Judge Says Torture is A-OK, Dismisses Suit Against Rumsfeld

[specimenfred1984]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070327/pl_nm/usa_torture_rumsfeld_dc;_ylt=AodqlemkdqefPtE_fiB8XpFZ.3QA

--- Judge dismisses Rumsfeld torture lawsuit

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge dismissed on Tuesday a lawsuit seeking to hold former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other high-ranking military officers liable for the torture and abuse of Afghan and Iraqi prisoners, including some at
Abu Ghraib prison.

In throwing out the lawsuit, U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas Hogan ruled in the 58-page opinion that the defendants are entitled to immunity.

The plaintiffs had said they were stabbed, sexually abused, dunked in freezing water, and beaten while being hung upside down from the ceiling in Iraq's notorious Abu Ghraib prison and other U.S.-run facilities in
Iraq and
Afghanistan.

In his opinion, Hogan cited other court rulings that rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution generally do not extend to foreign citizens in other countries. The plaintiffs have no right to sue in U.S. court, he said. ---


What a great country we have full of "morals" and "laws" (NOT).

[Donnachaidh]

1. and WHO put this judge into his chair?

enquiring minds.

[Syrinx]

3. Reagan

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/hogan-bio.html

[Donnachaidh]

6. thanks.

I can think of one judge who should RETIRE.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. Reagan did.

This is the guy who threw Judith Miller in jail.

[mmonk]

2. Scum

[Richard Steele]

4. Somewhere, I have a 1941 British booklet titled "The Nazi Concept of Law".

Written as part of a series by some Brit University, IIRC.

I really need to dig that out again. Because almost every
single item I remember from it is playing out here in
the USA right NOW. Almost word-for-word, in some cases.

[mmonk]

5. Maybe this needs to go to judiciary committees.

We need to reinstate humanity in this sick country. I know one thing, America can not lead in the world and be some sort of barbaric international thug.

[rumpel]

7. let's go to the Hague then

:)

[stillcool]

8. American-Style-Justice...

the best rulings money can buy.

[stellanoir]

9. these people are far less than humans and totally sick and totally misguided IMHO

[hlthe2b]

10. as horrendous as this is, there really may be no way under

current law and our constitution to have decided otherwise. That is why we need to be a participant in the World Criminal Court (and why the RW will try so damn hard never to allow that to happen).

It is a true miscarriage of justice, but I do have to give this judge some benefit of the doubt in this case. If the law won't support the law suit, what choice did he have? I'm not a lawyer, but I''ve yet to hear from a constitutional lawyer who has indicated otherwise on this case, as much as I find it hard to believe.

I share the frustration of all...

[mmonk]

11. Supposedly, we are signatories to the Geneva conventions

Therefore, torture is supposed to be illegal. But I guess that is where the new definitions come in.

[hlthe2b]

14. I agree that Geneva should apply....

I'd love to hear a constitutional lawyer comment on why being a signatory to Geneva could not be used to propel this case further...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

22. I don't think think the ACLU was arguing the suit on Geneva Convention grounds.

But I can't be sure.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

24. The law *doesn't* support the suit.

But he went far beyond the law in his decision. As far as I can tell, one of his fundamental conclusions is that it should not be possible for anyone to contest wartime military decisions in court, which seems very, very dangerous.

[Turbineguy]

12. I'm not condoning torture

but these guys are smart enough to have known they could not be held to account for it under U.S. Laws. We know how these guys think. Question number 1: "Can we get away with it?" They set the lower ranking military personnel as fall guys. Now all they have to do is steer clear of the International Court.

And at the end of day, just because the defendant is guilty, it does not relieve the prosecution from proving its case.

[knowbody0]

15. that's the reasoning for having these "prisons"

out of country. they knew.

[Jacobin]

13. Add him to the list of people who go to the Hague

He's a forking war criminal and should be at least impeached immediately

[Rex]

16. Sure, immunity for all the war criminals! Go ahead and do it!

See how long that one lasts! So I guess all men are NOT created equal. :eyes:

I would have included women, but they are still considered chattel in many supposedly 'civilized' countries. America included.

[proud patriot]

17. why are the defendants are entitled to immunity ?

on basis ?

[mmonk]

18. Because they are above laws.

Unfortunately that's where we are now.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

21. Because the people who brought the suit aren't American citizens.

And they weren't on US soil when it happened. These were people in Abu Ghraib, not Guantanamo. I don't see any precedent for letting the suit go forward, sad as that is.

[proud patriot]

25. Thank you for the reply

thank makes a bit of sense , as unjust as it seems.

[Bluerthanblue]

20. can someone explain how 'we' can find them 'guilty' of crimes that

are against OUR laws then??

Like the guy that was put on trial today?

They don't have the protections offered by our 'constitution'- but are held accountable to 'our laws'-
Who died and apointed the us god?

I'm ashamed of this nation.

My ancestors are spinning in their graves-

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

23. Because of the infernal Military Commissions Act.

A flaming piece of crap legislation if ever there was one.