Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 05/29/2025 View Wed 05/28/2025 View Tue 05/27/2025 View Mon 05/26/2025 View Sun 05/25/2025 View Sat 05/24/2025 View Fri 05/23/2025
2009-12-15 Home Front: WoT
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal by Guantanamo Detainees Who Sued Rumsfeld
In a victory for former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and 10 high-ranking military officers, the Supreme Court announced Monday it will not hear an appeal brought by four former Guantanamo Bay detainees who claim they were tortured and were trying to sue the people they blame for their alleged mistreatment.

The men were picked up in Afghanistan shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and transported to Guantanamo Bay. The men, all British citizens, were released without charge in 2004. They claim that while in American custody they were systematically tortured and subjected to beatings, forced nakedness, deprived of food and water and had their religious artifacts deliberately soiled.

They specifically blame Rumsfeld and the military officers for their treatment.

Lower courts have repeatedly ruled against the men's attempts to seek compensation from the officials. Earlier this year, the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Rumsfeld and the others have qualified immunity shielding them from this litigation.

In their brief to the high court, lawyers for the former detainees said "the torture and religious humiliation of Muslim detainees at Guantanamo stands as a uniquely shameful episode in our history." They went on to ask the justices to take their case in order to "remedy that stain on the moral authority of our nation and its laws."

This is the second time the case has come before the high court. Last year, the justices set aside a similar D.C. Circuit ruling and asked the lower court to reconsider the case. But in April, the D.C. Circuit reached the same decision emphasizing its analysis that the U.S. officials are immune from prosecution.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan refused to concede the torture allegations and defended the lower court's immunity analysis. Furthermore, Kagan says "it was not clearly established at the time (the plaintiffs) were detained at Guantanamo Bay that they had the constitutional rights they claim were violated."
Posted by Fred 2009-12-15 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11139 views ]  Top
 File under: al-Qaeda 

#1 They have no Constitutional rights. None.
Posted by Whiskey Mike 2009-12-15 06:23||   2009-12-15 06:23|| Front Page Top

#2 I;m with you why did this even make it too the Supreme Court?
Posted by chris 2009-12-15 10:53||   2009-12-15 10:53|| Front Page Top

#3 Just wait until the 'detainees' move onto U.S. Soil. You haven't seen anything yet.

All enabled by O'Bumble and company....
Posted by CrazyFool 2009-12-15 11:21||   2009-12-15 11:21|| Front Page Top

#4 ..why did this even make it to the Supreme Court?

Bottom line. Congress' unwillingness to impeach judges who make up law and fill the appeal dockets with stuff like this. The royal judiciary's insatiable appetite for power to impose its view of civilization upon the rest of us knows no bounds.
Posted by Procopius2k 2009-12-15 11:35||   2009-12-15 11:35|| Front Page Top

#5 I've finally decided to come out for the immediate transfer of all Guantanamo detainees to the United States, specifically to Washington, DC. I also DEMAND that they be transported behind a Arleigh Burke-type Destroyer, on a long rope (no life preserver, boat, or other protective devices), along with a half-butchered steer, from Guantanamo to DC, at 20 knots. The survivors will be allowed a speedy trial with a jury of their "peers" - all retired IDF generals.

These people do not fall under the Geneva Conventions, nor are they citizens or resident aliens of the United States. They are TERRORISTS - the lowest form of life on Planet Earth. Staking them out naked in a Sahara dust storm or on top of the Greenland icecap is too good for them. If we've pumped them dry, cut their throats and feed them to the sharks.
Posted by Old Patriot  2009-12-15 15:21|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/  2009-12-15 15:21|| Front Page Top

#6 You go OP!
Posted by Hellfish 2009-12-15 19:16||   2009-12-15 19:16|| Front Page Top

#7 Old Patriot seems to be in benign Christmas mood already :-)
Posted by European Conservative 2009-12-15 19:17||   2009-12-15 19:17|| Front Page Top

#8 A bit difficult EC, raise your hand and agree to go anyway, anytime, and do anything, eat chow in the rain, see your buddies never come home, work your way through the ranks to retirement... only to see some leftest bastid pi** it all away.
Posted by Besoeker 2009-12-15 19:37||   2009-12-15 19:37|| Front Page Top

#9 I was not complaining :-)
Posted by European Conservative 2009-12-15 19:41||   2009-12-15 19:41|| Front Page Top

#10 I know EC. I know. How's that son of yours doing?
Posted by Besoeker 2009-12-15 19:47||   2009-12-15 19:47|| Front Page Top

#11 I've just spoken to him.
If you followed the "Kunduz affair", not too amused as you can guess.
Troops think that Berlin should make up its mind whether Talibs can be fought with more than cotton pads.
Posted by European Conservative 2009-12-15 22:03||   2009-12-15 22:03|| Front Page Top

21:10 newc
20:17 SteveS
18:44 magpie
18:33 Frank G
18:33 badanov
18:26 Hellfish
18:23 Hellfish
17:40 swksvolFF
17:34 Ebbuger Whuque4103
17:30 Ebbuger Whuque4103
17:02 Melancholic
16:27 Gravilet Snanter4154
16:20 Chaise Speaking for Boskone7897
16:02 Skidmark
16:01 Skidmark
15:46 Skidmark
15:41 Skidmark
15:37 swksvolFF
15:36 Skidmark
15:34 Skidmark
15:27 Skidmark
14:48 NoMoreBS
14:31 NoMoreBS
14:16 NoMoreBS









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com