In Blow To Rule Of Law-Court Dismisses Lawsuit To Hold Former Gov Officials Accountable For Torture

[kpete]

Source: ACLU

In A Blow To The Rule Of Law, Court Dismisses Lawsuit To Hold Former Government Officials Accountable For Torture Of Jose Padilla


February 17, 2011

Torture Crimes Must Not Go Unpunished, Says ACLU

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [phone]; [e-mail]

CHARLESTON, SC – A federal court today dismissed an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit filed against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other current and former government officials for their roles in the unlawful detention and torture of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla. In a troubling 32-page ruling, South Carolina federal judge Richard Mark Gergel held that Padilla had no right to sue for constitutional violations, and that Rumsfeld and the other defendants “are entitled to qualified immunity regarding all claims of alleged constitutional violations arising out of Padilla’s detention as an enemy combatant.”

“The court today held that Donald Rumsfeld is above the law and Jose Padilla is beneath it,” said Ben Wizner, Litigation Director of the ACLU National Security Project. “But if the law does not protect Jose Padilla, it protects none of us, and the executive branch can simply label citizens enemies of the state and strip them of all rights—including the absolute right not to be tortured. If Jose Padilla is not allowed his day in court, nothing will prevent future administrations from engaging in similar abuses.”

Padilla was seized from a U.S. jail in 2002, declared an “enemy combatant” and secretly transported to a military brig in South Carolina. He was imprisoned for nearly four years, during which he was subjected to extreme abuse and was unable to communicate with his lawyers or family for two years. The Bush administration sought to justify his detention and harsh interrogation methods in part by claiming Padilla was plotting with al-Qaeda to detonate a radiological “dirty bomb” in a U.S. city, but no evidence of such a plot has been presented in court.

In February 2007, Padilla filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina against Rumsfeld, Catherine Hanft, William Haynes II, Lowell Jacoby, Melanie Marr and Paul Wolfowitz for their role in his unlawful detention and abuse. In August 2008, the government filed a motion to dismiss the case. The ACLU was recently retained to represent Jose Padilla and his mother and argued that their lawsuit against Rumsfeld and other officials should not be thrown out.

Attorneys on the case are considering next steps.

Read more: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/blow-rule-law-court-dismisses-lawsuit-hold-former-government-officials-accountable

---

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/padilla-v-rumsfeld

[mike_c]

1. yet another Bush crime against humanity that Obama is fighting to sweep...

...under the rug of history. Let's all just pretend it didn't really happen.

[Kurmudgeon]

13. Could you explain your supposed Obama connection to this?

His name wasn't mentioned in the article.

[Alcibiades]

18. Not mentioned here, but has been since the beginning

Obama supports don't ask don't tell for torturers. He traded the confirmation of Eric Holder for an agreement to never, ever, ever prosecute torturers.

I support the president, but this has been the most infuriating part of his legacy: the rule of law is not something to be traded away.

[truedelphi]

20. how is it to be possible to understand what it means to

Trade away the rule of law, and yet support/approve of Obama?

What are you getting in return for supporting the man who is doing this?

Is it his charisma? His pretty wife? The cute kids?

Please someone, please, explain to me what it is you are supporting in supporting someone who is part of the destruction of America?

It makes sense if you are someone who works in the upper echelons of Wall Street, or Monsanto, or the Big Insurers, but anyone else supporting this - I'd like to know what you' re supporting and getting in return for your support?

[Angry Dragon]

77. +1000

[Canuckistanian]

30. Really?

Are you saying that Eric Holder was given his position on a promise that he would NEVER prosecute any former administration officials?

I've never heard that before.

[russspeakeasy]

64. Alcibiades...I did not know that...

[crikkett]

89. "He traded the confirmation of Eric Holder for an agreement to never, ever, ever prosecute torturer"

Says who?

[Bluebear]

40. Obama says we have to "move forward" and not prosecute torturers. nt

[tavalon]

42. See wikileaks

It turns out the Obama administration put pressure on Spain not to investigate or bring charges against the Bush administration for their part in war crimes.

While Obama may well be a good man, a moral man, in this situation he is now an accomplice to war crimes. I really, really hate that because he was my choice for President and I worked hard for him. I am ashamed.

[sulphurdunn]

48. How can one be an otherwise good

and moral man who is legally complicit in protecting alleged war criminals in violation of his oath of fealty to the rule of law?

[Zhade]

62. He can't.

NT!

[tavalon]

66. By being a really, flexy, bendy kind of guy?

[Enthusiast]

55. Many of us on DU feel

that President Obama is derelict in his duty because he has not investigated the Bush crimes of torture. After WWII German soldiers made the exact same Bush Administration excuses. They can't chose to "look forward" and at the same time do their duty as President or AG.

[DeSwiss]

87. "Could you explain your supposed Obama connection to this?"

- Here ya go:

Federal judgeship nomination

Gergel was nominated for a seat on the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina by President Obama on December 22, 2009. The President said he would be an "esteemed addition to the federal bench for the people of South Carolina". <1>

Gergel received a rating of "Unanimously Well Qualified" from the American Bar Association. <2>

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Richard_Mark_Gergel">MORE

K&R

[TBF]

88. Who do you think the DOJ reports to now? Current president - Barack Obama. nt

[fittosurvive]

60. I don't understand--the case was heard and court ruled.

[sulphurdunn]

69. The federal judiciary

is not the Vatican. The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution prohibits denial of due process and civil liberties protections contained within the Bill of Rights to American citizen except when such are serving in the armed forces during time of war. We are not obliged to bend a knee because a federal judge makes a bad ruling. This matter is not over.

[fittosurvive]

76. I agree—this matter is not over.

That is why I don't understand how it is that this ruling constitutes a blow to the rule of law.

[sulphurdunn]

78. It's the first salvo

before the next step. The language is more figurative than literal. It would have been more accurate to say it is another blow against justice delivered by the people entrusted with protecting it.

[fittosurvive]

91. It could be, but I haven't seen the evidence.

[Uncle Joe]

82. The ruling itself shows no respect for laws against torture nor the Bill of Rights,

this man's rights were grotesquely violated.

Sometimes even judges can violate or abuse the rule of law.

Even if it isn't over, do you honestly believe the U.S. Supreme Court would disagree with the judge on this case?

Considering their track record, I would be highly surprised if they did.

[fittosurvive]

90. I’m not sure I agree with that.

Sure, if Padilla was just some harmless guy going about the business of living a virtuous life, this would be a gross miscarriage of justice, but there is much more to this case.

[Uncle Joe]

95. You don't get to pick and choose which Americans deserve protection from the Bill of Rights and

against torture based on whether they led a virtuous life or not, those protections and rights are for everybody, and if/when you forget that, everyone's rights, freedom and protections against abuse becomes endangered.

[mopinko]

61. the president does not and should not have anything

to do with the findings of the federal court of south carolina. a. all. period.

[sulphurdunn]

71. That is true, but

it would be naive to assume that the WH and DOJs steadfast refusals to even permit an investigation into the alleged war crimes of the Bush administration, and their direct intervention to thwart attempts of foreign nations to do so, has not sent a clear message to the federal judiciary about the new order of things.

[mopinko]

74. it would be naive to assume that a message was received.

the federal judiciary is clear that they do not answer to the white house.

[sulphurdunn]

81. Not naive.

It would be naive to assume that presidents appoint federal judges for their impartiality or for their liberal interpretation of the law.

[Skip_In_Boulder]

2. Rule of Law - What's That?

[ixion]

3. Yeah, who needs the Rule of Law when you can be a dictatorship

:grr:

[dotymed]

51. That is what we, the little guy/lady

must obey or go to the prison industrial complex.
Wow, sometimes (a lot lately) when I write about these absurdities, I realize that,1984, was an instruction book...

[CrispyQ]

79. It should read, "Rule of Laws" -- plural.

As in one set of rules for the elite & another set for the rest of us chumps.

[Vinnie From Indy]

4. Sadly, the vast majority of Americans do not seem to understand

how this effects their freedom at its most basic level. Most still think they have a right to a day in court regardless of the accusation. This decision clearly states that if the President decides you are an "enemy combatant" you can be locked up forever and possibly tortured. And, any current or future President will not have to justify their actions to any judge or court in the land. You will simply be "disappeared".

[stevenleser]

5. Multiple hurdles. If the enemy combatant hurdle is overcome, the next one is the ruling/finding

from the Attorney General's office (Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo) in advance of virtually all the acts that what would be done/was done to these folks was legal. That is regarded as a virtual "get out of jail free" or even more powerful, "you cannot convict for this" card for anyone operating under those assumptions.

No Federal appeals court will uphold a conviction for anyone operating under these memos unless it is proven that those people who committed the acts knew for sure that the memos did not reflect reality. Try proving something like that in a court of law. Without emails/paper trail with thoughts to that effect put to paper, it will not happen.

[Capitalocracy]

16. I know I'm not supposed to talk about Nazis...

but they didn't get out of it by saying what they did was considered legal at the time.

[marasinghe]

93. check into who's saying you're not supposed to talk about nazis.

usually, it's: either a do-gooder, living in a fantasy future - where the lion lies down with the lamb, if you don't keep calling him on being a killer; or a neo-fascist admirer of authoritarian discipline; or a closeted nazi, itching to get his rocks off on bullying & reigning over everyone else.

f*k not being supposed to talk about nazis. bring it right up in their faces, when they talk, or act, the fascist.

[stevenleser]

31. Here is a response to 'Nazis'

Let's continue with the analogy since you brought it up. For the Nazis to be brought to justice, they were defeated in war and their country was occupied, destroying their government. Foreign powers then set up war crimes tribunals and tried the offenders.

There is no US law remedy for the torture of the Bush years because of Yoo and the Bush DOJ. I have high hopes that the various players will be indicted by various other countries and/or a UN war crimes tribunal. There are other war crimes that we could theoretically prosecute Bush and his administration on here in the US, namely that of unprovoked war of aggression for Iraq. Again we are thwarted because of the hesitancy of any President to prosecute his predecessor(s). That courtesy will likely stand forever because the consequences of breaking it will mean that every President will probably try to throw his predecessor in jail if the predecessor is from a different party.

There is definitely a need for Bush and his administration cronies to be prosecuted and jailed for life, but I also see the need for both the respect of findings by the DOJ on what is and is not legal and also a President not prosecuting their predecessors. There is no question that a renegade President combined with a renegade senior member of the DOJ acting in concert could act with impunity and this represents a serious flaw in our system.

I repeat what I said earlier, any attempt to prosecute Bush officials on torture post the Yoo memo will almost certainly fail. It sucks but there it is.

[JDPriestly]

32. Well, Spain can proceed now I guess.

We have shown that we are unwilling to prosecute war criminals and torturers. It's up to the international community to prosecute now -- or simply void the law prohibiting war crimes and torture.

[Enthusiast]

56. Funny how claims like that

didn't absolve Nazis at Nuremberg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

[Judi Lynn]

6. How can they live with the absolute wrongfulness of their decisions? Sad, sad. n/t

[spooked911]

52. because they are all criminals

that's how they got that far in the system, sad to say-- anyone high up is a crook.

[Fuddnik]

68. I was watching Chomsky last night. He said.

"When you're a criminal state, it doesn't matter".

Welcome to the Criminal State of America.

[davidthegnome]

7. Wow

No evidence of such a plot was ever presented in court - then it stands to reason that such evidence does not exist.

So they imprisoned and tortured a man for four years, without even evidence of the crime he (allegedly) committed being presented? I realize that this is not new, it is still nonetheless disturbing and shocking that this happened - and that those responsible are getting away with it completely.

If it could happen to him, it could happen to any one of us. That's something we should keep in mind.

[boppers]

21. "presented in court" vs. existence?

Odd way of looking at it. No evidence has been presented in court that I am not the current POTUS, for example...

There might be a logic flaw in that.

[johnroshan]

23. I think he meant "Presumed innocent unless proven guilty".

Sometimes, that line brings a lot of trouble for the conservatives. Some of them have to be shipped off without evidence to Guantanamo for them to realize the significance of it.

[boppers]

34. True. Of course, there's also actual evidence, but not presented in court yet...

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/06/01/924/72550
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0406020268jun02,0,6875460.story
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/2007/03/28/new-evidence-surfaces-in-jose-padilla-case/

[JDPriestly]

33. boppers, has anyone accused you of being the POTUS?

Has anyone imprisoned and tortured you for being the POTUS?

Unless you have been imprisoned and tortured for being the POTUS, it is irrelevant that no evidence has been presented in court about you.

[boppers]

35. If it hasn't been presented in court yet, does it not exist?

http://www.google.com/search?q=Jose+Padilla+evidence

[JDPriestly]

39. Because you have never been accused of being the POTUS, you have never been denied

the right to present evidence proving that you are not the POTUS. The idea is absurd. If you were accused of being the POTUS, you would not be denied the right to bring your evidence disproving the accusation because whether or not you are the POTUS is not a matter related to national security. It is a matter related to election law maybe, but not national security.

Bush was allowed to bring his evidence when he claimed that he had been denied rights because of the proposed recount in Florida. You would also be allowed to bring evidence.

The argument you use is just silly. Sorry, but it is.

[boppers]

47. Lets back up:

"No evidence of such a plot was ever presented in court - then it stands to reason that such evidence does not exist."

Was what started my responses to this sub-thread...

It was a blind assertion that if evidence was not presented in court, it must not exist.

The argument I made is is silly because the assertion is silly. Just because evidence has not been heard in court does not mean that evidence "does not exist".

It may be flimsy evidence, it may be confessed (and thus sometimes unreliable) evidence, but it still exists, contrary to the assertion that it "does not exist".

[JDPriestly]

84. If a court case is held, and a party to the case does not present evidence

to support a point, then that evidence is assumed not to exist. When you are prosecuting a lawsuit, you present all evidence that will help you win. If you fail to present evidence that you should have to show to win, then it is to be assumed that you do not have the evidence. If you have the evidence but don't present it, it is also assumed that you either didn't really have it, or it was not convincing enough to prove your point, so you chose not to present it.

If an issue such as whether you are the POTUS is not before the court, you need not present any evidence regarding that issue. Therefore your original assertion is irrelevant to the discourse and silly. Sorry to offend, but I think that your posts on this issue are just silly.

[davidthegnome]

85. If you insist on playing with words...

"It stands to reason." That tends to imply that it is reasonable to believe, that such an assumption or suggestion would stand up to reason (this is not the same as stating fact or even claiming to be stating fact). Is it not reasonable to believe that in such a case - had evidence been available, it would have been presented in court? Well, come to think of it, given the situation and modern law regarding such situations, perhaps not.

That being said... I made no assertion. I did however, state that it stands to reason that as no evidence was presented in court, it did not exist. That's not an assertion. An assertion would be me saying "If there was no evidence presented in court, it does not exist." That would indeed be flawed logic.

I'm not entirely sure why I'm bothering to argue. Perhaps because I see this argument as an assertion that I made an assertion when indeed I did not make an assertion.

[davidthegnome]

83. Read my statement again. Carefully.

"Then it stands to reason that such evidence does not exist."

Now it may be that evidence does indeed exist and was seized via illegal search and tossed out, or that for whatever reason it was simply not presented. I am not denying the possibility that actual evidence exists - I am strongly suggesting however, that the facts indicate it does not. It stands to reason that it does not - that is not the same as saying that it does not or could not.

Perhaps I should have went with: "It stands to reason that when someone has been imprisoned and tortured for years, there ought to be some evidence of a crime having been presented in court." I'll grant you, that would have perhaps been the better statement.

Not so much a flaw in logic as a poor choice of words. Though come to think of it, I don't see how my statement was inaccurate.

[boppers]

94. I like your second statement better....

I think the first one caught in my craw because I had seen more than a few reports of evidence.

Thanks!

[laconicsax]

8. Sorry...accidentally unrec'd

Stupid touch screen.

[Solly Mack]

9. In a couple of weeks the US will put out its report on human rights

and in that report the US government will condemn other countries for committing the exact same abuses and crimes that America has committed.

And America will issue that report with a straight face, all the while patting itself on the back.

[Mnemosyne]

53. Hypocrisy is US. Word. K&R

:hi:

[Solly Mack]

54. Indeed.

:hi:

[annabanana]

10. Out damned spot, Out I say.

What, will these hands ne'er be clean?--

Here's the smell of the blood still: all the
perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little
hand. Oh, oh, oh!

Lady Liberty has become Lady Macbeth.

[bertman]

11. Support the ACLU in their fight against this abomination. REC. nt

[truth2power]

12. The one thing I can't forgive Obama for is his abrogation of human rights. n/t

[DissedByBush]

14. Did we really expect any different?

The government will protect itself.

[tavalon]

43. I did.

But I'm an idealist. It's a hard place to be these days.

[Pharaoh]

15. Fuck them!

:puke:

It would suck to be them.

[valerief]

17. We live in a toilet. nt

[Initech]

22. Yeah seriously.

[Jokinomx]

19. Sure sounds like alot of middle eastern countries.....

How can we condemn such behavior across the world and then do it ourselves...

We are as corrupt as any other nation in the world.

[blackspade]

24. f'n ridiculous

We have a 2 tier system of justice now.

[Stuckinthebush]

25. This country sucks

Sorry. We really are a crappy country. We have these principles which we routinely violate. The US is in such decline. The sooner we run out of money and influence the better...I guess.

Ugh. We are such a joke of a nation.

[Enthusiast]

57. Odd how our greatest problems

began after the 2000 presidential election. I understand we had problems before. But our problems before 2000 and after 2000 were vastly different in scale. They didn't steal that election with good intentions in mind.

[L. Coyote]

26. Everyone who has been tortured knows there is no rule of law.

It seems there are a lot of people out there who need to be tortured first before they come to the realization that they can be tortured with impunity in this country.

[defendandprotect]

27. k/r

[grahamhgreen]

28. Torture.

[smuglysmiling]

29. We are now the USSR...

the United States Security Republic...brought to you by the United Corporations of America...

[Rex]

36. 9/11 changed everything!

Remember?

[StarsInHerHair]

37. yeah but Katrina changed it back

nt

[Rex]

38. But then the SCOTUS ruling (citizens united) threw it back into

2000 (s)election territory or worse.

[tavalon]

44. I was a 10 percenter

So, except for my first few days of shock, I never believed that.

[Mojeoux]

41. Grateful for the existance of the ACLU! nt

[FlyByNight]

45. "Accountability" is inversely proportional to position

The higher/more exclusive the position one reaches (in either financial/government circles): the less accountable one becomes. The lower the position: the more accountable one is.

"Rule of law" has become an ironic phrase. The republic is dead.

[Loudmxr]

46. Like I have said we have declined to be a nation of laws but a nation of policy.

The policy makers are immune from the laws of our land. It started with Reagan with his administration which openly defied the laws of our land and now with the RW openly saying "I WANT I WANT I WANT!!!!!"

[LawnKorn]

49. The courts are protecting Rumsfeld and thus protecting the whole Bush Administration

If we could get just one of Bush's inner circle to crack, it would bring down the whole house of cards.

Should Rumsfeld be faced with real prison time in Leavenworth, he would sell out everyone of Bush's cabinet to save his own hide. Once one of them turns state's evidence, they all would take turns ratting out each other.

Another missed opportunity to put Bush and Cheney behind bars.

[dotymed]

50. Just another justification for a peaceful revolution.

Americans have many grievances that must be addressed if the illusion of a Democracy is to be upheld.
Criminal laws that do not apply to the ruling elite, an unbelievable disparity of wealth, an overtly corrupt SCOTUS that has made corporate control of our government "legal."
There are too many to list at this early hour.. Government Union busting....

PEACEFULLY REVOLT NOW,,,,,,

[myrna minx]

58. I guess Nixon was right:

"If the President does it, it is not illegal" but it now extends to bloodthirsty cabinet members too. :puke:

[_ed_]

59. "Look forward, not back"

Unless you're a medical marijuana seller and Eric Holder is prosecuting you.

[Freddie Stubbs]

63. Information on Federal Judge Richard Mark Gergel:

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Richard_Mark_Gergel

[grahamhgreen]

65. Look Backward!

[SaveAmerica]

67. The Constitution, like the Bible is open to interpretation. So cute when that happens.

[aquamarina]

70. More evidence that the rules NEVER apply to those in power.

[paparush]

72. Hey, Mr. Nobel Peace Prize, are you getting this? nt

[AtheistCrusader]

73. I think anyone who actually thought this would be prosecuted

needs to share with me some of that hopeful optimism they have been drinking.

At this point, I could use some.

[bvar22]

75. Yes, Virginia.

There ARE "Two Americas."

Thank You, John Edwards (warts and all)
for the courage to stand on a national stage and make this an issue.

[2banon]

80. k&r ACLU doing so much good work, they need our support...

Here's just one other issue (among so many others)


Dear Mr. President

Hamedah Ha san was sentenced to 27 years in prison for a first-time, non-violent crack cocaine offense. She's spent over 18 years behind bars and has more than nine left to go. One person has the power to bring her home: The President of the United States.

You can learn more and hear her narrate her letter to the President here.

[Dappleganger]

86. There's no "rule of law"

there's one set of rules for us and suggestions for them.

[AKDavy]

92. What do the courts have to do with the rule of law these days.

They answer to Wall Street, like the other two branches of government.