It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Human rights groups take Rumsfeld to court

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 04:07 AM
link   
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is going to be taken to court amidst allegations that he authorised torture in Iraq and Afghanistan. The suit has been filed in Federal Court by two human rights groups, saying he was directly responsible for the alleged torture of eight detainees. Prisoners claimed they were repeatedly beaten, were slashed with knives, sexually humiliated and suffered assault plus mock executions amongst other things.
 



www.abc.net.au
ANTHONY ROMERO: We contend in our lawsuit that Secretary Rumsfeld bears direct responsibility for the abuses, that he personally signed off on the unlawful techniques in December of 2002 and in the years following, failed to act on complaints from the Red Cross and other groups about the torture which was occurring at the hands of US military officials.

JOHN SHOVELAN: The suit against Mr Rumsfeld focuses on an order he signed in December 2002, that authorized new interrogation techniques for detainees in the war on terror that were being held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

These changes included "stress positions", hooding, 20-hour interrogations, removal of clothing, exploiting phobias, prolonged isolation and sensory deprivation.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Although this is unlikely to come to anything it's good that the message is being put out that this kind of torture is unacceptable, and hopefully people will think before taking it too far. We know bad things have to be done to get important information, but there's a fine line between doing what needs to be done and thinking you're above the law and can get away with anything.




posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Good! Its about time he's held responsible for HIS ORDERS instead of the subordinates that were carrying them out.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 06:01 AM
link   
This is yet more proof that the "judicial" side of the gov is out of control. It is time to "purge" all liberal judges from thier "bloody" black robes. This lawsuite should never have made it to court. This violates the seperation of powers in the constitution. Comgress needs to get some guts and start impeaching these insane leftist.

The "black robe" bunch needs a swift kick in the arse............



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 06:06 AM
link   
if this gets the right judgement it could shoot the pariot act down when it comes up for renewal.canada will have to throw out its new laws also.torture is wrong and this is no way to get info anyways.i think he"ll get a slap on the hand but i hope something good will come out of this that will benefit both our countries freedoms.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Why Dr. Horacid? Since when are politicians above the law? And why do you criticise judges for allowing a suit to be brought against a politician that broke the law?

Would you like to see a world where politicians can do what they like, when they like and not have to worry about "leftist judges" holding them accountable under the law.

Also the rabid Republicans didnt think twice about impeaching President Clinton for getting oral sex and denying it. I think ordering the torture of human beings is more of a reason to legally scrutinize a politcian!

[edit on 2/3/05 by subz]



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Why Dr. Horacid? Since when are politicians above the law? And why do you criticise judges for allowing a suit to be brought against a politician that broke the law?

Would you like to see a world where politicians can do what they like, when they like and not have to worry about "leftist judges" holding them accountable under the law.

Also the rabid Republicans didnt think twice about impeaching President Clinton for getting oral sex and denying it. I think ordering the torture of human beings is more of a reason to legally scrutinize a politcian!

[edit on 2/3/05 by subz]


This is a "civil" lawsuite. Clinton wasn't impeached for have sex, but he should have been.

Define torture..............the methods listed in the lawsuite are ambiguous at best. This really is clearly a seperation of powers issue. Executive branch has the power to wage war. The judiciary needs to just shut up and sit down, they have no standing in this matter.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 06:54 AM
link   
The Judicial branch has every right to check that the Executive branch isnt breaking the law. If they do this by allowing a lawsuit to be brought against the Defence Secretary then I cant see why thats a bad thing. If he's innocent of course then im sure with his resources he'll be able to exhonarate himself and the administration.

To deny the Judiciary the role of checking on the President and his cronies is unconstitutional. I think a full blown Judicial review would get to the truth.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join