Bush Wars
See other Bush Wars Articles
Title: Donald Rumsfeld Torture Lawsuit Can Proceed, Judge Says
Source:
Huffington Post
URL Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/ ... ain5%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk2%7C83337
Published: Aug 4, 2011
Author: None That I Saw
Post Date: 2011-08-04 10:09:09 by war
Keywords: None
Views: 9335
Comments: 20
WASHINGTON -- A judge is allowing an Army veteran who says he was imprisoned unjustly and tortured by the U.S. military in Iraq to sue former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld personally for damages. The veteran's identity is withheld in court filings, but he worked for an American contracting company as a translator for the Marines in the volatile Anbar province before being detained for nine months at Camp Cropper, a U.S. military facility near the Baghdad airport dedicated to holding "high-value" detainees. The government says he was suspected of helping get classified information to the enemy and helping anti-coalition forces enter Iraq. But he was never charged with a crime and says he never broke the law. Lawyers for the man, who is in his 50s, say he was preparing to come home to the United States on annual leave when he was abducted by the U.S. military and held without justification while his family knew nothing about his whereabouts or even whether he was still alive. Court papers filed on his behalf say he was repeatedly abused, then suddenly released without explanation in August 2006. Two years later, he filed suit in U.S. District Court in Washington arguing that Rumsfeld personally approved torturous interrogation techniques on a case-by-case basis and controlled his detention without access to courts in violation of his constitutional rights. Chicago attorney Mike Kanovitz, who is representing the plaintiff, says it appears the military wanted to keep his client behind bars so he couldn't tell anyone about an important contact he made with a leading sheik while helping collect intelligence in Iraq. "The U.S. government wasn't ready for the rest of the world to know about it, so they basically put him on ice," Kanovitz said in a telephone interview. "If you've got unchecked power over the citizens, why not use it?" The Obama administration has represented Rumsfeld through the Justice Department and argued that the former defense secretary cannot be sued personally for official conduct. The Justice Department also argued that a judge cannot review wartime decisions that are the constitutional responsibility of Congress and the president. And the department said the case could disclose sensitive information and distract from the war effort, and said the threat of liability would impede future military decisions. But U.S. District Judge James Gwin rejected those arguments and said U.S. citizens are protected by the Constitution at home or abroad during wartime. "The court finds no convincing reason that United States citizens in Iraq should or must lose previously declared substantive due process protections during prolonged detention in a conflict zone abroad," Gwin wrote in a ruling issued Tuesday. "The stakes in holding detainees at Camp Cropper may have been high, but one purpose of the constitutional limitations on interrogation techniques and conditions of confinement even domestically is to strike a balance between government objectives and individual rights even when the stakes are high," the judge ruled. In many other cases brought by foreign detainees, judges have dismissed torture claims made against U.S. officials for their personal involvement in decisions over prisoner treatment. But this is the second time a federal judge has allowed U.S. citizens to sue Rumsfeld personally. U.S. District Judge Wayne R. Andersen in Illinois last year said two other Americans who worked in Iraq as contractors and were held at Camp Cropper, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, can pursue claims that they were tortured using Rumsfeld-approved methods after they alleged illegal activities by their company. Rumsfeld is appealing that ruling, which Gwin cited. The Supreme Court sets a high bar for suing high-ranking officials, requiring that they be tied directly to a violation of constitutional rights and must have clearly understood their actions crossed that line. The case before Gwin involves a man who went to Iraq in December 2004 to work with an American-owned defense contracting firm. He was assigned as an Arabic translator for Marines gathering intelligence in Anbar. He says he was the first American to open direct talks with Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, who became an important U.S. ally and later led a revolt of Sunni sheiks against al-Qaida before being killed by a bomb. In November 2005, when he was to go on home leave, Navy Criminal Investigative Service agents questioned him about his work, refusing his requests for representation by his employer, the Marines or an attorney. The Justice Department says he was told he was suspected of helping provide classified information to the enemy and helping anti-coalition forces attempting to cross from Syria into Iraq. He says he refused to answer questions because of concern about confidentiality, and the agents handcuffed and blindfolded him, kicked him in the back and threatened to shoot him if he tried to escape. He was then transferred to an unidentified location for three days before being flown to Camp Cropper. For his first three months at Camp Cropper he says he was held incommunicado in solitary confinement with a hole in the ground for a toilet. He says he was then moved to cells holding terrorist suspects hostile to the United States who were told about his work for the military, leading to physical attacks by his cellmates that left him in constant fear for his life. He claims guards tortured him by repeatedly choking him, exposing him to extreme cold and continuous artificial light, blindfolding and hooding him, waking him by banging on a door or slamming a window when he tried to sleep and blasting music into his cell at "intolerably loud volumes." He says he always denied any wrongdoing and truthfully answered questions but interrogators continued to threaten him. Both sides say a detainee status board in December 2005 determined he was a threat to the multinational forces in Iraq and authorized his continued detention, but he says he was not allowed to see most of the evidence against him. Documents the government filed with the court only say he is suspected of a crime, without providing details. ___
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: war (#0)
WTF does that have to do with suing the former defense secretary personally for damages?
Who ordered the unlawful detention?
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
That is a silly argument. Decisions get made all the time without the head of an agency knowing about it. Add in the facts that the agency is the Defense Dept. and the alleged action took place in a time of war, and you have an absurd legal case being pushed forwards by an activist judge.
Possibly. On the other hand, the methods used against them were most certainly approved by Rumsfeld.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
Can you point out the clause in the USCON which allows the Executive Branch and its officers, agents and departments to unilaterally declare the Bill of Rights null and void during a time of armed conflict? It seems to be missing from my copy of it...
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
More silliness. The contractor was suspected of spying for the enemy. By rights he could have been executed. And why should this dope's identity be protected?
"suspected"... How...Patriot Act of you... More silliness. Does that mean the clause will not be forthcoming? Like it or not, there is no clause that allows the government to unilaterally suspend the Bill of Rights. There was a reason for that and men like Rumsfeld ARE the reason.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
This John Doe plaintive wasn't working at a desk in Reston Virginia, he was part of a Marine HUMINT team on the Iraq/Syria border. Lets not pretend otherwise ok?
I'm not. I'm also not going to pretend that the government's ability to prosecute these guys is plenary under those circumstances either. It's not. The government cannot make up rules as it goes along. It's agents cannot examine a situation and decide a course of action outside of the legal framework under which that agent is obligated, usually by his own oath, to obey. Again, this was by design. The Framers COULD have built an exception into the Bill of Rights or any Article of the USCON. In one instance, they did, and that is habeas corpus but the crafting of such suspension had been, prior to BushII, limited by courts - including a Civil War court, to its most narrowest sense.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
John Doe was working for the military in a war zone in a foreign country. In fact he was engaged in espionage and was suspected of being a double agent. The idea that he was fully protected by bill of rights in that situation is...quaint... and holding the Sec. Defense personally responsible for the alleged abuse of John Does civil rights in that situation is ludicrous. These federal judges need to be termed out or fired for their stupid decisions.
Again I ask you where that magic asterisk is...and, if it is there, where and by whom, if not by judges, does the line get drawn as to where it disappears?
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
The federal court does not have jurisdiction in war-making or foreign affairs. This is a nusiance lawsuit being pushed forward by an activist judge.
Sure it does. Article III establishes the burden of proof required to sustain a charge of treason and requires that the evidence must be presented in open court. One of the Lincoln Civil War cases requires that all American citizens, even those charged as "spys", must be granted access to the courts when those courts are capable of being in session.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
Gwin has an excellent reputation in his judicial temperment.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
The fact you're relying on Civil War precedents speaks for itself. Like it or not, Iraq is a foreign country and we went to war there. John Doe's argument that his detention in Bagdad doesn'r contitute a 'battlefield' is specious.
I'm sure he's a swell guy...but he's a judicial activist nonetheless.
When considering the perpetual nature of the government, the age of a precedent doesn't negate it and, in fact, Taney's ruling was simply affirming the Framers. Like it or not, Iraq is a foreign country and we went to war there. So then went the US flag and the US Constitution... John Doe's argument that his detention in Bagdad doesn'[t] con[s]titute a 'battlefield' is specious. Possibly.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
{:^D
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
The Civil War was strictly a domestic affair. That alone makes it a poor source of precedent in this case.
The USCON is the framework under which our leaders may exercise the powers inherent to their offices. There is nothing that suggests that the constraints of power, as detailed and implied by that framework, under which they function are diminished at water's edge...
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
"The court finds no convincing reason that United States citizens in Iraq should or must lose previously declared substantive due process protections during prolonged detention in a conflict zone abroad," Gwin wrote in a ruling issued Tuesday.
#2. To: Thunderbird (#1)
WTF does that have to do with suing the former defense secretary personally for damages?
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#3. To: war (#2)
Who ordered the unlawful detention?
#4. To: Thunderbird (#3)
That is a silly argument.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#5. To: Thunderbird (#3)
..and the alleged action took place in a time of war...
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#6. To: war (#5)
Can you point out the clause in the USCON which allows the Executive Branch and its officers, agents and departments to unilaterally declare the Bill of Rights null and void during a time of armed conflict?
#7. To: Thunderbird (#6)
(Edited)
The contractor was suspected of spying for the enemy. By rights he could have been executed.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#8. To: war (#7)
Does that mean the clause will not be forthcoming?
#9. To: Thunderbird (#8)
(Edited)
Lets not pretend otherwise ok?
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#10. To: war (#9)
I'm also not going to pretend that the government's ability to prosecute these guys is plenary under those circumstances either. It's not. The government cannot make up rules as it goes along. It's agents cannot examine a situation and decide a course of action outside of the legal framework under which that agent is obligated, usually by his own oath, to obey.
#11. To: Thunderbird (#10)
The idea that he was fully protected by bill of rights in that situation is...quaint...
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#12. To: war (#11)
Again I ask you where that magic asterisk is...
#13. To: Thunderbird (#12)
(Edited)
The federal court does not have jurisdiction in war-making or foreign affairs.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#14. To: Thunderbird (#12)
(Edited)
This is a nusiance lawsuit being pushed forward by an activist judge.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#15. To: war (#13)
#16. To: war (#14)
Gwin has an excellent reputation in his judicial temperment.
#17. To: Thunderbird (#15)
The fact you're relying on Civil War precedents speaks for itself.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#18. To: Thunderbird (#16)
I'm sure he's a swell guy...
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#19. To: war (#17)
When considering the perpetual nature of the government, the age of a precedent doesn't negate it and, in fact, Taney's ruling was simply affirming the Framers.
#20. To: Thunderbird (#19)
(Edited)
That alone makes it a poor source of precedent in this case.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]