Rumsfeld faces personal suit by detainees

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Stephanie, Dec 7, 2006.

  1. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    The ACLU, and Human rights First, should be branded a enemy of the United States:bsflag:

    Former prisoners accuse him of torture techniques in Iraq, Afghanistan
    Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seen addressing the National Press Club in Washington in February.

    Updated: 2 hours, 51 minutes ago
    On Friday, the U.S. District Court in Washington will be the scene of a parting shot at outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld.

    Former detainees represented by human rights groups accuse him — along with a top general of the Iraq war, a former commander of the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and a commander of U.S. military intelligence and police forces — with "derelictions of duty and command" and promoting the practice of inflicting "physical and psychological injuries" on civilians held by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The case of Ali v. Rumsfeld, to be heard before Chief Judge Thomas Hogan, pits lawyers from two human rights organizations representing nine former detainees at Abu Ghraib and the Bagram military base in Afghanistan, with attorneys representing Rumsfeld, Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski and Col. Thomas Pappas.

    The case is an attempt to have U.S. officials held accountable for alleged abuse of Iraqi and Afghan civilians who were never held as enemy combatants or charged with any crime.

    The former detainees accuse Rumsfeld and others of being personally responsible for approving torture techniques and violating the U.S. Constitution. Rumsfeld argues that they are all immune from liability.

    Rumsfeld, to be replaced later this month by Robert Gates, who was confirmed by the Senate this week, argues "that alien military detainees held outside the United States are not generally entitled to constitutional protections."

    Rumsfeld’s lawyers claim qualified immunity
    His lawyers contend that under the qualified immunity doctrine, "federal officials are immune from suit" unless they violate a clearly established constitutional right. They say that aliens held in a military detention facility in the field of battle abroad simply do not have established constitutional rights during their alleged detention and abuse.

    The former detainees who filed the lawsuit say they were all eventually released from detention and never charged with any crime or wrongdoing.

    The detainees — five were held at Abu Ghraib and four at Bagram — accuse Rumsfeld and the others of subjecting them to "torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including severe and repeated beatings, cutting with knives, sexual humiliation and assault, confinement in a wooden box, forcible sleep and sensory deprivation, mock executions, death threats, and restraint in contorted and excruciating positions," according to court documents.

    Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First argue that Rumsfeld "authorized an abandonment of our nation's inviolable and deep-rooted prohibition against torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of detainees in U.S. military custody." They say these acts precipitated "further violations of law and directly led to the abuse of Plaintiffs and other detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq."

    Pattern of rights abuse alleged
    The human rights attorneys will also argue Friday that high-ranking commanders "permitted and implemented" an unlawful policy, pattern or practice of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees.

    The suit seeks compensatory damages and a judicial declaration that the legal rights of the prisoners were violated under the Constitution, the Geneva accords and other international law.

    Although allegations in the suit are the equivalent of war crimes, it is a civil case, not a criminal one. Only the U.S. government is empowered to prosecute war crimes in criminal court or before a military court.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099926/
     
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,568
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,204
    How exactly do these groups have any standing to sue. Individuals i could see, but these groups? Never really thought about it before.

    And Rumsfelds lawyer is correct. He cant be sued.
     
  3. 90K
    Offline

    90K BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,204
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    in the back of GW in foggy bottom
    Ratings:
    +64
    Well I guess those detainees in gitmo are just innocent taxi drivers who got jammed up! Smoke all of them and then use Chinese water torchor on every ACLU slug and Human Rights fag! I'm all for rights of humans done wrong but not having a speedy trail doesn't qualify and it sure as hell doesn't rate it if they are known terrorist----->terrorist means they use terror on their victims! That in my slim book means rights violation with regards to humans!
     

Share This Page