then the defendants are guilty. The rest is just waiting to see if the plaintiffs have the evidence.

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 doubt”?”

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.

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

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.

Unless it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were following Rumsfeld’s orders.

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.

it must be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the “victims” of “torture” were indeed innocent people who were mistakenly apprehended.

Do you believe we can legally torture people so long as they can’t prove their innocence “beyond a shadow of a doubt”?

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.

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.

Interesting post. I came across this blog by accident, but it was a good accident. I have now bookmarked your blog for future use. Best wishes. Wael Kfoury.

What is it about this case that you believe exempts Rumsfeld from facing prosecution?

I don’t understand how you failed to grasp that.