Supreme Court Ends Torture Lawsuit Against Donald Rumsfeld

[kpete]

Source: Huffington Post

Supreme Court Ends Torture Lawsuit Against Donald Rumsfeld
06/10/13 09:39 AM ET EDT

FOLLOW: Supreme Court, Video, Donald Rumsfeld, Iraq Torture, Supreme Court Donald Rumsfeld, Supreme Court Iraq Torture, Supreme Court Rumsfeld, Politics News
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from two American whistleblowers who claim U.S. forces tortured them in Iraq and who want to sue former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The justices' action Monday leaves in place a federal appeals court ruling that found Rumsfeld cannot be held liable for actions taken by subordinates that may have crossed legal bounds.

The two men are Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, who say they were detained and tortured after they accused an Iraqi-owned company for which they worked of illegally running guns. They argued Rumsfeld personally approved interrogation methods for use by the U.S. military in Iraq, making him responsible for what happened to them during several weeks they were held in military camp

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/supreme-court-donald-rumsfeld_n_3415124.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

[Jefferson23]

1. Disgraceful, and no mention if there was a comment added to the rejection. n/t

[freshwest]

2. Shit always rolls downhill. Rummy = Weapon of Mass Destruction.

That case is just a footnote to that bastard's career since Nixon. An implacable enemy, like the rest of the rightwing zombies.

[Marie Marie]

3. And yet, want to bet that this evil POS sleeps like a baby at night?

No regrets, no remorse.

[freshwest]

4. Serial killers likely sleep well at night, too. Just made that way. Such personalities, it seems,

are specialized entities. They can look at things in only one way, and obscure all other considerations that don't work to achieve their goals. Tunnel vision.

We don't know how this guy got to be what he is or what the hell he thinks of as the greater good. George Bush thought he was doing Gawd's will, or so it's said by several people.

What God, and what plan do these guys believe in, we don't know. He's been in the defense department and industry all of his life, may have a different thought pattern than most of us.

I just don't believe the end justifies the means, if the means used are killing people and the planet, but some do. I keep thinking they intend to take all they can and catch a rocket off this world, they are so careless about what they do.

OTOH, they may be insane. At a certain point, it all becomes a bit unreal.

[OnyxCollie]

5. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[azurnoir]

6. so the guy in charge isn't responsible

well isn't that special

[valerief]

9. They never are, are they? nt

[heaven05]

7. and

[Javaman]

8. this nation has become an droll joke. nt

[Heywood J]

10. So a leader is not responsible for the actions of subordinates?

I bet these guys wish someone had told them...

[hack89]

11. Not in every case

if the subordinates broke the law or deviated from military rules or regulations then the superior is not responsible. If they were ordered to break the law then the superiors who gave the orders can be held responsible.

Those Nazi's in your picture condoned and even ordered the commission of war crimes - they are guilty.

[Heywood J]

13. Is that why the Abu Ghraib prosecutions never went further than the very bottom-most rung?

What about when the existing meanings of words were simply redefined to avoid half a century of laws? What about when orders were given to engage in behavior (waterboarding) for which Japanese were sentenced to prison terms and hard labor after the war?

[hack89]

14. They covered their asses legally

between Congressional authorization and DOJ legal opinions higher ups were protected from US legal jeopardy.

It is not right but that is what happened.

In the more general case, superiors are not automatically complicit in the crimes of subordinates.

[Heywood J]

17. How can you "cover your ass legally" against

what Japanese war criminals were convicted for doing? Either water-boarding was legal then and the US owes the Japanese one hell of an apology, or it's a crime now. The last time I checked, one could not Congressionally authorize a war crime.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834

During the Spanish-American War, a U.S. soldier, Major Edwin Glenn, was suspended from command for one month and fined $50 for using "the water cure." In his review, the Army judge advocate said the charges constituted "resort to torture with a view to extort a confession." He recommended disapproval because "the United States cannot afford to sanction the addition of torture."
<...>
In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.
<...>
On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.

Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.

There's a victim's description from one of the Japan war crimes tribunals at that link. That defendant was sentenced to life in prison, although he had other charges.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/04/yes-we-did-execute-japanese-soldiers-waterboarding-american-pows

In a recent journal essay, Judge Evan Wallach, a member of the U.S. Court of International Trade and an adjunct professor in the law of war, writes that the testimony from American soldiers about this form of torture was gruesome and convincing. A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps.

[hack89]

19. In none of your examples were the perpetrator's superiors punished

Which is what this sub thread is about.

In this particular case, I would like to point out that neither man was water boarded. While harsh, it is not clear that their treatment was a war crime.

[Heywood J]

20. Really?

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=khMNAAAAIBAJ&pg=4074,5337552&hl=en
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=NIAhAAAAIBAJ&pg=2273,3069991&hl=en

The point was that the Japanese were tried for torture - hence the bolding. These men will never get their day in court.

[hack89]

21. But they were not water boarded

so I am not sure why you brought up the subject. What these guys were subjected to come no where close to torture.

They had their day in court. They lost.

[Coyotl]

12. I agree with the court.

[Heywood J]

18. Ironic that someone with a South American avatar would be against

lawsuits to get compensation for victims of military torture...

[Coyotl]

22. "actions taken by subordinates that may have crossed legal bounds" beingh the qualifier.

Good to have a ruling that purports the actions were illegal. Now, if evidence arises that Rumsfeld authorized the actions, he becomes a criminal under this ruling.

[Ash_F]

15. Could be used against Obama, if precedent is set.

And that is sad on many levels.

[happyslug]

16. Wrong posting to wrong thread

n/t