They had no rights ? And Rumsfield is simply immune ? Does this mean that foreigners are fair game for anything ? You could use the same “excuse” to “justify” kidnapping a few thousand women and setting up a system of sex slave brothels; after all, they don’t have any rights, do they ?
And Rumsfield is immune to repercussions of his acts while in office ? Does anyone else see how insane that is ? Even if it’s legally true, it’s still crazy; it screams “Abuse your power !” If the judge had said something like “Well, there’s just no evidence he was actually responsible”, that would be one thing; I wouldn’t buy it, but I’d consider it arguable. But flat out immune ?
Even for the American “justice” system this is disgusting.
I’d like to hear from someone who understands the legal machinery. They didn’t have US Constitutional rights? Nor do I, but as far as I know it’s illegal to torture me. Did they have any rights at all? Could they have been killed? What exactly gives Rumsfeld immunity? Is it a case of prosecuting the wrong person in the eyes of the law, or what?
And if that’s used as a justification for torturing them, it’s the same as saying that they have NO rights. The judge is obviously claiming that if you have no US Constitutional rights, then you have no rights whatsoever.
No, the judge is saying you cannot sue and win in the US federal courts for a violation of “rights” unless they are Constitutionally protected. I’m assuming these people can sue in Iraq, but my familiarity with Iraqi civil law is sorely lacking.
No, he’s claiming they have no rights that he has any authority to rule on. In the same way that a local judge in the Scopes trial was forced to rule that the defendant had broken the law. He had no authority to rule on federal matters and can only make findings based on the laws he has authority to oversee. The same applies here. These people have no rights that the judge can rule on. If they want to take this case before a judge in the Internationl Court of Justice or some other court that has authority in a jusridiction where they do have rights that is another issue.
Ok, so it’s not in the Constitution… but there’s not even a common ordinary statute on the books prohibiting U.S Government officials from engaging in torture? I find this astonishing.
US federal courts don’t make decisions about who has “rights” and who doesn’t have “rights.” They do make decisions about federal and constitutional law, and they are quite limited in their jurisdiction.
Addendum: Does anybody have a link to the actual decision? I haven’t been able to find it yet. I want to see precisely what the plaintiffs allegations were anyway.
There’s a principle of US law that comes from English common law called “sovereign immunity”, which says, basically, that you can’t sue the government or governmental officials for official acts they’ve done, unless the government says you can.
I know it’s Wikipedia, but it is a good introduction: War Crimes Act.
The problem, from the second hand accounts of the ruling (like others I can’t find it online yet), it appears there are two ways for aliens to sue federal officers, a Bivens suit (which I think needs a violation of Constitutional rights), or under the Alien Tort Claims Act. Since the plaintiffs didn’t have Constitutional rights, and the Alient Tort Claims Act was amended by the Westfall act and some officers were given immunity, there was no legally cognizable cause of action.
It was my understanding from the previous Hamdan ruling that foreign treaties that the US had entered into were also Federal law (e.g. the Geneva Convention) not to mention the UCMJ and the McCain Detainee Amendment. So while I would agree that foreigners aren’t protected constitutionally, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t other Federal law which does protect foreigners and foreign combatants.
I, too, would like to read the ruling, as this sounds rather fishy.