PDA

View Full Version : American filmmaker sues Rumsfeld over detention in Iraq




leekohler
Jul 9, 2006, 11:02 AM
Wow- this is really bad. This is how we treat our own, even veterans?

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- An aspiring Iranian-American filmmaker who spent nearly two months in a prison in Iraq without being charged has sued Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other military officials, calling the government's detention policies unconstitutional.

Cyrus Kar, 45, of Los Angeles seeks unspecified damages and sweeping changes in the government's detention policies overseas.

The suit was filed this week in federal court by the American Civil Liberties Union of California. It is the first civil case challenging detention policies in Iraq, said Mark Rosenbaum, the organization's legal director.

A phone message left for a Pentagon spokesman was not immediately returned Saturday.

When Kar was released, military officials said that he had been properly detained as "an imperative security threat" and that the matter had been handled and resolved appropriately.

"This case highlights the effectiveness of our detainee review process," spokesman Air Force Brig. Gen. Don Alston said following Kar's release.

Kar was taken into custody in May 2005 after he visited Iraq to make a documentary film about Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who wrote the world's first human rights charter. Potential bomb parts were found in a taxi in which Kar was riding.

He was released July 10 after his family sued, accusing the federal government of violating his civil rights and holding him after the FBI cleared him of suspicion. He is a former U.S. Navy SEAL, according to news reports.

The new lawsuit said his 55-day detention violated not only his civil rights, but also the Geneva Convention and the law of nations.

"Human rights monitors note that the vast majority of the over 15,000 detainees in U.S. military custody in Iraq have never been charged, tried, provided counsel, or allowed to challenge their detention in court, and over one-fifth of them have been detained for over a year in this manner," the suit states.

Kar said that while he was imprisoned he was at various times hooded and threatened, taunted and insulted by U.S. soldiers. One soldier slammed Kar's head into a concrete wall, the suit said.

What happened to him in Iraq was "a life-altering experience," Kar told the Los Angeles Times.

In addition to Rumsfeld, the defendants include Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., commanding general of the multinational forces in Iraq, and Maj. Gen. William H. Brandenburg, who was in charge of detainee operations in Iraq at the time of Kar's detention.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/08/rumsfeld.sued.ap/index.html



skunk
Jul 9, 2006, 11:10 AM
I wonder if Rumsfeld will ask for 15,000 other offences to be taken into account...

Queso
Jul 9, 2006, 11:14 AM
Deport Rumsfeld to The Hague. That evil man needs to stand trial for his crimes.

Dont Hurt Me
Jul 9, 2006, 11:16 AM
A former seal! this shows what Bush & his goosesteppers have been doing. Hope he wins his suite. Our Govt went nuts over stripping our rights away with the patriot act and then by mere accusation your considered guilty. Held for 2 months. Sounds like he has a case to me.

It took 200 years to have many of the rights and protections we had etc it only took a gang of thugs from Suadi Arabia to remove 200 years of progress thanks to George and the republican & democratic goosesteppers in Congress. Congress has let George do whatever....anything.......Congress is as much to blame as is George and his team of Neocons.

scem0
Jul 9, 2006, 01:17 PM
yes, DHM, they are. We should just flush the whole federal government down the toilet and draw a new hand. Reformat our corrupted hard drive :).

I hope this guy gets lots and lots of media attention and I hope he wins his case.

e

iGary
Jul 9, 2006, 01:20 PM
It will be interesting to see how this goes - why is he suing Rumsfeld, though. He will have to be able to prove that Rumsfeld directly participated in the decision to hold him, and that if he did, he was acting outside of established protocol.

Most people who sue the government lose.

*shrug*

scem0
Jul 9, 2006, 01:27 PM
One can sue someone else for inaction, no? If someone in a pool is drowning, and I'm a good swimmer shouldn't I be obligated to save them if no one else is capable? Rumsfeld should have been making major changes as a result of improper prison management and he didn't. I'm no lawyer, but I'd say there's a case there.

e

mischief
Jul 9, 2006, 01:34 PM
One can sue someone else for inaction, no? If someone in a pool is drowning, and I'm a good swimmer shouldn't I be obligated to save them if no one else is capable? Rumsfeld should have been making major changes as a result of improper prison management and he didn't. I'm no lawyer, but I'd say there's a case there.

e

This is based on the concept of Due Dilligence and usually only counts legally if you have the legal imperative (not simply the ability) to act.

Duty to act:

If I'm an EMT (which I am) and I witness a nasty car accident am I legally obligated to stop and render aid due to my skills?

No. I am no more obligated than any other citizen unless I have been dispatched to the scene while acting as an Emergency Responder in official capacity. I have the common obligation of reporting the incident only.

Would I render aid anyway? If possible, very likely but I would actually be more legally liable if I rendered aid than if I simply called 911.

scem0
Jul 9, 2006, 01:47 PM
This is based on the concept of Due Dilligence and usually only counts legally if you have the legal imperative (not simply the ability) to act.

But isn't the SoD legally bound to act in these kinds of situations - to keep the army acting responsibly - unlike the car accident scenario? If he isn't, does his position bind him to do anything at all?

e

mischief
Jul 9, 2006, 02:05 PM
But isn't the SoD legally bound to act in these kinds of situations - to keep the army acting responsibly - unlike the car accident scenario? If he isn't, does his position bind him to do anything at all?

e

The SecDef is supposed to be the legal liason between the CiC and the DoD. He's a convenient scapegoat if the war goes bad, the Executive can claim he wasn't relaying appropriately and the DoD can do the same.

Really the only persons with a Duty to Act are the sworn millitary officers in charge. They're bound as agents of a National Military Agency under international law to keep their respective forces within the bounds of law. The SecDef is an appointed civilian.

As an appointed civilian he is not subject to the direct influence of international law on the subject of war. This is the same tactic of legal wrangling exploited by using contractors to perpetrate torture. International laws of warfare cover military and executive actions. Civilians in the grey areas are not explicitly mentioned to my knowledge.

By keeping the torture and inhumane treatment at arms length via contractors and technically "non-millitary" agencies like CIA the blame can be neatly sidestepped and only a few noncoms get the shaft.

Lt. Calley and Air America were an excellent example of this kind of duplicitous structuring.

At Mi Lai Calley was given orders to "Eliminate the possibility of NVA support from the location and/or population of Mi Lai." A strict and literal tactical interpretation on Calley's part resulted in the near total razing and depopulation of the entire village before the intervention of AirCav halted the massacre at gunpoint. Calley became the scapegoat for a widespread policy of genocidal tactics in the region.

Air America was the CIA's cover corporation in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. It was used to move guns, drugs, equipment and covert ops into and out of an utterly black warzone that would have been utterly illegal if run by DoD. AA went on to run similar ops throughout the middle east and the latin-americas making CIA a tidy off-the-book black ops budget in the process.

scem0
Jul 9, 2006, 02:15 PM
Eek, I wish Cyrus Kar that much more luck then :(.

e

solvs
Jul 10, 2006, 01:08 AM
Most people who sue the government lose.
Doesn't matter if he loses. They just need to bring this to light. If true, it's pretty damning. And based on what we've heard, for some reason, I have a feeling it's true.

How anyone can defend these bastards who do stuff like this and call themselves patriots is beyond me.