PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Rumsfeld Must Face Vet's Claim He Was Tortured


KILLER_CLOWN
08-05-2011, 08:48 AM
(CN) - A U.S. citizen and Army veteran who says he was imprisoned and tortured by his own military can sue former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld personally for damages, a federal judge ruled.

Court filings do not name the veteran, but note that he worked for the Marine Corps as an Arabic translator along Iraq's Syrian border.
He claims he was the first American to begin direct talks with Sunni sheik Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, who later became an important U.S. ally.

In November 2005, as he prepared to return home on leave, the man said he was taken into an interrogation room for four hours. He refused to answer the questions, citing concern for the confidentiality of sensitive information he had learned during his tour.
He was transported to Camp Cropper military jail for "high-value" detainees and kept for more than nine months. His family had no idea of his whereabouts or whether he was alive.

John Doe said interrogators exposed him to extreme cold and continuous bright light. They also allegedly blindfolded and hooded him, kept him awake by banging on the door and windows, and blasted heavy metal or country music into his cell at "intolerably loud volumes."
Doe said he also sustained physical attacks from other detainees hostile to the United States because they learned about his military affiliation.
Though the government claimed he had provided classified information to the enemy and helping anti-coalition forces enter the country, he was never charged with a crime.

A detainee status board authorized the translator's continued detention in December 2005, determining that he was a threat to coalition forces. Doe never got to talk to a lawyer and was not permitted to see the evidence against him.

In August 2006, Doe was placed on a military flight to Jordan and eventually made it back home. U.S. District Judge James Gwin, presiding in Washington by designation from his court in Ohio, found that Doe clearly has a civil rights case.

"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," Gwin wrote.

Rumsfeld argued that court intervention would improperly allow the court to review wartime matters and foreign affair constitutionally committed to the president and Congress.
But Gwin rejected this argument.
"Avoiding the 'risk of assuming a role that is almost always best suited for Congress,' however, does not recommend that courts be entirely powerless to review legislative or executive action during a time of war," he wrote. "Rather, 'a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens.'"

Rumsfeld also cannot dodge the suit on qualified immunity grounds, Gwin said.
"Although it may be unlikely that Rumsfeld evaluated the detention conditions of each detainee in detail, it is not implausible that he authorized the use of interrogation techniques on the detainee population at Camp Cropper, or even on specific detainees," the 47-page ruling states. "Though Doe must eventually support his factual allegations with evidence, a motion to dismiss simply calls upon the court to evaluate whether a plaintiff has alleged with specificity fact supporting a plausible claim."
"This case affects tens of thousands of American citizens who work on behalf of the United States in warzones," Doe's attorney, Mike Kanovitz, told the Government Accountability Project. "We are relieved that the courts are going to exercise their constitutional role of judicial review instead of giving the president a blank check when it comes to the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens. There is a clear record showing that Mr. Rumsfeld authorized the use of brutal interrogation techniques that violated our nation's constitution. Like all Americans, my clients just want a level playing field and a fair jury. Now they are going to get that."
Doe's suit is one of just two that has been allowed to proceed of the many against Rumsfeld alleging torture of detainees in Iraq.

Last year, two Americans filed suit claiming they were tortured following accusations of illegal activities by their company. A Chicago federal judge allowed them to hold Rumsfeld personally responsible for the torture. The 7th Circuit is expected to rule on the case soon.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/04/38734.htm

Chiefshrink
08-05-2011, 08:57 AM
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh the Lefty Marxists still going after our "beloved Military". Don't ya love it!!!

durtyrute
08-05-2011, 08:59 AM
Doesn't surprise me at all

Amnorix
08-05-2011, 09:05 AM
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh the Lefty Marxists still going after our "beloved Military". Don't ya love it!!!

Suit was brought by the former soldier, not "lefty Marxists", you lunatic windbag.

|Zach|
08-05-2011, 09:07 AM
Suit was brought by the former soldier, not "lefty Marxists", you lunatic windbag.

alynsky teaparty marxist socialist vagina communism 15 rules alinsky brain wash obama

scene.

phisherman
08-05-2011, 09:26 AM
alynsky teaparty marxist socialist vagina communism 15 rules alinsky brain wash obama

scene.

i think 1 more "alinsky" would've really taken it over the edge.

patteeu
08-05-2011, 03:27 PM
Good luck with that. I don't think Rumsfeld has anything to worry about.

spammy3
08-09-2011, 01:58 AM
Torture is any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

It is right to continue the lawsuit as Rumsfeld held personally responsible. He must be punished for his acts and must learn his lessons.

alanm
08-09-2011, 02:10 AM
I give you a B for effort for the sleight of hand to deflect from the epic fail that is Obama. :thumb:

patteeu
08-09-2011, 07:28 AM
Torture is any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

It is right to continue the lawsuit as Rumsfeld held personally responsible. He must be punished for his acts and must learn his lessons.

Even if the guy's story is true, all he had to endure was a little loud music, some bright lights and chilly temperatures. You call that torture?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-09-2011, 08:38 AM
I give you a B for effort for the sleight of hand to deflect from the epic fail that is Obama. :thumb:

They can lock up Obama too, fine by me Let's just hope it doesn't take a kinetic action to put him in prison. Obama, Rumsfeld, Geithner, Paulson, Cheney, The Ben Bernanke all can rot in prison for the rest of their days.

loochy
08-09-2011, 08:43 AM
THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lR_fkXB86kg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Jaric
08-09-2011, 09:11 AM
Even if the guy's story is true, all he had to endure was a little loud music, some bright lights and chilly temperatures. You call that torture?

:spock:

patteeu
08-09-2011, 10:22 AM
:spock:

Please. Uncomfortable isn't torture. First people wanted to call the very carefully conceived and administered, rarely-used version of waterboarding implemented by the Bush administration's CIA torture and now the line is creeping toward the merely uncomfortable. What's next? Is raising your voice and talking about a subject's mother going to be called torture too? We seem to be headed toward the point where interrogators will have to provide happy endings with each session of polite questioning.

Jaric
08-09-2011, 10:27 AM
Please. Uncomfortable isn't torture. First people wanted to call the very carefully conceived and administered, rarely-used version of waterboarding implemented by the Bush administration's CIA torture and now the line is creeping toward the merely uncomfortable. What's next? Is raising your voice and talking about a subject's mother going to be called torture too? We seem to be headed toward the point where interrogators will have to provide happy endings with each session of polite questioning.

So you're not that big on the whole "due process" thing?

Dave Lane
08-09-2011, 10:28 AM
Please. Uncomfortable isn't torture. First people wanted to call the very carefully conceived and administered, rarely-used version of waterboarding implemented by the Bush administration's CIA torture and now the line is creeping toward the merely uncomfortable. What's next? Is raising your voice and talking about a subject's mother going to be called torture too? We seem to be headed toward the point where interrogators will have to provide happy endings with each session of polite questioning.

If I did that to you, you and I would be cool right?

patteeu
08-09-2011, 10:36 AM
If I did that to you, you and I would be cool right?

Are you talking about the happy ending? :eek:

patteeu
08-09-2011, 10:39 AM
So you're not that big on the whole "due process" thing?

If this thread is about Don Rumsfeld being sued personally for a lack of due process, I misread it. In that case I'll argue that there are no grounds for a personal lawsuit in that case either.

orange
08-09-2011, 11:03 AM
Court allows torture suit against Rumsfeld

A federal appeals court ruled Monday that two Americans who claim they were tortured while in U.S. military custody in Iraq can pursue a lawsuit against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The 2-1 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appears to be the highest-level court success for lawyers seeking to use the courts to impose accountability for what critics view as national security excesses under President George W. Bush. Thursday's decision came in a lawsuit brought by Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, employees of a firm that did security work in Iraq. Vance spent three months in military detention and Ertel six weeks in conditions and suffering from abuse they claim amounted to torture.

"United States law provides a civil damages remedy for aliens who are tortured by their own governments. It would be startling and unprecedented to conclude that the United States would not provide such a remedy to its own citizens," Judge David Hamilton wrote, joined by Terence Evans. "When civilian U.S. citizens leave the United States, they take with them their constitutional rights that protect them from their own government."

"Sorting out the appropriate remedies in this complex and perilous arena is Congressís role, not the courtsí,"Judge Daniel Manion wrote in dissent. "I agree with the court that allegations of torture against a U.S. citizen are a very serious matter. But given the significant pitfalls of judicial entanglement in military decisionmaking, it must be Congress, not the courts, that extends the remedy and defines its limits."

While Rumsfeld was sued personally, he is being represented in the case by the Justice Department. The government also usually pays any damages awarded in such cases.

A Justice Department spokeswoman had no immediate comment on the ruling, but Rumsfeld's private attorney blasted the appeals court's ruling.

"Todayís decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is a blow to the U.S. military," attorney David Rivkin said. "According to two judges on the court, the judicial branch is best-suited to decide how to handle detainees captured and held in foreign war zones....Having judges second-guess the decisions made by the armed forces halfway around the world is no way to wage a war. It saps the effectiveness of the military, puts American soldiers at risk, and shackles federal officials who have a constitutional duty to protect America."

The Seventh Circuit decision (posted here) comes as two other appeals courts, the Ninth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit, face somewhat similar appeals involving an alleged terrorist held in military custody and allegedly tortured in the U.S.: Jose Padilla. A district court in California allowed a suit against former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo to proceed, but a judge in South Carolina rejected a similar suit against Rumsfeld and other officials.

Just last week, a district court in Washington State allowed a suit by another U.S.-citizen civilian who sued Rumsfeld claiming torture by U.S. forces in Iraq. How the full array of cases come out is hard to predict right now, but it seems certain that one or more of them will head to the Supreme Court.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0811/Court_allows_torture_suit_against_Rumsfeld.html