US News
Court rejects lawsuit by former British Guantanamo inmates
Jan 12, 2008, 0:11 GMT
Washington - A US federal court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit brought by four British citizens once jailed at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba against former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and senior military officers for allegedly ordering torture and abuse of religious rights.
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 3-0 that the law did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo because it was outside US jurisdiction.
The court also determined that Rumsfeld and the other defendants were immune under the Constitution because they could not have reasonably known that the detainees were being tortured.
The case was brought by Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Rhehel Ahmed and Jamal al-Harith, who spent more than two years in Guantanamo before being sent back to Britain in 2004.
A lawyer for the four men, Eric Lewis, said he will appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court.
'It is an awful day for the rule of law and common decency when a court finds that torture is all in a days' work for the secretary of defence and senior general,' Lewis said.
© 2008 dpa - Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
But they do have the right to blow themselves up in their own country. Do it now! JIHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAD!!!! BOOOM!
The courts are racist at best, and have no morality. There is no justice in america. If you doubt or disagree to waht I say, just take any 100 cases involving blacks verses white, and study them.
This bush appointed judge was told to reject whether it were legal or illegal because to grant a hearing would eventually lead to war crimes trial s for the entire administration and army accomplices.
We have an independent judiciary in this country, moron. A bullet is what they deserved.
...they...
are not american citizens
were captured on the battlefield
are not on america soil
are not legitimate combatants of a sovreign nation
...so none of our biased laws apply to them!
Bush's biggest mistake was to not get a Constitutional Amendment to the Constitution right after 911 to define rights and close the legal nexus. Now, they will tie it up for years in courts. The end will be the same but it will take years, and the statement we made in fialing to do so is huge.
Fortunately, we have a judge who stil thinks the Constitution has limits.
Time to pick a side. I already have!
I don't understand the religious part of it. They dont have any respect for other people and their beliefs, why should they be treated with respect? Why should certain individuals get special treatment because of religious, spiritual, or other beliefs? The constitution says there is a clear separation of church and state, and last I checked, jails and prisons belong to the state (government). They shouldn't have to pander to anybody on a religous level at all, it would be unconstitutional to do such a thing. All they should have to do is let them have whatever bible, koran, etc. that they request. What's going on here?
It's nothing more than a pretext to get these folks into court. They realize that they cannot get there with anything else.
page: 1
SP4: Those darn courts!Jan 12th, 2008 - 18:17:52
...law...it's a bitch!
Report this comment