Rumsfeld Faces Lawsuit From ACLU and Former Detainees
Posted on December 8, 2006
Well, we knew this was coming. Via MSNBC:
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.
Guess who is one those leading the charge in this lawsuit?
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.”
The judge is a Reagan appointee, so hopefully some common sense will prevail. I also hope that Bush doesn’t stay silent on this and speaks up on how idiotic this lawsuit is.
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 ACLU continues its campaign to inflame our enemies. The ACLU Press Release pulls out the “Widespread Pattern” meme.
» Filed Under Uncategorized
Trackback URL
Comments
44 Responses to “Rumsfeld Faces Lawsuit From ACLU and Former Detainees”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Suggestions
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Another example of killers having more rights than I do. I would love to hear the ACLU plan on how to defend a nation under attack from jihadists…I guess it would be called the Jihadist Appeasement Doctrine….
Once again ACLU is backing the wrong side of the issue. Yet another reason that they should take the word “American” out of their title. I don’t see how someone could support the ACLU and claim to love this country and our freedom.
I’m not sure where you found the word “killers”.
The article refers to these individuals as “former detainees” and “civilians who were never held as enemy combatants or charged with any crime.”
Do you think it’s idiotic because the allegations are false or because the actions were justified?
I’m not sure where you found the word “killersâ€Â.
Read “killers” as “jihadists” which equals killers in the name of their warped religion.
“Do you think it’s idiotic because the allegations are false or because the actions were justified?”
Justified. If you were in Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg’s place perhaps you would suddenly feel different.
Are you suggesting that we are just rounding up innocent people and torturing them? If so, you do a great disservice to our military and our intelligence system.
If you happen to think our intelligence is so bad, then, you have a whole lot more to be worried about than Abu Ghraib (sp?)! You should be shaking in your shoes by now!
No, that is only true for the extreme end of the religion. The moderates have a much less violent interpretation of the word. For them, it’s more akin to “one who struggles [for righteousness].” Even if we accept your definition, the word “jihadist” doesn’t appear in the article either.
If these people truly are bloody savages, perhaps we ought not use their behavior as a model for our own.
In most cases, it has nothing to do with intelligence. A great many people are rounded up at the conclusion of firefights. In such cases, a soldier understandably uses an abundance of caution. If a man is found with a concealed pistol in his home in the vicinity of the fight, he may be considered a threat and detained.
However, it’s very possible that the man simply had the pistol to protect his family. You have to remember that criminal activity (a warlord is nothing more than a gangleader) is rampant in these places.
If an interrogator doesn’t take the circumstances of the detainment into consideration before selecting his interrogation technique, I would have a hard time believing his actions to be justified.
“No, that is only true for the extreme end of the religion. The moderates have a much less violent interpretation of the word. For them, it’s more akin to “one who struggles [for righteousness].†Even if we accept your definition, the word “jihadist†doesn’t appear in the article either.”
Jeff, “moderates” aren’t being detained. Extremists (murders) are.
But thanks for the Islam is “a religion of peace” talking point. ; )
“If these people truly are bloody savages, perhaps we ought not use their behavior as a model for our own.”
You’re right Jeff. We should just release them as an example of our morally superior position so that they can resume their murderous activities.
“If a man is found with a concealed pistol in his home in the vicinity of the fight, he may be considered a threat and detained.
However, it’s very possible that the man simply had the pistol to protect his family. You have to remember that criminal activity (a warlord is nothing more than a gangleader) is rampant in these places.”
Nice little imaginary scenario. But is little more than that; imaginary. It doesn’t really serve to make your case, since it isn’t factual.
“If an interrogator doesn’t take the circumstances of the detainment into consideration before selecting his interrogation technique, I would have a hard time believing his actions to be justified.”
If interrogators started considering imaginary circumstances they wouldn’t get very far would they?
I believe it is highly possible that nothing would ever be sufficient for you to see their interrogation justified.
Am I right?
Are they barcoded or something? Your assumption that our troops can identify our enemies sans uniform with a 0% false positive rate is highly unlikely. Actually, it’s quite likely that they are trained to play it safe and not worry about their false positive rate. In short, I think it’s very likely that we routinely detain some unknown number of innocent people. I don’t have a problem with that; It’s a fact of life. The dispute is over what happens after they are detained.
Saying “a is not b” is not the same as saying “a is the converse of b.” The members of Islam, like the members of any large group cannot be perfectly describe to any degree of detail. Pick any characteristic you wish and you will find that the members form a continuum between the two extremes.
Read the article again. There are absolutely no allegations of any wrongdoing, let alone murder, against these men.
Nope. I don’t question the detainment or the interrogation. I, and the complainants, question the degree and duration of the detainment and interrogations.
They may or may not prove to be justified. I’ll reserve my judgement until both sides have argued their cases.
It was certainly hypothetical, but it didn’t require much imagination. My only goal was to illustrate a realistic situation in which a soldier would detain an individual, despite having no evidence of wrongdoing. If you wish to stick to actual incidents, I will do so.
From the complaint:
There are three examples of individuals who were detained in non-combat situations and subsequently interrogated (allegedly to the point of “torture”).
The case has only just begun, so we don’t have anywhere near enough facts to determine the credibility of the information that our troops acted on or the extent to which, if any, the interrogations became torture.
Any claim that these men are clearly “jihadist murderers”, however, is extremely premature.
“I think it’s very likely that we routinely detain some unknown number of innocent people. I don’t have a problem with that; It’s a fact of life. The dispute is over what happens after they are detained.”
So, is it your assertion then, that the military and intelligence is unable to distinguish between the two and so are holding innocent people out of incompetence? If so, that is tougher to prove than assumption that we are capturing innocent people.
“Nope. I don’t question the detainment or the interrogation. I, and the complainants, question the degree and duration of the detainment and interrogations.
“They may or may not prove to be justified. I’ll reserve my judgment until both sides have argued their cases.”
That would be the prudent course of action instead of overreacting to alleged abuse being orchestrated by our military.
“It was certainly hypothetical, but it didn’t require much imagination. My only goal was to illustrate a realistic situation in which a soldier would detain an individual, despite having no evidence of wrongdoing. If you wish to stick to actual incidents, I will do so.”
By “imaginary” I was referring to made up; not real; but, I would agree that hypothetical is a better choice of word. But this is just semantics. However, your hypothetical situation carries little weight, since it is…well, hypothetical as opposed to what is happening. And, secondly, to suggest that our military would overreact to a guy with a handgun for family protection and equate it with entering a house that is armed to the teeth with weaponry that terrorists are using is disrespectful to our military and absurd.
“Any claim that these men are clearly “jihadist murderersâ€Â, however, is extremely premature.”
And any claim that they are not is also premature.
In this war on terror where Islamo Fascists want to kill us all, you can wring your hands over civil rights if you wish, but I find it more important to remember that we are at war and don’t have the luxury of time to wait for liberal judges and lawyers to be satisfied with each and every course of action we take in obtaining the intelligence we need to stop any more bloody victories by these blood thirsty Muslim extremists.
Most definitely. I think it is very hard to distinguish friend from foe when neither wear uniforms. I also think it’s very justified for the men on the ground to err on the side of caution. Thus, it is very probable that some unknown number of people are detained despite their innocence. I feel that it would be foolish to believe otherwise.
Indeed. If you review the sequence of comments, you will see that I never once made an accusation against the defendants. I have merely argued that the lawsuit is not unreasonable.
You would have a harder time demonstrating that similar situations aren’t occurring than I would demonstrating that they are. It is always easier to prove a positive than a negative. I’m willing to acknowledge that we civilians just don’t know.
Of course. I never made any claims as to their innocence.
I understand that you may hear people advocate such things regularly, but you cannot attribute any of it to me. I don’t question the detainment or the interrogation of these men. I only question their duration and severity. Even then, I am reserving my judgment until the facts are on the table.
We probably disagree here, but I do not believe that the ends always justify the means.
A new report from the AP. I don’t pretend it proves anything, but it certainly lends further credence to the idea that our detention procedures have flaws.
“Of course. I never made any claims as to their innocence.”
So, then exactly what is your point? You seem to be bent on defending them, yet aren’t claiming their innocence. That doesn’t make sense, unless you are just on their side and against the military.
“I understand that you may hear people advocate such things regularly, but you cannot attribute any of it to me. I don’t question the detainment or the interrogation of these men. I only question their duration and severity. Even then, I am reserving my judgment until the facts are on the table.”
It almost doesn’t sound that way at all. You are questioning the duration and “severity”. Do you have any background which would suggest your suspicions are warranted when it comes to military prisons and interrogation? Just wondering?
“We probably disagree here, but I do not believe that the ends always justify the means.”
So then you would be content with the worst case ending as long as we “played nice” with our enemy’s imaginary Constitutional civil rights?
I don’t believe that the end justifies the means if by that you mean charging ahead like a bull in a china shop toward an end. I don’t believe that that is what we are doing militarily.
I guess I have more faith in our military than you do. And I’m not as worried about the detainees (prisoners) as you apparently are. I am worried about our national security and the safety of our troops.
There are many degrees to which you can defend someone or something. At this point, I’m defending their decision to file the lawsuit. There appears to have been enough questionable actions to justify it. Should the judge let it proceed to trial? I’m inclined to think so, but that would be premature to decide. Should they win the suit? Who knows. I doubt there is much precedence for this kind of thing, so I would just be guessing.
No, I have no special background. I have simply heard about enough incidents that I feel it’s important to investigate them from a systemic perspective rather than simply attributing them all to misguided, low-level individuals.
You’re attempting to put words in my mouth. I won’t bite, but I will describe my actual position.
Personally, I have a moral code that I use to guide me. There are times when that code has, does, and will put me at a disadvantage, occasionally even from a personal security perspective. I’m fallible, but I try like hell not to sacrifice my adherence to that code for a short-term benefit. I value my integrity too highly.
I apply that same reasoning to our country as a whole. I don’t expect the country’s moral code to match mine to any particular degree, but I do expect us to stick to our code, regardless of what we think we could or should get away with. If we fail to do that, we’re no better than the other 200 countries that talk out of both sides of their mouths.
That’s part of it, but the analogy doesn’t quite encompass what I meant. Factor in what I said above about integrity and that’s about what I meant.
I’m less convinced. I need to point out that my distrust does not lie with the footsoldiers. I have close relationships with more than a few. I distrust the ones making policies and giving orders.
I really don’t care about the detainees at all. I don’t know them; they mean nothing to me. The world is full of tragedies every day; I don’t have the energy to cry for all of them.
It’s when a tragedy occurs because of a failing in our integrity that I snap to attention. I want to live in a country that sticks to its principles every day, not just when it’s convenient.
“There are many degrees to which you can defend someone or something. At this point, I’m defending their decision to file the lawsuit. There appears to have been enough questionable actions to justify it. Should the judge let it proceed to trial?”
The whole: “should they go to trial?” question is inane. They are prisoners of war, not US citizens with Constitutional rights. To their day in US courts.
“No, I have no special background. I have simply heard about enough incidents that I feel it’s important to investigate them from a systemic perspective rather than simply attributing them all to misguided, low-level individuals.”
You’ve heard enough incidents? Again, see my first response.
“You’re attempting to put words in my mouth. I won’t bite, but I will describe my actual position.
Personally, I have a moral code that I use to guide me. There are times when that code has, does, and will put me at a disadvantage, occasionally even from a personal security perspective. I’m fallible, but I try like hell not to sacrifice my adherence to that code for a short-term benefit. I value my integrity too highly.
I apply that same reasoning to our country as a whole. I don’t expect the country’s moral code to match mine to any particular degree, but I do expect us to stick to our code, regardless of what we think we could or should get away with. If we fail to do that, we’re no better than the other 200 countries that talk out of both sides of their mouths.”
I too have a moral code, in case you are implying that I don’t. I’m not saying that is what you are doing at all, but just in case.
I think it is admirable that you have a moral code. However, your moral code can’t be allowed to supercede the Constitution. These prisoners do not have any Constitutional rights to any law suit trail in US courts.
If we were to illegally afford them Constitutional rights we would be opening up a huge can of worms. Imagine the disaster that could occur as each terrorist has a slick lawyer that wins their release so that they can proceed with their mission of killing our soldiers, and innocent Iraqi citizens.
“That’s part of it, but the analogy doesn’t quite encompass what I meant. Factor in what I said above about integrity and that’s about what I meant.”
You have a strange sense of integrity. The enemy is the enemy. It’s not as if we are fighting say, Nazi Germany, where the soldiers have been conscripted against their will to fight against us. These terrorists are participating of their own free will.
“I really don’t care about the detainees at all. I don’t know them; they mean nothing to me. The world is full of tragedies every day; I don’t have the energy to cry for all of them.”
I don’t have any sense for the need to cry for any of these terrorists, even if I had the energy to do so. That you do, is telling.
Bottom line here is that if there are perceived injustices being committed against, “innocent” captives, then a governmental investigation into the military’s mission and how they are carrying it out is warranted. Law suits in US courts of law on behalf of non-citizens is ludicrous.
Your expectations of granting Constitutional rights to prisoners of war to try and bring justice to those who “might” be being imprisoned wrongfully (ref your scenario of the man with a hand gun in his house for personal safety)is wrongheaded.
It does in the long run offer aid to the enemy above our soldiers safety, the safety of innocent Iraqi victims of their carnage as well as our National Security.
You might want to rethink your moral code and where it is taking.
Again, I am with you on us not detaining completely innocent people who aren’t involved in the terrorist’s mission and have nothing to offer in terms of intelligence.
Giving them Constitutional rights to law suits against our top military officials is not the way to go about this.
It seems that you’re confusing the issue. This is not about current detainees. These men have been released. This is about whether or not former administration officials can be held liable for their alleged torture.
You may wish to restate your last post, as it continued based on this misunderstanding.
How do you determine the difference between a “terrorist”, “participating of his own free will” and a “completely innocent” person?
“How do you determine the difference between a “terroristâ€Â, “participating of his own free will†and a “completely innocent†person?”
I am in no way “confused”. Again, there is no Constitutional rights for non-citizens.
The ball is clearly back in your court.
That you don’t want to deal with that, is, of course, a different matter.
Remember, refutation is the key here.
I am waiting….
Ok, then I’m confused. I was talking about the torture lawsuit. You seem to be talking about the habeas corpus lawsuit. I guess I just misinterpretation your last couple posts.
What is your assertion that you’re waiting for me to refure?
I am waiting for your assertion that we should extend Constitutional rights to non-US citizens.
A topic that you keep dodging.
Well, the constitution does protect resident aliens in addition to citizens, so that alone falsifies your statement, but I know you were referring to non-residents, so I’ll continue on.
There are few, if any, circumstances where any constitutional rights apply to non-citizens outside of US jurisdiction. I don’t know of any off-hand, but I’m hedging because I’m not qualified to say for sure that there aren’t any.
In short, I agree with your assertion.
“In short, I agree with your assertion.”
Thank you. Your original point is moot.
I suspect that you and I aren’t as completely opposite as our exchange here might present.
No, the defendants in this case are US citizens who are accused of violating US law. It has nothing to do with whether or not a foreign national has a right of due process or habeas corpus.
So, the detainees are US citizens involved with “possible” actions against our country? That is amazing. How then, were they captured behind enemy lines?
Huh? I never said the detainees are US citizens. The defendants in this case are Mr. Rumsfeld and some of his associates.
Oh. My bad…you are referring to Rumsfeld and others…well that is a different matter. Obviously, a government investigation would be in order….but still, lawsuits on behalf of detainees is out of the question, at least Constitutionally.
So, once again, the ball is back in your court.
You believe an American can commit any crime he chooses as long as it is against a non-citizen?
“You believe an American can commit any crime he chooses as long as it is against a non-citizen?”
This a good example of your attempt to push your “moral code” above the Constitution.
Sorry, but as lofty as your moral code is, we can’t afford for it to supercede the Constitution of our country, no matter how liberal and lofty it might be.
Am I to understand that your answer is “yes”?
“Am I to understand that your answer is “yesâ€Â? ”
Where do you get that crazy conclusion from?
It was the best guess I had based on your response. Please clarify your answer.
You persist in dodging the Constitutional issue. Where is your logical refutation of my viewpoint? I am still waiting….
I’m trying to understand your assertion. I asked you a direct question in comment 31 in an effort to clarify your position. When you answer it, I will be in a better position to understand what we agree or disagree about.
If you are still waiting for your answer to your comment 31…then obviously you haven’t been paying attention to our dialog all along.
I would suggest that you reveiw our entire discussion. Then you will be better able to ascertain where we are now in our discussion. Right???
Jeff, take your time to review all of our discussion, and I will gladly respond to you tomorrow. Where I live, it is very late and I am going to sleep now. Best wishes…..
I have and I’m still confused. You seem adamant (comments 30, 32, 36) that our constitution prohibits courts from hearing suits when the alleged victim is a non-citizen, yet your response in 34 indicates the opposite. Is your answer “yes”, “no”, or “in some cases”? I’m just not sure.
If my answer to your question in comment 34 was “where did you get that crazy idea” in reply to your assumption that yes was my answer to your silly question about whether or not I believe a US citizen can commit any crime he/she pleased against non US citizens, then it should have been obvious that my answer was no.
I don’t understand how you failed to grasp that.
Ok, so we agree that there are at least some cases in which a US citizen can be held liable for a crime against a non-citizen?
What is it about this case that you believe exempts Rumsfeld from facing prosecution?
Is it your contention that Rumsfeld ordered the commission of a crime against a non-US citizen?
No, the plaintiffs contend “[the defendants] bear legal responsibility for the policies, patterns, practices, derelictions of duty and command failures that caused Plaintiffs to suffer abuse and physical and psychological injuries.”
I contend it is possible they are correct.
The actors at Abu Graib are the ones who hold the ultimate responsibility for their behavior. They acted on their own, so I might see it more appropriate for them to be the defendants, unless it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were following Rumsfeld’s orders.
Also, it must be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the “victims” of “torture” were indeed innocent people who were mistakenly apprehended. If they are not this should not ever go to court, as it sets a dangerous precedent. Terrorists, our enemies, do not have Constitutional rights. Nor must they ever, under any circumstance be given any.
Of course. An individual is culpable for his or her own actions. I believe most of the soldiers you’re referring to are already serving sentences.
A direct order is not necessary. “policies, patterns, practices, derelictions of duty and command failures” would hold up.
Every commander is responsible for the actions of his subordinates to some degree. If it can be demonstrated that a soldier acted within a reasonable perception of his superiors expectations, the superiors share culpability.
Do you believe we can legally torture people so long as they can’t prove their innocence “beyond a shadow of a doubt”?
“If it can be demonstrated that a soldier acted within a reasonable perception of his superiors expectations, the superiors share culpability.”
I suspect that area is going to lacking.
“Do you believe we can legally torture people so long as they can’t prove their innocence “beyond a shadow of a doubtâ€Â?”
I guess you missed the quotation marks around the word torture in my comment. It is the US policy not to torture. It will have to be shown that we are in fact “torturing” the captives. There is considerable dispute over what the liberals and peacenicks are claiming as torture vice torture.
I think we’re in agreement. If the plaintiffs can convincingly demonstrate:
1) The actions of their captors constitute torture and
2) The superior officers share culpability for those actions
then the defendants are guilty. The rest is just waiting to see if the plaintiffs have the evidence.
Yes, then we are in agreement. We’ll have to wait and see ; )