Skip to main content

View Diary: Updated with Corrections Re: 9th Circuit legalizes torture (266 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But the onus is on the SCOTUS to let 9th circuit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie, Johnny Q

    precedent stand or to hear the case themselves.

    By letting it stand, the SCOTUS is responsible until it decides to hear the case, which will NOT be happening anytime soon, or at least while the court is 5-4 under Justice Roberts

    If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever.' ~ George Orwell, 1984

    by MinistryOfTruth on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:08:54 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  But they didn't legalize anything (9+ / 0-)

      They've simply let the 9th Circuit ruling alone.  Another circuit could rule differently.  

    •  Did you bother to read (10+ / 0-)

      about why they let it stand?

      Perhaps you didn't notice that someone at that blue blog where you hang out wrote a rebuttal to all of this. For doing that, he was excoriated and suspended. But here's just a bit of what he said after reading the court documents for the record.

      The Rasul case involved four Guantanamo prisoners who were tortured.  The prisoners were not U.S. citizens, and were not present in the US.  They asserted claims under the Geneva Conventions, a federal tort statute, the U.S. Constitution, and the Religious Free Restoration Act.  The trial court dismissed all of their claims but one, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissals and threw out the remaining claim, too.<...>

      The trial court threw out the Tort, Geneva Convention, and Constitutional claims on the grounds that the torturers were acting within the scope of their jobs, and therefore the claims had to be asserted against the United States (Rumsfeld), not against the individuals, and therefore the claims against the United States had to be first filed within the administrative agency, not in federal court.  Once the administrative agency (in this case, the military), ignored or denied the claims, then the federal courts would gain jurisdiction.  This is NOT an affirmation of torture, just some procedural garbage about where one has to file the claim.

      The Ruling on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was that the statute was not intended to apply to non-US citizens who were not located in the US, and that Guantanamo was not in the US.  The court did NOT rule <...> that the defendants were not "persons," only that they were not protected by the RFRA statute.

      Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

      by NLinStPaul on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:23:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site