U.S. Court of Appeal rules Rumsfeld must face trial for torture

It is hard to overstate the significance of the ruling by the US Court of Appeals that Donald Rumsfeld will face trial for torture. Every Bush-era official who committed crimes, including authorizing torture, has to be deeply alarmed.

The movement for accountability has entered a new, decisive stage and IndictBushNow is committed to stepping up the momentum.

Here is what has happened:

The court ruled on Tuesday that two U.S. citizens who worked for a private security firm in Iraq can proceed to take Donald Rumsfeld to trial for the torture they assert they endured during months of imprisonment in 2006 in a prison set up by the Pentagon at a military base near Baghdad's airport..

The two men say they were arrested and then brutally tortured after they tried to expose bribery and corruption in the private security firm that was on the Pentagon payroll. They informed U.S. authorities and began cooperating with them to expose bribery and corruption. In early 2006 they were unexpectedly arrested and sent to the prison at the US military base Camp Cropper located near Baghdad's airport.

After months of imprisonment they were taken from the jail... ... and dropped at the airport without ever having been charged with a crime.

The Court of Appeals in Chicago on Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling that the men have a right to take Rumsfeld to trial.

The court ruled, "We agree with the district court that the plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to show that Secretary Rumsfeld personally established the relevant policies that caused the alleged violations of their constitutional rights during detention."

The IndictBushNow.org campaign was prominently mentioned in an interview on RT television yesterday.

Thousands of people watched the YouTube version of the interview. Please watch this video and share it with others by forwarding the link by email to your friends or on Facebook.
http://www.progressivepeoplepower.com/index.php?blogid=8

He is being sued in a civil court. Title etc infers it is criminal, which it is not. Federal government may give him qualified immunity and defend him/pay any judgement

nice try Professor.........yes, this is a civil action instead of a criminal action; however, Rumsfeld does not enjoy blanket constitutional protection from civil prosecution, as two federal judges have already ruled. The Professor is wrong in his assertion that the federal government can "grant immunity" to Rumsfeld for violating the constitutional rights of American citizens. George W. Bush believes he was "granted immunity" from prosecution by virtue of a government lawyer misinforming President Bush torture is not a crime. Torture is most certainly a crime, and in this instance, it is my opinion the degree to which Rumsfeld violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights rises to a criminal level. Plaintiffs do have a right to seek justice and testify to a criminal grand jury. Criminally speaking, Donald Rumsfeld is NOT out of the woods yet.

The ruling from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago comes just days after a similar decision by a federal judge in Washington that gave the green light to an Army veteran — who also alleges he was tortured in Iraq — to sue Rumsfeld for damages.

Monday’s ruling rejected arguments that Rumsfeld should be immune from such lawsuits for work performed as a Cabinet secretary.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2011/08/11/210513.htm#

Under it the action can proceed, but the Federal Gov will defend and pay not the employee. It is not unlike the city defending and picking up the tab for an action against a rogue cop.

Criminal proceedings are indeed independent. I don't think I will see them from this administration, but they are a possibility.

Do you know who you're talking to? You cannot educate me re: federal civil actions re: police officers, since I prosecuted officers for violent acts. You simply don't know what you're talking about, professor. Municipalities often work overtime in U.S. District Court trying to D-I-V-O-R-C-E themselves from officer-defendant's conduct. It is not unusual for a rogue police officer to have a judgement rendered against him in his unofficial capacity, if the municipality convinces a judge and jury the officer acted outside the scope of his duty and powers, in violation of municipality rules and guidelines.

it is not always successful. The higher the person, the harder it is to do. The decision to offer qualified immunity is up the to Federal government...nothing has been said publicly at this time.

Your language belies your other claims...

Professor said the federal guvmint may pay for any future judgment rendered against Rumsfeld, etc.

I disagree. Depending upon what happens in the federal civil action, Rumsfeld's lawyers may be at odds with and argue against the U.S. government. What am I talking about? I'm talking about what happens in many of these respondent superior type federal cases: the parent entity tries to separate and divorce itself from the defendant, claiming the defendant's conduct was NOT part of corporate or guvmint policy;therefore parent is not responsible for defendant's conduct, since Defendant Rumsfeld operating outside of entity's stated written policy.

As I said early, the Federal government *MAY* (is that clear enough for you) offer qualified immunity. No public announcement of that one way or the other has been made, nor that of Rummmie's legal approach.

You don't get it do you? You seem like a nice fellow, just a bit thick and apparently unfamiliar with federal process.

My point is, the U.S. government cannot lawfully and constitutionally provide qualified immunity to a federal official to absolve federal, int'l and constitutional crimes against Americans. What Rumsfeld did to these American plaintiffs is a national and international crime, not to mention a grooss criminal violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. It is not lawful for our guvmint to grant immunity of any kind to a federal official who intentionally violated American law and the constitutional rights of Americans.

Besides, Rumsfeld's lawyers already presented the inapplicable "qualified immunity" styled argument, and was soundly defeated by the courts.

You are confused about qualified immunity. The courts have said it can be sued. The Federal government may still elect to provide his defense and assume liability for any civil penalties.

Use “imply” when something is being suggested without being explicitly stated
and
“infer” when someone is trying to arrive at a conclusion based on evidence.

I saw no evidence in the title that said criminal court.

is not the issue.

The real question relates the Constitutionality of the Executive initiating a state of war against another sovereign nation that has not attacked us. For the Constitution calls for the American People's representatives to make this decision.

Treating the symptoms, rather than the cause, will not cure the patient.

One can hardly wait for the discolsure.

its not torture all the weasels said so!! we need a who would you like to waterboard most poll :toast:

If Obama prosecutes Rumsfeld for torture, even if he doesn't get a conviction, I will wholeheartedly work my ass for him and put aside every other issue I have with him. I'm not holding my breath.

Unfortunately, Obama has nothing to do with this civil action brought by the plaintiffs.

The article was written very poorly, strongly inferring it was a criminal trial. Civil trials of course are better than nothing but have nothing to do with the Justice Department.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/08/national/main20089855.shtml

They don't have Daddy george to circumvent the process. I doubt the tea-baggers give a crap, either. They slept through the occupation. I doubt they have the attention span necessary to understand the article or the implications.

Damn! Missed it by a few minutes.

But here's a BIG kick for at least someone from Bush's crime posse possibly facing some actual consequences.