Court: Alleged torture victims can't sue Rumsfeld

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Court: Alleged torture victims can't sue Rumsfeld
| November 8, 2012 | Updated: November 8, 2012 2:07pm

CHICAGO (AP) — A federal appeals court in Chicago has ruled that two American contractors allegedly tortured by U.S. forces in Iraq can't sue former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The 8-3 decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a ruling by a three-judge panel of the same court.

Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel claim in their lawsuit that U.S. forces detained them in 2006 after they alleged illegal activities by their Iraqi-owned employer.

The majority opinion says there's nothing in law granting them rights to sue Rumsfeld or others in the line of military command. It says subjecting those in the command chain to such lawsuits could hamper military effectiveness.


Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Court-Alleged-torture-victims-can-t-sue-Rumsfeld-4020660.php

[Solly Mack]

1. ...

[efhmc]

2. Wish it were different but seems logical that they can't sue anyone in the line of command.

[atreides1]

4. Unless the torturers lost!

Then they would put them on trial for war crimes...and I'll bet that the whole logic argument would go right out the window.

After all it was all about military effectiveness...wasn't it?

[cbrer]

9. This court decision flies in the face

Of the Nurnberg Tribunal, that established the principle of consequences for illegal activities being committed by those in or at the top of the chain of command.

It's about humanity, and the principles that were created to guide the prosecution of war.

That's the reason we hung Japanese soldiers after the war, who waterboarded our boys.

Bush and co. are guilty of atrocities against the human race. OR, at least made them "negotiable". OR, Do not ever bring up the subject of human rights violations again in any attempt at logic, or consistency.

Is this an American ideal? Are we becoming monsters? Either we have prosecutable offenses that violate American principles, or not.

This is a subject that I will continue to criticize the Obama administration for. And despite having swept those violations under the rug and pretended like they never happened, those acts are criminal. And I can't find where any President has the authority to pardon offenses of that nature anyways.

(rant over)

[atreides1]

3. Just so I understand

This court is basically saying that the use of torture is allowed because 8 judges consider it to be an enhancement to military effectiveness?

[DeSwiss]

5. BULLSHIT! - K&R n/t

[Unknown Beatle]

6. Bullshit!

The Geneva Conventions prohibits cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees. Countries that violate the Geneva Conventions, including Common Article Three, can be held accountable for charges of war crimes.

The Army Field Manual, a 384-page book lays out 19 interrogation techniques permitted by law and prohibits nine categories of others, including waterboarding.

What these men went through was cruel and unusual punishment, precisely what is considered torture. Yet, the US court system is protecting these criminals.

Japanese and German Nazis were executed for these same torture techniques after WWII by the US, and now the courts are protecting US personal for the same type of torture? Again I say, bullshit!

[Octafish]

7. Torture is the American Way

Hey! Anybody see whatever happened to the right to petition government for a redress of grievances?

Ironic how victims of war can still do that in England, of all places:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/19/us-britain-iraq-damages-idUSBRE89I0VG20121019

[blackspade]

8. WTF!?

"The majority opinion says there's nothing in law granting them rights to sue Rumsfeld or others in the line of military command. It says subjecting those in the command chain to such lawsuits could hamper military effectiveness."

Nothing in the law? How about torture being a felony and punishable by death?
And hampering military effectiveness? Since when is that a legal reason to prevent a lawsuit?

[sabrina 1]

10. Their only option then is to take their case to an International Court. Too bad we

have lost all claim to being a nation of laws. This decision is a disgrace.

Of course if they do succeed in getting a hearing at an International court, the US Government will pressure that court to refuse to accept their case.

This is truly a travesty of justice.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. Kick (nt)

[Festivito]

12. Military effectiveness at stopping whistleblowers?

Military effectiveness at wasting tax dollars?

Hell! Justice, instead, here, might have helped military effectiveness!

[Ash_F]

13. Here is a link to the court's opinion

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/N20C8IQ2.pdf

The "illegal activities" were that the company was selling weapons to groups opposed to the US military. These two caught on to this and alerted the FBI. In response they were framed by their own company, then "detained" and tortured by US military. Tortured by the very service personnel they were trying to save. This story is pathetic on so many levels.

This is the makeup of the court


"HAMILTON, Circuit Judge, joined by ROVNER and
WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, dissenting" <--- And that is why it is so important that Obama won. We need another dem in 2016 to finally get these people out of our government.