Top court rejects Padilla torture lawsuit appeal

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

By James Vicini
WASHINGTON | Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:01am EDT

(Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by a citizen who said he had been tortured at a military jail in South Carolina and who sought to hold former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other officials accountable.

The justices let stand a U.S. appeals court ruling that dismissed the lawsuit by Jose Padilla on the grounds his allegations lacked merit. The appeals court said he had no right to sue for the alleged constitutional violations and the judiciary could not review such sensitive military decisions.

Padilla, a former Chicago gang member and a Muslim convert turned al Qaeda recruit who had been convicted on terrorism charges, sued a number of U.S. military and Defense Department officials, including Rumsfeld.

In the lawsuit Padilla sought a declaration that his designation as an enemy combatant, his military detention and his treatment in custody were unconstitutional. He had been held in the military prison from June 2002 until January 2006.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/11/us-usa-security-padilla-idUSBRE85A0X920120611

[a2liberal]

1. Ugh.

[Solly Mack]

2. K&R

...

[cstanleytech]

3. Perhaps he sued the wrong people?

"Attorneys representing Rumsfeld and five other former Defense Department and military officials opposed the appeal and said further Supreme Court review of the case was unwarranted.

"Settled law clearly shields military officials from personal liability for their execution of the president's and Congress's war powers, as well as more broadly for implementation of military policies and operations," their main lawyer, Richard Klingler, wrote in a brief filed with the court."

So perhaps he should have tried suing Bush? After all it was his decision in the end as president and he cant hide behind the "I am in the military and was just following orders" defense.

[EFerrari]

4. Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense and a civilian.

This court is trying to cover his criminal ass by treating him as if he was a troop in uniform, isn't it?

[cstanleytech]

7. Looks like it but *shrug*

I am with the other poster though and think they should be tried before the Hague.

[EFerrari]

9. The problem with that is, like the UN, the United States has a lot of influence

at the Hague. So, if our right wing nutjob court won't go there, it's a good bet that pressure is being brought to bear on the international systems, too.

[Ian David]

5. This is why they need to be tried under international law at The Hague. n/t

[Bandit]

6. How is it possible he does not have standing?

He was taken off the streets of Chicago and whisked away without being charged with any crime and held for years under a made up catagory of enemy combatant.. He was denied every basic Right of american citizenship. Lack of speedy trial, jury of his peers, right of Habeas Corpus, basically every founding principle of our country and he was denied everything...Still is being denied recourse....

[Politicalboi]

8. All part of the plan

This is what 9/11 did for them. Along with lining their pockets.

[EFerrari]

10. They destroyed his mind right in front of our faces.

That fact alone should set us back on our heels.

[Nihil]

11. "Little People" don't have standing to call "Big People" to account for their crimes.

Every point you mentioned is correct.

This case merely serves to underline that you are no longer living in
the nation of your Founding Fathers.

That is a state of affairs that is much deeper than trivial name changes
like "Amercia" and "Amerika" but it seems to get a lot less notice by
the majority of people affected by it ...