Here’s a post on a development in an ongoing case brought by a couple of private military contractors who allege imprisonment in a US military facility and torture for blowing the whistle on illegal arms trading inside Iraq by their employer Shield Group Security. It appeared that SGS was selling arms to insurgent groups at a tidy profit:
Sensen No Sen: Puckering Mr. Cheney.
Back in 2006, I wrote a post entitled A Nation of Hypocrites that focused on the case of Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, private military contractors working in Iraq. The two men uncovered what appeared to be illegal arms dealing by their employer, Shield Group Security, and reported it to outside authorities.
The result? Mr. Ertel and Mr. Vance, a Navy veteran and two-time voter for George W. Bush, were disappeared into a military prison without access to the outside world and without judicial review. Mr. Ertel was released after 6 weeks, but Mr. Vance was held for 97 days. His family had no idea what had happened to him – his fiance believed he had been killed – and both men allege that they were tortured. It is only because the military deigned to release them – with implied threats that they’d better keep their mouths shut – that they are today free men.
Mr. Ertel and Mr. Vance brought suit against the military and against Bush Administration Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, focusing on three areas: cruel and inhumane treatment; violation of procedural due process; and denial of access to the courts. Lawyers for Secretary Rumsfeld filed a motion to dismiss the suit, and on Friday, U.S. District Judge Wayne Andersen voided the second and third counts. More importantly however, Judge Andersen also ruled that the former contractors had alleged enough specifics to warrant a hearing of evidence on the first count of cruel and inhumane treatment.
That last sentence should give both Rumsfeld and Cheney some pause. The defense describes the judges ruling:
Judge Refuses to Dismiss Suit Against Rumsfeld- Blog of Legal Times, Mike Kanovitz
Essentially the judge held that there is a constitutional violation for the types of brutality that are alleged in our complaint, and that someone who is even as high ranking as a Cabinet official can be held liable for that constitutional violation if he authorizes subordinates to commit that type of violence. Furthermore, the court held that even though he is a high placed official, the pleading requirements that apply to any defendant and any plaintiff are the same ones. And even though it requires a high amount of specific evidence for holding him liable, there’s enough evidence in the complaint that he did authorize this type of violence to be sufficient to force him to answer for these actions in a court of law.
Perhaps I am naïve to believe that powerful will ever answer for their crimes in this country. Even when they admit on national television that they “fans of waterboarding” in the context of ordering subordinates to use “enhanced interrogation techniques”** on detainees.
I think that down the road, when our children look at this phase of our history, they’ll see Mr Bush’s “War on Terrah” as a clear violation of America law and values. Something akin to the internment of the Japanese during WWII or Lincoln’s suspension of habeus corpus during the Civil War. Both of those previous examples involved much greater threats to the existence of this nation. Al-Qaeda, and it’s murderous thugs weren’t then and aren’t now an existential threat to the US. But our reaction to them most definitely is.
Our detainee policies, which sadly seem to be getting institutionalized as standard operating procedure despite empty campaign promises by Obama, have done more to recruit and fund terrorism than just about anything else we could have done. The stated aims of attacking us, was to get a reactionary response from the west that would open the flood gates to help mainstream violent jihad against the west among moderate Muslims. We did exactly what they wanted and Al-Qaeda blossomed and morphed into the hydra-headed monster it is today.
I had hoped that a constitutional law professor would find some value in defending the Constitution, but Obama has consistently disappointed. He gave lip service to closing Gitmo early on, but has not followed through. Any opposition from right and he backs off. All I’ve seen is timidity and cowardice from him, when it comes to defending the Constitution.
I suppose one could argue that a sitting President would rarely, if ever, agree to voluntarily limit executive power and that is properly the role of the judiciary. Sadly, the federal courts from Supreme Court to the Appellate Courts, the District courts and career DOJ positions have been stacked with “Good Bushies” who share the Yoo worldview of limitless executive power during times of war. And of course the “War on Terrah” has no end in sight, we’re essentially in a perpetual state of war.
Limitless executive power emanating from endless state of war, coupled with electronic surveillance unencumbered by meaningful judicial review. That sounds just like the optimum conditions for tyranny at the whim of the President. I didn’t trust Bush with that kind of power. I don’t trust Obama, or anyone else I can think of either. It’s not a partisan issue. This is a much greater threat to the underpinnings of American society than anything cave dwelling suicide bombers on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border can do to us.
**The phrase “enhanced interrogation” is rendered in German as “Verschärfte Vernehmung” and was favored by the Gestapo as softer term to cover the torture of resistance fighters and their supporters in German occupied areas. What the Bush administration approved of is identical to tactics used by Nazis and prosecuted during the Nuremburg Trials as war crimes. This is not to say that I think Bush is a Nazi, but that what we as a nation did and continue to ignore was by any reasonable definition torture.” Calling it “enhanced interrogation is much too Orwellian for my liking. It’s disturbing how it converges once you begin to think it’s OK for us to do it because we’re the “good guys”.