Disbar the Torture Twelve!!!

UPDATE: Disbarring 12 Torture Lawyers
by David Swanson
Mon May 18, 2009 at 05:41:33 AM PDT

Broad Coalition Of Groups Files Disciplinary Complaints Against Twelve Bush Administration Lawyers Who Advocated Torture Of Detainees

On Monday, May 18, 2009, a broad coalition of organizations dedicated to accountable government, and representing over one million members, filed disciplinary complaints with state bar licensing boards against twelve attorneys who advocated the torture of detainees during the Bush Administration. These detailed complaints with over 500 pages of supporting exhibits have been filed against John Yoo, Jay Bybee, Stephen Bradbury, Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft, Michael Chertoff, Alice Fisher, William Haynes II, Douglas Feith, Michael Mukasey, Timothy Flanigan, and David Addington. The complaints, filed with the state bars in the District of Columbia, New York, California, Texas and Pennsylvania, seek disciplinary action and disbarment. Copies of the complaints and exhibits are available at
http://www.disbartorturelawyers.com

MORE INFO AT;
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/18/732712/-UPDATE:-Disbarring-12-Torture-Lawyers

And they will have enormous legal bills.
And will be humiliated and shamed by the world.
Karma time for them.

... to keep their people "employed".

and these people will have large legal expenses....

Top U.S. officials can't be sued for post-9/11 abuse

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The former U.S. attorney general and the FBI director cannot be subjected to a lawsuit by a Pakistani man claiming abuse while imprisoned in New York after the September 11, 2001, attacks the Supreme Court ruled on Monday.

The nation's high court overturned a ruling that Javaid Iqbal, who was held more than a year after the attacks, can proceed with his lawsuit against former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE54H3CF20090518

It's an outrage!!!

be sent back to the lower court (the district court) so that the complaint can be amended (made more specific).

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1015.pdf

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON, May 18 (Reuters) - The Supreme Court rejected on Monday a lawsuit by a Pakistani man against a former U.S. attorney general and the FBI director claiming abuse while he was imprisoned in New York after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

By a 5-4 vote, the U.S. high court overturned a ruling that Javaid Iqbal, who was held more than a year after the attacks, could sue former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller.

The decision appeared to be narrow, limited to the facts of the case, although it could be cited as precedent in other lawsuits.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN18349048

....
Kennedy also ruled there was insufficient evidence that Ashcroft and Mueller had deprived Iqbal of his clearly established constitutional rights.

SCOTUS did not rule on the sufficiency of the evidence, it ruled that the complaint was not sufficient to allege a claim and that the 2nd circuit should decide if it should be sent back to the district court so that Iqbal can seek permission to amend the complaint.

Most of the opinion is about subject matter jurisdiction, then it discussed the rules and what it takes to establish a claim, what a complaint needs to survive the motion to dismiss.

Please read the opinion and do not rely on the media's interpretation.

In the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. authorities detained 762 noncitizens, almost all Muslims or Arabs. Many of those held at the federal prison in Brooklyn suffered abuse, the U.S. Justice Department's inspector general has found.

The Bush administration said that Ashcroft and Mueller have immunity, that they should not be held personally liable and that the lawsuit against them should be dismissed.

Ashcroft and Mueller argued they have qualified legal immunity because any misconduct was done by lower-level officials and they had no personal involvement in or knowledge of the alleged abuse.

....
The issue before the Supreme Court involved only whether Iqbal's lawsuit against Ashcroft and Mueller could continue and did not address his claims of mistreatment against other lower-ranking current and former government officials.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN18349048

They didn't rule on the the merits or immunity, they dicussed it to state what needed to be established, they said that Iqbal's complaint was insufficient and that the 2nd Circuit should consider the issues and decide whether or not it should send the case back to the district court so that Iqbal can seek leave to file an amended complaint.

They actually gave him clues as to what it is he needs to set forth in his complaint to state the claim.

Although Kennedy stressed the suit against prison officials can go forward.

Iqbal's "account of his prison ordeal alleges serious official misconduct that we need not address here," he said. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Kennedy to form the majority.

Speaking for the dissenters, retiring Justice David H. Souter said the suit against the top officials should have been allowed to go forward.

"Iqbal contends that Ashcroft and Mueller were at the very least aware of the discriminatory detention policy and condoned it and perhaps even took part in devising it," he said. Based on this allegation, the plaintiff should be given a chance to prove his case, Souter said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-interrogate19-2009may19,0,6681345.story


Evil deeds! I'm ashamed of my country.

"Ashcroft and Mueler hurt me"

Sadly, there are other reasons to be ashamed, this isn't top on the list and not as bad as you want to make it (or as good for bushco as the media is spinning it.) This is a set back, not conclusive, not final - truth is, SCOTUS is telling them how to improve their case so they can get the verdict against the twits.

I just chuckle out loud when folks accept the probush spin, it is comical how they allow the media to play them.

and the media today but you fail to see that you are falling for the spin, you have believed it hook line and sinker. You don't use your critical thinking skills, you fore sake those to believe and regurgitate the lies or the distortions of the media that supports the neo-cons and the pro-bush memo.

Good news for bushco would have been for SCOTUS to say that the complaint sucked and to dismiss this case without anything more, without directions to the 2nd circuit to return to the district court so that the complaint can be improved and the case proceed.

The difference between the attitude of the supreme court justice in the clip and what we are hearing now from the current supreme court justices is the difference between oil and water.


The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts. Iqbal could have a case against others, Kennedy said.

His "account of his prison ordeal could, if proved, demonstrate unconstitutional misconduct by some governmental actors," Kennedy said. "But the allegations and pleadings with respect to these actors are not before us here."

....
He was cleared of any involvement in terrorism.
....
He was arrested Nov. 2, 2001, and charged with nonviolent federal crimes unrelated to terrorism. Two months later, he was moved to a holding facility in Brooklyn, where he was in solitary confinement for more than 150 days without a hearing, his lawsuit alleges.
....
He said he was subjected to physical and verbal abuse, including unnecessary strip searches. On the day he entered solitary confinement, he says, he was thrown against a wall, kicked in the stomach, punched in the face and dragged across a floor by federal prison officers.

And of course no one saw this his word against theirs?

and no one said that torture is comical.

Overreact much?

....
Speaking for the dissenters, retiring Justice David H. Souter said the suit against the top officials should have been allowed to go forward.

"Iqbal contends that Ashcroft and Mueller were at the very least aware of the discriminatory detention policy and condoned it and perhaps even took part in devising it," he said. Based on this allegation, the plaintiff should be given a chance to prove his case, Souter said.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-interrogate19-2009may19,0,6681345.story

Souter said in the dissent, as adopted by 3 other justices, that he would have reached a different opinion, that the complaint is sufficient. So?

The majority, the opinion of the court did not forever dismiss the case, they just said the complaint is insufficient, they opined what is required to make the complaint sufficient and they said to send it back to the lower court for leave to amend.

It is still a viable lawsuit, despite the fact that you buy the gloom and doom of the media.

But I'll still not hold my breath for it.

I was shuffling through the topics and I thought this said disembowel the torture twelve.