Rumsfeld Can Be Sued by US Detainees
Rumsfeld could be sued in 2 separate cases involving US citizens detained in Iraq.
Two separate courts ruling over two separate cases have said that the former US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, doesn’t have immunity and can be sued by US security contractors held by US forces in Iraq.
Last week a Washington Judge ruled that a former US contractor in Iraq could sue Rumsfeld for alleged torture. He was held on suspicion of passing information to the enemy but was never charged.
This week a court ruled that two US security contractors could sue Rumsfeld for his role in developing and authorizing techniques allegedly used when they were held for months by US forces in Iraq.
The court said that their was sufficient argument that Rumsfeld had “personally established the relevant policies that caused the alleged violations of their constitutional rights during detention”.
Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel said that they were detained after they attempted to reveal illegal activities by their employer.
The two men were eventually released without charge after allegedly suffering physical and psychological torture in Camp Cropper, Baghdad.
Rumsfeld and the Government have been trying to have the cases dismissed, arguing that Rumsfeld had immunity while working as the Defence Secretary, that US citizens cannot sue for rights violations that occur in war zones and the courts cannot interfere with US military policy.
The court made clear however, that although the case brought against Rumsfeld had sufficiently alleged he had a personal role in authorising the harsh treatment, it did not mean that he did.
Rumsfeld Vs. The Courts
The next step will more than likely a move to push the decision to appeal at the Supreme Court to try to get the judgements overturned.
Ironically, Rumsfeld was awarded the ‘Defender of the Constitution’ award in Washington earlier this year.
There are always many sides to every story of course. Looking at this issue from a general perspective, among many arguments I see 2 points that strike me as pertinent to the Rumsfeld case.
Accountable Politicians
The first is that for too long, politicians seemingly have had no direct accountability for actions that, with just a phone call, can plunge millions of people in far flung places into desperate lives.
They sleep easier at night because they don’t stand in a war zone, gun in hand, pull the trigger and live with the consequence. They pull the strings not the trigger.
Immunity or political power often seemingly puts them beyond the law, only their own empathy or guilt can seemingly impact their closeted lives.
Empathy or guilt however, don’t normally go hand and hand with politicians. They are single minded people with an almost religious zeal in their belief that they are always right. If you want to be a successful politician, there is a very strong argument that you can’t be any other way.
At the time of the second Gulf war I remember remarking that one day, politicians could be held accountable in court, not just for genocide crimes, but for all acts of war & their consequences. I wonder how quick they would be to make that phone call if they knew they would also be putting their own lives on the line?
Just How Accountable?
The other question that presents itself is just how accountable is a politician or a leader for his troops or sub-ordinates actions?
There is a fine line between carrying out orders and interpreting those orders. Just how right is it that a leader can be accountable for someone else’s interpretation?
Leave your comments below, what do you think about these kinds of questions and the Donald Rumsfeld case in particular?
Photo: Gage Skidmore
Comments