• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rumsfeld torture suit

JoeTheJuggler

Penultimate Amazing
JoeTheJuggler
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
27,766
From Huffington Post:

Federal Judge Wayne R. Andersen issued a historic ruling Friday allowing a suit charging former Defense Secretary with authorizing torture.

Rumsfeld asked the court to dismiss the case because he is a high-placed governmental official and argued that he was immune from suit even for allegations of torture. Mr. Rumsfeld also argued that due to his position, the Constitution permitted him to order interrogation techniques that are widely considered by human rights experts to be torture. The Court rejected both of Rumsfeld's arguments and held that high-placed placed cabinet officials can be held personally liable if they authorize the use of torture.
Click to expand...

I keep going back to the way torture is defined (in the CAT and in U.S. law), which includes that it be done by government officials. The obvious intent of the law is to prohibit governments from committing torture. (Non government torture, is a matter for state criminal law, and in general it is considered an aggravating circumstance in the commission of other crimes.)

So how can they possibly argue that Rumsfeld is somehow immune due to his position? That is exactly the situation the laws envisioned.

I'm glad the judge ruled this way.

Now let's see if we can set a new precedent: the first time a torture suit against a former cabinet member tried on its merits.

I would greatly prefer to see the matter prosecuted in criminal court, but this would be a profound advance in enforcing torture laws.
 
"Rumsfeld Torture Suit"

Unless it's a three-piece iron maiden, suitable for staff meetings and cocktail parties, in a tasteful matte-grey pinstripe, designed by the man himself, I'm not interested.
 
theprestige said:
"Rumsfeld Torture Suit"

Unless it's a three-piece iron maiden, suitable for staff meetings and cocktail parties, in a tasteful matte-grey pinstripe, designed by the man himself, I'm not interested.
Click to expand...

Then why post here?

ETA: Do you agree with the defense's motion? That Rummy should be immune because of his former position?
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
Then why post here?
Click to expand...
Good point. I guess I am interested... just in a different way than you. "I'm not interested" would be a figure of speech in this context, obviously.

ETA: Do you agree with the defense's motion? That Rummy should be immune because of his former position?
Click to expand...
I'm not nearly well-versed enough in the law to reach a conclusion one way or the other. I happily defer to the courts, though I am under the impression that advisors to the President are typically exempt from certain kinds of legal redress, so that they can properly consider all options without fear of reprisal... And I think that in principle, this is a good policy. But I have no idea if it does--or even should--apply in this context.
 
There is no such legal principle as the one you describe--legal immunity (or "exemption") for wrongs committed by policy makers solely because of their position. Nixon tried that (the old if-the-president-does-it-that-means-it's-not-a-crime canard).

No one should be above the law.

ETA: ", so that they can properly consider all options without fear of reprisal.." The point of laws against torture are exactly so that government officials should not under any circumstances consider torture to be an "option".
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I'm not nearly well-versed enough in the law to reach a conclusion one way or the other. I happily defer to the courts, though I am under the impression that advisors to the President are typically exempt from certain kinds of legal redress, so that they can properly consider all options without fear of reprisal... And I think that in principle, this is a good policy. But I have no idea if it does--or even should--apply in this context.
Click to expand...

It was a crime to suggest the measures and it was a crime for the little piece of wasted DNA he was advising to take that illegal advice, resulting in the commission of a heinous crime.

Hang him out to dry, and see if evidence presented at trial leads anywhere else.
 
leftysergeant said:
It was a crime to suggest the measures and it was a crime for the little piece of wasted DNA he was advising to take that illegal advice, resulting in the commission of a heinous crime.

Hang him out to dry, and see if evidence presented at trial leads anywhere else.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's extremely unlikely that anyone (in the U.S. anyway) will ever prosecute Rummy for these crimes.

This is a civil suit. The only thing in jeopardy is some of his money.
 
More details here. The story as written there is very troubling indeed, and I would welcome the facts being determined in court. That said I suspect that Rumsfeld is too far removed from the actual circumstances to be personally liable.

Still, a very troubling case.
 
Brainster said:
More details here. The story as written there is very troubling indeed, and I would welcome the facts being determined in court. That said I suspect that Rumsfeld is too far removed from the actual circumstances to be personally liable.
Click to expand...

How absurd. If it can be proven that he ordered the torture, that "distance" is irrelevant. At any rate, that's not the grounds for the motion of dismissal I'm talking about anyway. The defense claimed some kind of immunity due to his position.

Still, a very troubling case.
Click to expand...
Why is it troubling? You agree with the defense that some members of our government should be above the law?

And I assume you disagree with the third Nuremburg Principle?
Nuremburg Principles said:
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Click to expand...
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
How absurd. If it can be proven that he ordered the torture, that "distance" is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Correct. I was not talking about physical distance, but bureaucratic distance.

At any rate, that's not the grounds for the motion of dismissal I'm talking about anyway. The defense claimed some kind of immunity due to his position.
Click to expand...

And that aspect is far from settled; I strongly suspect that Rumsfeld will appeal to a district court.

Why is it troubling? You agree with the defense that some members of our government should be above the law?
Click to expand...

It is troubling because it happened to an American citizen. I don't know the legal aspects of whether Rumsfeld can be sued and express no opinion on that; let the courts hash it out.

And I assume you disagree with the third Nuremburg Principle?

I don't think you understand what I found troubling. I found Vance's treatment troubling. He is clearly not an enemy combatant; he is a US citizen.
 
Brainster said:
And that aspect is far from settled; I strongly suspect that Rumsfeld will appeal to a district court.
Click to expand...
I don't think they can stop it going to trial at this point. Their motion to dismiss on the grounds that Rumsfeld is immune has been rejected.



Brainster said:
It is troubling because it happened to an American citizen. I don't know the legal aspects of whether Rumsfeld can be sued and express no opinion on that; let the courts hash it out.

JoetheJuggler said:
And I assume you disagree with the third Nuremburg Principle?
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what I found troubling. I found Vance's treatment troubling. He is clearly not an enemy combatant; he is a US citizen.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did misunderstand. I thought you meant the lawsuit was troubling. (I thought maybe you agreed with ThePrestige that there is something good about granting immunity to high government officials.) Sorry about that--my bad.

The problem with not following due process with regard to any detainee is that you don't know which are the good guys and which are the bad guys. Saying we can deny due process to "terrorists" merely begs the question. (That is, without due process, no one has had to make the case that the detainee is a criminal/terrorist.) And you end up with situations just like this. I think these sorts of stories are predictable outcomes of the policy of denying due process.

And on the question of torture, the laws apply in all cases. You can't torture bad guys either. It's illegal. You might spin the crimes of a bad-guy torture victim as a mitigating factor in the crime of torture, but the CAT is clear that there is no circumstance of any kind whatsoever that can justify it.
 
I'd love to see Rummy and his co-conspirators in torture suits. Full of sewn-in nettles and poison ivy for starters. To get their attention.
 
Brainster said:
More details here. The story as written there is very troubling indeed, and I would welcome the facts being determined in court. That said I suspect that Rumsfeld is too far removed from the actual circumstances to be personally liable.
Click to expand...

Once made aware of it, the idiot should have gone nuclear on everybody in the chain of command that allowed it, if he was not in on it himself. Instead, the thug just laughed and called it "not torture."

The Iraqis hanged the wrong man.
 
leftysergeant said:
Once made aware of it, the idiot should have gone nuclear on everybody in the chain of command that allowed it, if he was not in on it himself. Instead, the thug just laughed and called it "not torture."

The Iraqis hanged the wrong man.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, they hanged one correct one, just .........
 
fuelair said:
I'd love to see Rummy and his co-conspirators in torture suits. Full of sewn-in nettles and poison ivy for starters. To get their attention.
Click to expand...

While I appreciate the sentiment (and hope you're only joking), I am in favor of applying the laws prohibiting torture to anyone who violates the law, regardless of their status (such as high position in government or on the winning side in a conflict).

I think it should be done dispassionately--not out of revenge or outrage or anger. I think part of the reason why we should commit to the CAT is that we want to remove the decision to commit torture from the heat of the moment or passions of a potentially emotional situation (like the "war or terror" or "remember 9-11" or "did you see what they did to those 4 American contractors?!" or anything like that). We want to make that decision for all cases in calm deliberation away from those real world considerations.

Similarly, I think we should enforce the laws dispassionately too. I would love to see everyone who was responsible for putting into place policies of torturing detainees to be tried for their crimes. I would want each of them to get full due process, good counsel and every protection from public outrage our criminal justice system affords. (I would definitely not want to remove their assumption of innocence based on the heinous nature of the crimes.)

And I certainly don't think anyone should be tortured in the name of prohibiting torture! (Again, I hope people who are saying that are just joking.)

What we've had so far, though, is a mockery of the Convention Against Torture. We have cases where detainees were tortured to death, and so far no one has been tried for the crime of torture. (A few low-level people have been found guilty of relatively minor charges like "dereliction of duty".)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom