Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Human Rights Law Blogs -> Never In Our Names

Human Rights Law

: Never In Our Names

The Supreme Court Revives A Torture Case

By Gary L. Norton

The Supreme Court issued an order on Monday in Rasul v Myers, a case involving a suit by four ex- Guantanamo detainees who alleged they had been tortured. The plaintiffs are British citizens and they are seeking monetary damages against Rumsfeld, Myers and other high ranking officials.

The case had been dismissed by the District Court, a decision that was affirmed on appeal. But in todays order, the Supreme Court vacated the earlier dismissal and ordered that the case be reconsidered in light of the decision in Boumediene v. Bush, which recognized certain Constitutional rights of detainees.  
As reported in the Miami Herald

The justices threw out an appeals court ruling that dismissed claims by four British men that, during their time at the U.S. Navyl base in Cuba, they were beaten, shackled in painful stress positions, threatened by dogs and subjected to extreme medical care.

They also allege they were harassed while practicing their religion, including forced shaving of their beards, banning or interrupting their prayers, denying them copies of the Koran and prayer mats and throwing a copy of the Koran in a toilet bucket.

The Rasul appeals court decision was a travesty. It was a very complex case involving many different claims for relief under the Alien Torts Statute, Geneva Conventions, 5th and 8th Amendments, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Initially, the District Court denied all the claims, except the one involving RFRA. But the Appeals Court gave the government a slam dunk, by holding that the prisoners couldn't even pursue the RFRA claim.

The Supreme Court's order today did not explain the Court's thinking. But clearly the Court believes that the Boumediene case, which was decided after Rasul, contains elements that could significantly affect the claims of the Rasul plaintiffs. Foremost among those claims is the question of whether Guantanamo prisoners had a right not to be tortured. The decision on that issue could well impact the question of whether committing torture is within the scope of employment of government officials. I tend to think that the question of the applicability of the RFRA, which is essentially whether the prisoners were "persons" as defined by that act, is not impacted by the Boumediene decision, but I could well be wrong.

So what does it all mean? First, the poor guys, all of whom were totally innocent, may finally get some redress for the pain and suffering they endured. For the Courts, it means that the Boumediene decision has a long reach and could well influence other cases. For the people of this country who care about justice and the rule of law, it presents one more opportunity for the abuses of the Bush administration to be exposed. With that exposure we can hope that the pressure will increase for accountability by the officials involved. The best outcome would be prison sentences, but that is not likely. At the very least, though, we should expect them to visited with widespread public scorn and condemnation.

Full post as published by Never In Our Names on December 16, 2008 (boomark / email).