Supreme Court Grants Review Gitmo Torture Damages Case

[sabra]

Source: Washington Independant

In what could lead to yet another reversal of the DC Circuit court in a landmark Gitmo case, the US Supreme Court announced this morning that it will review the case of Rasul v. Rumsfeld, Myers, et al., the first case in which plaintiffs who claim they were illegally detained, tortured and humiliated at Guantanamo Bay before they were released without charge have claimed civil damages against US officials.dismissed the case last January, saying the US officials were immune from suit for torture and that the three British citizens who filed the case are not “persons” protected by the relevant US law, the US Supreme Court is apparently ready to reconsider that.

The three British plaintiffs involved in this case — Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed — claim they traveled to Afghanistan in October 2001 to offer humanitarian relief to civilians displaced by the war. In late November, they were kidnapped by Rashid Dostum, the Uzbeki warlord and leader of the U.S.-supported Northern Alliance. He turned them over to U.S. custody – apparently for bounty money that American officials were paying for suspected terrorists. In December, without any independent evidence that the men had engaged in hostilities against the United States, U.S. officials sent them to Guantanamo Bay. Over the next two years, they claim, they were imprisoned in cages, tortured and humiliated, forced to watch their korans decimated and have their beards shaved, until they were returned to Britain in 2004. None was ever charged with a crime.

Seven months later, the three men, plus another British citizen picked up in Afghanistan and imprisoned at Gitmo, sued former Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld and a host of other military commanders for authorizing their torture and violating their religious rights.

In January, the federal appeals court decided that even if all their claims are true, the US officials are immune from suit because, even though torture, physical abuse and humiliation of prisoners violate domestic and international law, the officials were doing all this “within the scope of their employment” and so aren’t personally responsible. They were also immune, the court added, because it wasn’t clear when they authorized the torture that detainees at Guantanamo Bay had rights. As for the men’s religious rights, the court decided that as foreigners, they were not “persons” entitled to the protection of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Read more: http://washingtonindependent.com/22163/supreme-court-grants-review-in-landmark-torture-damages-case

[proud progressive]

1. remember, folks, you (we) elected 'w', i.e., it is ultimately OUR fault

even if he 'stole' the election, we allowed it. and now we have the dems and obama in-charge. let me guess what they will do about it....umm...maybe...ohhh...well...how about...fucking nothing! now let me guess what WE will do about what they will NOT do....ummm....how about....FUCKING NOTHING!
we are the laziest, most spoiled, most apathetic bunch of whiners on the planet.
we read this shit like it didn't REALLY happen, or, if it did, we are outraged so that makes it ok.
THESE WERE OUR HIGHEST ELECTED OFFICIALS SAYING 'FUCK YOU' TO THE RULE OF LAW; FUCK YOU TO THE PEOPLE THEY DESTROY; FUCK YOU TO US!
WE SHOULD ALL BE ASHAMED OF OUR COUNTRY!!