Rumsfeld sued over torture authorization

[PeachMonkey]

The ACLU and Human Rights First have joined in filing federal suits against US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Colonel Thomas Pappas, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, and Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez.

The suits seek a court order stating that these individuals have violated the US Constitution, federal statues, and international law by directly authorizing the use of illegal and brutal methods of torture in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The complaint is here:

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17574&c=280

More info at Human Rights First's press release:

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/2005_alerts/etn_0301_lit.htm

 

[modarnis]

Seems like this suit is outside the scope of what the ACLU does, according to their own misson statement at http://www.aclu.org/about/aboutmain.cfm

None of the named plaintiffs are American citizens or persons otherwise with appropriate INS status to give them standing to sue in a federal court. It seems outside federal question jurisdiction, but a matter for a military court since they are detained outside the US

 

[PeachMonkey]

Seems like this suit is outside the scope of what the ACLU does, according to their own misson statement at http://www.aclu.org/about/aboutmain.cfm

It might be argued that their choice to work together with Human Rights First was in response to this suggestion. Additionally, it could be argued that since the ACLU sees itself as a protector of the US Constitution, as quoted in the site you list above:

"Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

... that behavior by US officials that violates the Constitution would concern them.

None of the named plaintiffs are American citizens or persons otherwise with appropriate INS status to give them standing to sue in a federal court. It seems outside federal question jurisdiction, but a matter for a military court since they are detained outside the US

Do you have to be a US citizen to file suit in a US court? Can you provide a reference for this requirement?

Moreover, the US Supreme Court has already ruled that it has jurisdiction over cases regarding so-called "enemy combatants". See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3867067.stm

 

[ginshun]

The ACLU are pretty much the embodyment of everything that is wrong with the United States.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

The ACLU are pretty much the embodyment of everything that is wrong with the United States.

I didn't realize that our civil liberties were what was wrong with the USA. Do you prefer dictatorships?

 

[ginshun]

I didn't realize that our civil liberties were what was wrong with the USA. Do you prefer dictatorships?

The American Civil Liberties Union fights for the civil liberties of Americans, the same way the American Beef Council fights for the rights of cows.

 

[Phil Elmore]

How many of the people "tortured" still have heads?

Seriously, how many of those detained have been held down, screaming, while their heads were sawed laboriously from their bodies?

That'd be pretty inhumane. Disgusting, even.

 

[PeachMonkey]

I see that we once again have two classic, throwback standards of argument:

-- "The ACLU is bad" -- because, apparently, civil liberties are also bad, and fascism, dictatorship, and oppression are good. Or do you actually have information showing that the ACLU *doesn't* act in the defense of civil liberties? I didn't think so.

-- The schoolyard-level rationalization that since insurgents have done horrible things, then we must then be justified in throwing out our laws, Constitution, and everything that makes us the good guys in response.

Neither of these points, such as they are, actually addresses the actual merits (or lack thereof) of the actual suit.

 

[Ray]

I see that we once again have two classic, throwback standards of argument:

-- "The ACLU is bad" -- because, apparently, civil liberties are also bad, and fascism, dictatorship, and oppression are good. Or do you actually have information showing that the ACLU *doesn't* act in the defense of civil liberties? I didn't think so.

-- The schoolyard-level rationalization that since insurgents have done horrible things, then we must then be justified in throwing out our laws, Constitution, and everything that makes us the good guys in response.

Neither of these points, such as they are, actually addresses the actual merits (or lack thereof) of the actual suit.

I believe that it will be dismissed fairly quickly. During WWII the internment of loyal Americans of Japanese descent by the US Gov't was wrong. This suit may end some current wrong actions of the US Gov't.

I am not necessarily agreeing that Rumsfeld is the one who should be sued or punished; He may be - He may not be. We'll see.

To say that the ACLU is stands against fascism... and oppression doesn't necessarily follow. One end of the facist and oppresive political spectrum is ultra-conservative, the dictator; but the other end of the facist and oppresive political spectrum is the ultra-liberal, the socialist regime (unless, of course, you believe the other end to be anarchy). I am happy to see the ultra-left and ultra-right argue it out in a court of law so that I, somewhere in the middle (and a little conservative), can enjoy my rights without impinging (too badly) on the rights of others (and visa versa).

 

[Flatlander]

It seems to me that if the US is occupying that territory, the ACLU has jurisdiction to file a complaint. Further, given that Rumsfeld indeed was the one who alledgedly authorized the infringement of civil liberties, he is the appropriate person to accuse. It will, however, be difficult to prove.

 

[Ray]

It seems to me that if the US is occupying that territory, the ACLU has jurisdiction to file a complaint.

One of the beauties of the US is that anyone can file a lawsuit. The ACLU is doing so on behalf of persons who were (alledgedly?) tortured.

Further, given that Rumsfeld indeed was the one who alledgedly authorized the infringement of civil liberties, he is the appropriate person to accuse.

Another beauty is that such a suit can be brought against gov't officials. Whether it gets dismissed or not is another thing.

I don't recall any Iraqi's bringing a suit against Saddam & Sons Killing and Raping, Inc.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

How many of the people "tortured" still have heads?

Seriously, how many of those detained have been held down, screaming, while their heads were sawed laboriously from their bodies?

That'd be pretty inhumane. Disgusting, even.

In other words, if it's not the most disgusting, barbaric, inhumane treatment that we know of, then it doesn't count as torture? I mean, obviously we may have beat the **** out of them, sodomized them, humiliated them--but hey, they've still got their heads on, now don't they?

 

[PeachMonkey]

It will, however, be difficult to prove.

I'm not so sure... the ACLU has uncovered 20,000+ documents using the FOIA that show a link between Rumsfeld and the other defendants and the methods of torture used. You may recall recent news stories discussing "torture memos" from Rumsfeld... these were uncovered by the ACLU.

 

[rmcrobertson]

It might be noted that the ACLU is also defending Rush Limbaugh.

Regrettably, this suit probably won't go anywhere: Rumsfield has a certain degree of protection as a government official, and there's (as was mentioned) question about wheteher the participants have the standing to even bring the suit.

Considering that the guy floated trial balloons about torture before the Iraq invasion, promulgated policies that either directly supported or winked at torture, and then ran the responsible department (let's not even get into the vulgarity of this whole, "independent contractors," crap), sure, he's responsible.

And I love it when these guys, who are always screaming at the rest of us about "personal responsibility," won't take any themselves. Quel surprise.

What I do not love is hearning Americans argue, "Well, THEY did it FIRST!" Congratulations, guys; that logic has worked out so very, very well in the Middle east and Europe over the last three thousand years. I mean, look at the Nazis--"We are only defending our rightful nation against the mongrels and barbarians who have sucked the lifeblood of the German people!!"

Basic moral rule: when you find yourself arguing for violence the same way Hezbollah, Milosevitch, and Hitler argued for violence, it is time to sit down and reconsider.

 

[Phoenix44]

BTW, ACLU also filed a complaint against Rumsfeld for violation of FOIA for failing to turn over the documents in a timely fashion.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Draping somebody's underwear over his head while interrogating him isn't torture. This is true for many reasons, not the least of which is that he still has a head on which you may drape his underwear.

Anyone who believes it is possible to pursue a war according to politically correct standards doesn't understand war or human conflict at all.

 

[Tgace]

What? We cant fight a war "nice"?

 

[Flatlander]

Draping somebody's underwear over his head while interrogating him isn't torture. This is true for many reasons, not the least of which is that he still has a head on which you may drape his underwear.

Anyone who believes it is possible to pursue a war according to politically correct standards doesn't understand war or human conflict at all.

Phil, that's not the point. The point here is that your country's government ratified international treaties that clearly and definitively disallowed the torture of humans. Documented circumstances wherein practices that fit the definition of torture as ratified by your government have been made public. Your government ordered and was complicit in these activites. Minimalizing the activites doesn't make them go away. The "an eye for an eye" argument doesn't nullify the law, as it is written.

I have made this argument here before.

 

[ginshun]

Personally I think that the ACLU's filing of this lawsuit has a lot more to do with politics, than it has to do with them really caring about the acts or the people who were allegedly tortured.

I also feel pretty confident that Rumsfeld will never see the inside of a courtroom. They might as well have sue W himself.

Ooops, don't want to give them any idea's.

 

[Ray]

Draping somebody's underwear over his head while interrogating him isn't torture.

I dunno, let me see the underwear before I make that determination!