The American Courts Have Spoken
Subtitled: There’s not so much change happening down there is there?
Detainees are not persons, and even if they are torture and abuse is a likely consequence of being detained by the US military…. in other news American government officials are immune from legal action as at the time prisoners were being tortured and abused at Camp Gitmo “it was unclear whether abusing prisoners at Guantanamo was illegal“.
……. the court let stand an earlier opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court, which found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – a statute that applies by its terms to all “persons” – did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law.
The lower court also dismissed the detainees’ claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Geneva Conventions, finding defendants immune on the basis that “torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military’s detention of suspected enemy combatants.”
So there ya go folks, all in neat legalize – in the opinion of the Obama administration American law trumps the Geneva Conventions and under their Geneva Convention trumping law it’s OK to torture foreign prisoners because they’re not really people.
If the lawyers, courts, and legal system of a country are any measure of the level of civilization a society has reached America must be at the absolute pinnacle.
I am upchucking at the absolute travesty this ruling represents. If those tortured by the US military are not persons it must mean that reported (Afghan) casualty counts are merely fabrications of somebody’s over active imagination!
After all, how can one report on combatant deaths when the “they” in question are not deemed to be really persons after all? What a cranially-fucked world we live in!
“So there ya go folks, all in neat legalize – in the opinion of the Obama administration American law trumps the Geneva Conventions.”
I though this was a finding of the court?
Far be it from me to interrupt a nice anti-American rant, but a link to a more neutral site would be useful, something I can’t find. Using quotes from losing defence lawyers and professional activists to explain the significance is a tad dicey.
The court is using the word “persons” in the legal sense of having constitutionally-protected standing to access the courts. It is not saying they aren’t human beings and I doubt very much it said the law is cool with torture despite what the Geneva Conventions say. This, of course, is in marked contrast to the rest of the world, which has historically granted habeas corpus rights, the right to sue for damages and legal aid to POW’s.
@balbulican: A court system which, as I understand it agreed with the administration.
@Peter: As I said……….
You wanted a more complete explanation of the court’s decision? Here’s one from Bloomberg.com
Somehow, I thought that referred to the whole of mankind. I guess if they ain’t persons, they ain’t men. Some are more equal than others.
The poop’s really startin’ to hit the propeller on the torture file.
Over in Merrie Olde Englande, they been draggin’ it through the courts and the press and the UK gummint’s being forced to disclose documents they been tryin’ to keep covered up.
Once them Gitmo guys is all on Merkan soil, some new court challenges will be possible and the horror stories will begin. Cheney will pass away from natural causes and posthumously shoulder 99% of all blame. The bogeyman did it. We never saw a thing.
Here in Steve’s peaceable kingdom, the steady drip, drip, drip will finally wash away enough redactink and the callous nincompoops in Ottawa will go down in well deserved ignominy.
Some porcine politicians and dumbass Merkan courts may excuse torture. Human beings will not.
Correction: I should have written “different” – not “more complete.”
@Peter: Even if you want to argue the “persons” aspect of this Peter what do you make of the “torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military’s detention of suspected enemy combatants” statement?
It used to be that one would consider that torture and abuse may well be a “foreseeable consequence” of being captured by the evil doers on ‘the other side‘[tm] – now it’s apparently a “foreseeable consequence” of being captured by the Americans as well.
Does it not beg the question in this arena of, what then is the difference between the evil doers and the Americans?
Perhaps then it is time to revisit the court ruling(British-CND) declaring women to be ‘persons’ under the law sometime back in the 1920’s I believe.
SL, the point I was trying to make is that the case is entirely about standing and that you can’t imply anything about what the court would have said on the substantive issues had they decided otherwise on standing. It is hardly earth-shaking that the Court decided enemy combatants not in the States have no statnding to sue the U.S. Cabinet in U.S. courts, which is why the decision is getting so little play. I can’t think of an example in history to the contrary. I really hope you will not try to argue that my pointing this out shows a casual attitude to torture, as I might take offence.
Time for some Spanish judge to get involved.