JUDGE Rules: Defendants Including RUMMY-"Enjoyed Qualified Immunity" For Torture

[kpete]

Court dismisses Guantanamo torture suit.

A U.S. appeals court ruled today that “four former Guantanamo prisoners, all British citizens, have no right to sue top Pentagon officials and military officers for torture, abuse and violations of their religious rights.” The judge ruled that the defendants — including Donald Rumsfeld — “enjoyed qualified immunity for acts taken within the scope of their government jobs.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1129837820080111?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews

..................................

JANUARY 11, 2008, is the six-year anniversary of the first arrival of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.

On January 11, we are calling on everyone opposed to torture and indefinite detention to WEAR ORANGE to symbolize their sadness and disgust with the national shame that is Guantánamo Bay.



http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/closeguantanamo.html

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. There are grounds for appeal n/t

[ORDagnabbit]

2. gimme a fuckin break!!! there is no no no no NO! immunity when dealing with torture!

[Xipe Totec]

3. The United States does not torture.

Therefore, these acts were not taken within the scope of their government jobs.

[Demeter]

7. I Like Your Reasoning Ability

Neat little logical trap.

Or a massive display of sarcasm.

Personally, I've been tortured every day since the first Tues in November of 2000, and I have the scars to prove the act, the actors, and the results.

[warren pease]

More like The United States Does Not Torture...

Therefore, the incidents never happened. QED.

wp

[Xipe Totec]

13. The judge did not contest whether torture happened

only that it was part of their job description.

[warren pease]

16. Oh, I know...

I was just ratcheting up the absurdity quotient another notch.

Personally, the decision is about what I'd expect from a federal judiciary polluted with Federalist Society fanatics. These zealot swine probably think Scalia is a little too even-handed when it comes to protecting the "rights" of the corporate state against the grievances of the little people.

I'm so very proud to pay taxes these days, as I have been ever since the magic coup of December 2000.


wp

[Xipe Totec]

19. I hope it will be appealed

I think they are in a legal box either way.

To clear them, the United States government has to acknowledge that they performed torture with full knowledge and consent. In that case the US Government is guilty, even if the individuals are not, and is therefore liable for damages.

On the other hand, if the US Government repudiates torture, then the individuals are liable.

This is not over by any means. They may have to go back and start with a lawsuit against the US Government, but they can use this ruling as precedent showing that the US Govt. has admitted to torture.

[warren pease]

20. Don't you think the feds will toss the individuals to the wolves?

If it's a choice between admitting the US tortures and opening up the administration to worldwide liability on that hideous charge or throwing a few "disposable" individuals to the sharks, don't you think they'd opt for option B? This assumes they can figure out some way to shield Rumsfeld from liability, which I'm sure the ever-inventive Mukasey and Addington are working on as we speak.

wp

[Demeter]

4. I Smell a Supreme Court Conundrum Coming Next!

It would give good reason to impeach those sons-of-bitches, if they waffle or give a pass to these war criminals.

[annabanana]

5. I'll bet they fucking "enjoyed" it too.

fuckers

[warren pease]

17. Yeah, just like this happy, well-adjusted guy...

wp

[aquart]

6. Our government has NO RESTRAINTS on it. NONE.

We may think we're immune to corruption from so much power, but we're not. If we do not fix this MIGHTILY, we will be gone in two years.

[Solly Mack]

8. War Crime Nation

[gratuitous]

9. This seems to be a legal no-brainer

There are certain immunities that government officials enjoy, due to the official duties of their positions. But no government official has a duty to torture anyone; in fact, government officials, particularly high government officials, have sworn a duty to uphold and defend the Constitution. In tandem with the Constitution (and by the terms of the Constitution) are our country's treaty obligations. Together these form the highest laws of our government. And no government official is immune to the strictures and obligations of the Constitution and our country's treaties, even in furtherance of gathering intelligence, as this appellate panel rules.

This decision stinks, and degrades the United States.

[Rageneau]

10. The Nazis could have used this guy at Neuremberg

They were only following orders.

[malaise]

11. Tell that crap to the judges in

The Hague

[L. Coyote]

12. Is the government liable? Deeper pockets!

[icnorth]

14. That being the case Judge,

you shouldn't have any problem with this scenario... 'An Italian appeals court ruled today that “three CIA prisoners, all American citizens have no right to sue top Italian army officials and military officers for torture, abuse and violations of their religious rights” while in detention for their role in the super secret CIA abduction squad that kidnapped an Italian national in Milan. The judge ruled that the defendants — “enjoyed qualified immunity for acts taken within the scope of their government jobs.”

...Oh, that was uncalled for, you say Judge? Really. :sarcasm:

[damntexdem]

15. Outlawing Nurenburg.

[lovuian]

18. Well put that judges name on the War Criminal list

World courts may differ than you judge

[kelligesq]

21. ONTO THE COURT IN THE HAGUE -crimes against humanity n/t

:kick: