At first I was going to respond about not being able to sue Rumsfield, unless he actively ordered/participated the alleged abuse, as the general rule is that one is not liable for the actions of third parties when the third party commits an illegal (hence unforeseeable) act.
I then re read the post. Read it again. Is it me, or did the ACLU file this suit? WTF! I am not familiar with the "human rights group," however, I am sadly familiar with the ACLU.
Are these people (the alleged victims) even American? It appears that they do not have american citizenship. What is a US taxpayer funded org doing here? We pay them dollars so they can sue US citizens (cause the pentagon is most likely immune) for alleged crimes against non US citizens. This is amazing. ACLU, "American" Civil Liberties Union. Not Iraq nor Afganistan civil liberties union.
I do not have a problem with non citizens bringing suit in US courts, I do however have a BIG problem with my taxpayer dollars being spent to help them out. Especially in a case that is bound to lose. Yes, these cases will be very difficult to prove.
And, this case is not even the only one!
At the same time, the ACLU filed three similar suits in other states against Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who was the commander in Iraq, and Col. Thomas Pappas and Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who were commanders at Abu Ghraib. The complaints were filed in federal courts in South Carolina, Texas and Connecticut.
I need to find out if this org is non profit, most likely is, yet the IRS needs to tune in, just like they finally started doing with NAACP. This has got to stop. I am tired of my taxes funding crap I do not believe in. I understand that my taxes may be spend in areas where I do not agree, but come on, the NAACP and the ACLU consistently represent ONLY one side of the coin.
I don't know about boohoo, for if these guys have truly been abused, then they have a claim. Regardless of whether someone in their religion or group beheaded one of us. The claim? I don't know. I have not personally worked that out. For if one is to flaunt the Geneva Conventions, then how in the world can you sue under it. If you were wearing a uniform, then, IMHO, you have the benefit of the doubt that you were not apart of the groups beheading people.
Another thing I have not figured out is:
What is "abuse?" Under the Geneva, taking pictures is. But what if these pictures showing these guys in embarassing moments saves lives? Seriously. War is hell, so the saying goes. Not that this means we should act like hell, but, where is the proper line drawn?