 1963 CIA handbook, later declassified. The book discusses the possible use of such techniques, including isolation. But it warns of the "profound moral objection" of applying "duress past the point of irreversible psychological damage."
That's what happened in Padilla's case, says Grassian. "It is clear from examining Mr. Padilla that that limit was surpassed."
Any thoughts on why we wanted Padilla subjected to treatment known to produce false confessions? Anyone?
See the rest of Balkin's post.
towards time served?
Ok, so what's the remedy? Should this would-be terrorist murderer be let free?
The "speedy trial" angle is novel to me, and a little interesting, but I really doubt that it's the source of all the emotion regarding his conviction.
Also, keep in mind his prolonged pretrial detainment was due at least in part due to the groundbreaking legal issues surrounding this post 9/11 foreign-inspired-American-terrorist.
Well, that was to protect the innocent citizens of this country from the violence the traitors among us have in mind for our children.
Said the "Dog"
And what does this mean-- that we shouldn't try terrorism suspects because they can't get a fair trial? Or what?
That was the only alternative to his time in the brig?
Which issues were those, and how did they play out in the long-delayed trial?
Weeeell......didn't you say you don't trust juries in terrorism cases? Not exactly the same thing, but none of us will see three months of evidence. Who has the time?
Hmm, I'm pretty sure we're talking about Padilla's conviction and the propriety of that trial.
If you want to make an argument that Bush, the military interrogators, or anyone in between should be indicted on something or held in contempt, you're going to have to actually make that argument.
It is far from an 'obvious' argument that doesn't need articulation.
Ok, so what's the remedy? Should this would-be terrorist murderer be let free?
Basic due process is the remedy. I believe political pressure probably hastened an arrest. If I could have a do-over, I would advise surveilance. Let him make some progress, then take him down when you had the dirt.
As for the emotion, it probably has something to do with 3.5 years of isolation which rendered him a basket case.
The issues would be those surrounding the legality of enemy combatants. The Bush administration belevied at the time (and maybe still does) that it has the right to arest American citizens, declare them as enemy combatatants, and hold them until the end of the war.
If Bush was "right" then Padilla could be (and probably would still be) held in a military prison without criminal trial. Bush made his case, both legally and politically, and lost, causing criminal indictment to be brought against Padilla.
Had Bush not pursued this novel legal and wartime authority there wouldn't have been a potential speedy-trial violation.
But, you knew all that already and really didn't need that explained, did you? I think you're question was somewhere between rhetorical and sarcastic, but on the off chance you were actually stumped, that's you're answer.
Hmm, I'm pretty sure the issue was "[w]hat comes between arrest and trial," and that I asked you whether the only alternative to Padilla's time in the brig after his arrest and before his trial was to let him go.
If you want to successfully duck that question, you'll have to make a far less obvious attempt.
This is truly odd. I'm not the one making an argument that the potential speedy trial violation demands ANY remedy. In fact, I'm not even the one who said there was a violation. How is the burden on me to come up with a remedy that doesn't involve dismissal of the criminal charges?
It's not. Frankly, I think the speedy trial argument is spurious, but if you're going to make it you have to include what your remedy for it should be. So, I'll ask again, what's your remedy?
Actually, my question was: What were the groundbreaking legal issues surrounding this post 9/11 foreign-inspired-American-terrorist that caused his prolonged pretrial detainment, and how did they play out in the long-delayed trial? I didn't ask for a summary of the Bush administration's legal efforts regarding Padilla. I asked how the "groundbreaking legal issues" precluded the criminal trial of Padilla and what role those issues played in the actuality of his criminal trial.
On the off chance that you are not actually stumped and trying to be evasive, those are my (still unanswered) questions.
Charge this guy five years ago with the same charges from this trail. You always take a chance when going to court.
Now we are getting beyond the allegation of "torture" in the Padilla motion to dismiss which the military denied.
As to your new point, prisoners of war (the generic not the GC definition of that term) do not get attorneys or trials because they are not being punished. The detention is preventative to keep them from rejoining the enemy as combatants.
And the military can't deny that Padilla was subjected to sensory deprivation straight out of the CIA torture manuals. There was a picture of Padilla, blinded and earmuffed for a walk down the hall to his dentist, in the New York Times.
The CIA does not have "torture manuals."
Sensory deprivation is not torture.
And keeping a prisoner of war from observing his surroundings when being transferred between facilities is POW 101. The purpose is to keep the enemy from knowing his surroundings to escape or attack nearby friendly units, not sensory deprivation. As a platoon leader during the Persian Gulf War, we routinely blindfolded Iraqi prisoners during transport.
Well, I can't speak for bought_high, but perhaps he thought that actually bringing a prompt criminal trial after arresting Padilla was a reasonable alternative to either letting him go or throwing him in the brig.
Once he was charged with a crime he got a speedy trial on those charges.
Says the "Dog"
Earmuffs?
As for holding Padilla as an "illegal combatant," well, the Government was relying on a Supreme Court case, if you recall, from WWII days, so it's far fetched to say it was acting lawlessly.
I think you can make a good argument (although the matter is far from clear) that jihadists who commit or attempt to carry out attacks on American soil ought to be held and tried as criminals under the rules of criminal procedure - but it's also pretty obvious to me that this should not apply to jihadists captured overseas on the field of battle, not unless you think every Army or Special Forces platoon ought to have a lawyer and forensics expert attached to it.
Jihadists captured in murkier circumstances - say those picked up on the streets of Hamburg or Islamabad by the CIA - well, I'm not sure what to do about them. Surely they ought to be interrogated without lawyers since the goal is prevention not conviction. For how long can they be held? Well, I'd say as long as AQ is waging war against us.
No, the books they have are marked "
TortureEnhanced Interrogation Manual."Oh, really?
A former C.I.A. officer involved in fighting terrorism said that, at first, the agency was crippled by its lack of expertise. “It began right away, in Afghanistan, on the fly,” he recalled. “They invented the program of interrogation with people who had no understanding of Al Qaeda or the Arab world.” The former officer said that the pressure from the White House, in particular from Vice-President Dick Cheney, was intense: “They were pushing us: ‘Get information! Do not let us get hit again!’ ” In the scramble, he said, he searched the C.I.A.’s archives, to see what interrogation techniques had worked in the past. He was particularly impressed with the Phoenix Program, from the Vietnam War. Critics, including military historians, have described it as a program of state-sanctioned torture and murder. A Pentagon-contract study found that, between 1970 and 1971, ninety-seven per cent of the Vietcong targeted by the Phoenix Program were of negligible importance. But, after September 11th, some C.I.A. officials viewed the program as a useful model. A. B. Krongard, who was the executive director of the C.I.A. from 2001 to 2004, said that the agency turned to “everyone we could, including our friends in Arab cultures,” for interrogation advice, among them those in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, all of which the State Department regularly criticizes for human-rights abuses.
The Phoenix manuals were based on KUBARK, q.v.
The other commenters seem to be able to function without making things up, Bart. Why can't you?
Do you really think it's some kind of point for your side to suggest indicting CIA agents? I'm halfway through Tim Weiner's new history of the CIA, and there is no doubt whatsoever that the agency has frequently broken U.S. law. Richard freakin' Helms conceded that. (The book is Legacy of Ashes, and it's quite good, to this CIA novice anyway -- all sources on the record.)
Why do you suppose the CIA has been squealing like a pig for statutory immunity for what they've done to KSM et al.? Why do you think Bush signed into law the MCA, which immunized not only the CIA, but himself from prosecution for war crimes and torture?
> isn't free to kill our children.
Can we skip this pathos? Questions of children specifically have absolutely nothing to do with any of the issues at question here. Bringing emotion into the discussion without any foundation only serves as an obstacle to getting to a clear answer.
pathosbathos?Anderson, quoting things that describe EXACTLY what should have been said and done don't support your position. For the Whitehouse and Cheney or any member of the executive to push for anything less would have been criminal. For the CIA to have done anything less would have been dereliction of duty at a time of war.
Says the "Dog"
Is this another example of humor that I'm missing? That the "real" criminal action would have been for the Whitehouse not to have pushed for the investigation of and use of torture methods?
You have a strange definition of "criminal."
Woo hoo. Go legal profession, Go!
I suspect he might have been referring to this but keep in mind that “water-boarding” in the context of the Japanese during WWII was described as:
I doubt anyone – even those who have been screaming “torture” because there’s a photograph of Padilla wearing the high-tech equivalent of a blindfold when being moved – would suggest that this is what the United States has been doing. The problem is that the term “waterboarding” has been used to describe so many different types of activities, that critics have been able to use the fact that they use the same name to describe rather different activities in order to smear the United States with false comparisons to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, whatever.
And yet we put let FDR on the dime anyway, then built a big memorial to him in DC. And if you denounce him as the rights-violating Constitution-shredding warmongering President-For-Life he was, the same people who denounce Bush declare you're a right-wing extremist.
You are just a Google away from enlightenment.
From that liberal rag, The Washington Post
And it is a problem that might go away if the US didn't say that it's secret "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" aren't torture but we can't tell you what they are--"Trust Us," they aren't torture.
Rational Person, "Do you waterboard?"
Administration, "We can't discuss individual Techniques--the terrorists would adapt."
Rational Person, "What? Are they going to grow gills??????"
You can't claim we don't torture if the Administration won't condemn waterboarding--an that's from an Administration that has no qualms about just lying about what it is doing.
On waterboarding Japanese do you have a more credible source than a drunken murderer who gets away with his crimes because he's a well connected and powerful rich person??
Says the "Dog"
Woo hoo. Go legal profession, Go!
I agree - the legal profession should be proud of its commitment to the highest legal and moral standards, even for disreputable criminals. And, like you, I love seeing lawyers follow their principals, rather than being ruled by craven fear.
And look how they stand by that viewpoint through their support of Michelle Malkin's "Defense of Internment"!
Oh, wait.
Please see the following:
http://robinrowland.com/garret/2005/11/ waterboarding-is-war-crime.html
I have tried to find a source you might find more credible.
BTW, even "drunken murderers" can be right about something- otherwise you run the risk of ignoring a perfectly valid point just because you don't like the source.
The link you listed goes nowhere?
Yes a drunken murderer might be accidentally right about something, but when the bloated carcass about which we speak is Ted Kennedy, the odds are against it.
Says the "Dog"
Yes the info is out there and unlike what has been so disingenuously been claimed here Asano got 15 years for beating POW's, burning them with cigarettes, stealing their relief supplies (itself a separate war crime some say), hanging them upside down.
So he was doing *real* torture on legal combatants by beating them and burning them, and he also violated the laws of war by stealing the POW's food and relief packages.
We don't torture POW's, but we do get aggressive when called for against illegal enemy combatants, but we don't torture them either.
Get used to it.
Says the "Dog"
And the law is a tool to be used as necessary for a desired outcome.
Who do you think you're kidding?
Curiously, the death rate from Japanese waterboarding (around 25%) is low compared to their common punishments. In context, I guess Japanese waterboarding counts as humane treatment.