Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Intro: "A judge is allowing an Army veteran who says he was imprisoned unjustly and tortured by the US military in Iraq to sue former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld personally for damages."

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)



American Vet to Sue Rumsfeld Over Torture

By Nedra Pickler, Associated Press

05 August 11

 

judge is allowing an Army veteran who says he was imprisoned unjustly and tortured by the US 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 US 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 US 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 US 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 US 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 US 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 that the threat of liability would impede future military decisions.

But US District Judge James Gwin rejected those arguments and said US 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 US officials for their personal involvement in decisions over prisoner treatment. But this is the second time a federal judge has allowed US citizens to sue Rumsfeld personally.

US 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 US 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 US 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 always denied any wrongdoing.

 

Comments  

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+43 # Dave45 2011-08-05 19:20
It has been the case now for several years in America, that neither the US Constitution nor the criminal law code effectively applies to elected or appointed officials in high positions. In short, the people who make the laws (the elected legislators of the House and Senate) and those responsible for executing the laws (the President and members of his Cabinet) are, practically speaking, immune from prosecution. The ease with which these officials, with neither worry nor moral compunction, promote and participate in "administrative murder" (Hannah Arendt) and outright theft used to astound us. However, these officials' open and cynical disparagement of the US legal process has become so effectively institutionaliz ed in American public life that we think no more about it than we do about presidents (even those with expertise in constitutional law) waging non-defensive, unconstitutiona l wars at will. The politically deft and slimy Rumsfeld will manipulate his way through the process like so many others have done in the past, however much one might hope for a more just outcome.
 
 
+8 # ritaague 2011-08-06 07:47
Sovereign immunity, known in the U.S. as governmental immunity, is a cornerstone of common law. The premise is: kings/rulers rule in behalf of the poeple, and therefore shall be held above being penalized personally.

If ever there has been a false premise, readily seen in today's world and U.S. of (greed and power) A.(ddiction), this immunity of the rulers is it.
 
 
+1 # Bill Clements 2011-08-06 11:58
There is a better chance of Mubarak doing time than Rumsfeld. How ironic is that?
 
 
+2 # S. Wolf Britain 2011-08-06 16:22
So right, Dave! And does anybody think about the fact that there are government defense and prosecution attorneys in the "(In)'Justice' Department" who are "Democrats" making the same Orwellian, "backwards-speak", bizarre arguments, which are unconstitutiona l but claimed to be "constitutional" when it suits them and it's convenient for them, and/or which also argue against the Constitution when it's convenient for them and it suits them, as the Republican prosecution and defense lawyers in the same "(In)'Justice' Department".

A prime example from the very article above, and a real doozy, is as follows:

"...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 that the threat of liability would impede future military decisions..."...

(Continued below.)
 
 
+4 # S. Wolf Britain 2011-08-06 20:24
(Continued from above.)

...I think that all such truly ridiculous and indefensible arguments should be called, "bizarro-speak". The Judicial Branch of the U.S. government, the judges which are supposed to be the final check and balance, and/or arbiter, on both the Executive Branch (the president and his administration) and the Legislative Branch (the Congress of initial lawmakers until the courts are supposed to determine, decide and rule whether their new "laws" are constitutional or not), are of course, Constitutionall y, supposed to have power of complete review over decisions of Congress and the president. Otherwise, we don't truly have a "three-tiered" check and balance government anymore, and we in reality live in a dictatorship of many dictators.

And, concerning the rest of the "(In)'Justice' Department's" argument(s) above, what they are really saying is, '(T)he case could disclose the truth and government criminality, and thus distract from the illegal and unconstitutiona l war efforts; and the threat of liability could hold government criminals accountable and would impede future illegal and unconstitutiona l decisions of the government and the military (but we can't have that, can we?)'...

(Continued below.)
 
 
+2 # S. Wolf Britain 2011-08-06 21:09
(Continued from above.)

...In other words, according to their arguments, these tyrants and despots should supposedly have completely unfettered control, be totally above the law [except as they (mis)interpret it], should be answerable to no one but themselves and eachother (only their fellow despots and tyrants), and should be able to do whatever they want, to whomever they want, no matter who it harms and how much it harms them. And they are supposedly the only ones who have the so-called "'constitutional' responsibility" and "authority" to determine that the unconstitutiona l is supposedly "constitutional", and the constitutional is supposedly "unconstitutiona l".

Damn the courts! That is why they are stacking the courts with those completely corrupt judges, who are nothing but their fellow tyrants and despots, who will bow to their "bizarro-speak" arguments.

(Continued below.)
 
 
+2 # S. Wolf Britain 2011-08-07 08:46
(Continued from above.)

...That is, in-truth, what they are actually saying. But most of us, including judges, presidents and most "Congress-critters", are becoming more and more inured and acclimated to it, more and more coming to accept the Orwellian-, backwards-, bizarro- speak, and are so dumbed down about what is the real truth, and to what the true justice is that we should be seeking after the most, and above all else, that most of our minds work almost nothing but, if not completely, in a backwards fashion as well.

Most of us have thus been so physically and psychologically manipulated and socially-engineered for the very purpose of going along with, and directly or indirectly supporting, the despots and tyrants absolute control and enslavement [definition: without any True Liberty(ies) and Freedom(s)] of all of our lives, and virtually every aspect of those lives, that most of us are to the point where it is extremely difficult and painful to be awakened, or to awaken, out of this nightmare that most of us have been fraudulently indoctrinated and conditioned to believe is "normal".

(Continued below.)
 
 
+1 # S. Wolf Britain 2011-08-07 21:20
(Continued from above.)

...Therefore, it is an extremely successful social engineering program, and most people have been so successfully programmed to be part and parcel of the mass-insanity, that most of them, except as a result of a literal miracle, will never recover from it; and they will blindly bow down to and support the tyrants and despots destruction of humankind, much more than they already do.

(COMPLETELY) WAKE UP, PEOPLE; COME TOTALLY OUT OF THE MASS INSANITY; STOP BEING ANY PART OF IT ANYMORE; AND FULFILL YOUR DUTY(IES) TO STAND UP AGAINST ALL OF IT AND AWAKEN OTHERS TO WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON, SO THEY CAN AWAKEN OTHERS, AND SO ON AND SO ON!!!!!
 
 
+33 # Texan 4 Peace 2011-08-05 21:38
History has shown time and again that governments that start out torturing foreigners always end up torturing their own citizens eventually. With all three branches of govt. (as well as the media) under corporate control, where are citizens to go for recourse now?
 
 
+41 # Progressive Patriot 2011-08-05 22:48
If Ford had not pardoned Nixon, and he had stood trial for his crimes, there would be more precedence for bringing high level officials to justice. THAT is one of the reasons we _really_ need to bring Bush and Cheney to justice ... to restore some balance, and make certain that officials know that they are NOT above the law.
 
 
+14 # Eric Roberts 2011-08-06 04:34
+ infinity on that
 
 
+9 # Bill Clements 2011-08-06 11:59
Absolutely! How sad was it that Pelosi and Obama took this "off the table" from day one?
 
 
+6 # punk 2011-08-06 01:02
http://blog.soros.org/2011/08/u-s-cannot-close-door-on-legacy-of-torture-so-easily/
 
 
+7 # J.Lindsley 2011-08-06 04:45
The Ghost of Justice hovers............
 
 
+4 # KittatinyHawk 2011-08-06 10:03
Integrity and conscious is what we are lacking at all levels
 
 
0 # S. Wolf Britain 2011-08-06 20:25
Integrity and consciousness, or integrity and conscience, or both? :)
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.