On Air Now

Current Show

America Now with Andy Dean   8:00 PM - 11:00 PM

Call America Now at 877-927-2639 between 5pm and 8pm

Show Info »

Upcoming Shows

Program Schedule »

Listen

Listen Live Now » 550 AM Wausau, WI 99.9 FM Stevens Point, WI

Weather

Current Conditions(Wausau,WI 54403)

More Weather »
69° Feels Like: 69°
Wind: SSW 3 mph Past 24 hrs - Precip: 0”
Current Radar for Zip

Tonight

Mostly Clear 52°

Tomorrow

Mostly Sunny 76°

Fri Night

Showers Late 59°

Alerts

Court allows torture lawsuit against Rumsfeld

Former Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld speaks during the 38th annual CPAC in Washington
Former Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld speaks during the 38th annual CPAC in Washington

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two American men can go ahead with a civil lawsuit against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, an appeals court said Monday, over allegations they were tortured in Iraq at the hands of the U.S. military.

Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel sued in federal court seeking damages from Rumsfeld and unnamed others over their roles in developing, authorizing and using harsh interrogation techniques in Iraq against them, thus violating their rights.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, based in Chicago, upheld a decision by a federal judge in Illinois to allow the lawsuit to proceed despite efforts by the former Bush and current Obama administration to get the case dismissed.

The two men worked for a private security company in Iraq in 2006 and said they became concerned the firm was engaging in illegal bribery or other corruption activities. They notified U.S. authorities and began cooperating with them.

In early 2006, they were taken into custody by U.S. military forces and eventually taken to Camp Cropper near Baghdad's airport. Vance and Ertel claimed they were subjected to harsh interrogations and physical and emotional abuse.

Months later they said they were unceremoniously dropped at the airport and never charged with a crime. They sued, seeking unspecified damages and saying their constitutional rights had been violated and U.S. officials knew they were innocent.

The appeals court ruled that while it may have been unusual for Rumsfeld to be personally responsible for the treatment of detainees, the two men had sufficiently argued that the decisions were made at the highest levels of government.

"We agree with the district court that the plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to show that Secretary Rumsfeld personally established the relevant policies that caused the alleged violations of their constitutional rights during detention," the court ruled in a split decision.

The three-judge panel voted 2-1 to affirm the lower court ruling. Judge Daniel Manion dissented, saying Congress has yet to decide whether courts should have a role in deciding whether such claims against the U.S. military can be pursued.

A lawyer representing Rumsfeld said the appeals court decision was a blow to the U.S. military.

"Having judges second guess the decisions made by the armed forces halfway around the world is no way to wage a war," attorney David Rivkin said in a statement.

"It saps the effectiveness of the military, puts American soldiers at risk, and shackles federal officials who have a constitutional duty to protect America."

A spokesman for the U.S. Justice Department, which has been representing the former defense secretary, had no immediate comment. The Justice Department could appeal to the full appeals court or to the U.S. Supreme Court.

There have been other lawsuits against Rumsfeld and the U.S. government over allegations of abuse and torture overseas, but most involved foreigners, not U.S. citizens, so federal courts have typically dismissed those cases.

A district judge in Washington last week allowed a similar case to proceed involving an American translator who worked in Iraq with the U.S. military and who said he was later detained and subjected to harsh interrogation techniques and abuse.

(Reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky and James Vicini, editing by Todd Eastham)

Comments