Judge Allows Army Veteran to Sue Rumsfeld for Damages Over Torture

By | August 5, 2011

  • August 5, 2011 at 1:40 pm
    Cheri says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Gee…..detaining Citizens and denying them legal representation, refusing to acknowledgement their detainment to family members and torturing them while accusing them of unsubstantiated crimes….who does that sound like….perhaps Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Egypts Mubarak….could not possibly be our sweet and innocent Rumsfeld, could it? After all isn’t he obligated to uphold the US Constitution?

    • August 8, 2011 at 2:43 pm
      GregCW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Isn’t Rumsfeld innocent until proven guilty? and also protected by the 5th ammendment. His silence is NOT an admission of anything.

  • August 5, 2011 at 2:30 pm
    Facto Mundo says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Rumsfeld, Cheney and all those old Bush geezers should be thrown in prison with Bernie Madoff for “scamming” this country into an unsubstantiated war. I’m conservative when it comes to politics. But these Republican geriatric thugs are guilty of starting this country’s down slide and the liberal Democrats who are guilty of increasing the down slide’s momentum. Heaven please deliver us from the incompetence of all these political low lives.

    • August 8, 2011 at 5:24 pm
      Earl says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Please get a grip. Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, loud music etc is not torture. Every member of the US Military has been subjected to this at some point in their military training. As a vet I can personally attest to much harsher treatment in basic training such as the bear pit, gas chambers, sleep deprivation and a good beating if you mouthed off to a drill sargeant. This Obama clown and his band of dumbell democrats need to go. Start the Impeachment process of Obummer now and save America.

  • August 5, 2011 at 3:01 pm
    Sarah@aol.com says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So I guess this will apply to Leon Panetta with regards to the contractors in Afganistan, Iraq and Lybia? I guess when you serve your country in any capacity you are personally liable for the actions of your subordinates even if it were without your knowledge? Hmmmmmmmm… Sounds and smells like ideological politics to me!

  • August 5, 2011 at 5:59 pm
    Raider Fan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Again, comments made when the facts are printed in the thirteenth paragraph, (Rumsfeld approved methods)that defer to a Democrat that had nothing to do with the Bush crooks. Why is it so hard for some people not to admit that the United States of America is not a third world country and we shouldn’t act like one thru our presidents cabinet.

    If we as Americans keep being angry at each other there will be no America. This is how a dictator by either party takes control. United we stand, devided we fall! Simple common sense.

  • August 7, 2011 at 3:23 pm
    Boonedoggle says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I don’t know if their should be criminal or civil responsibility, but somehow the Veteran should be allowed his day in court to seek remedy. Didn’t Rumsfeld, Bush Ashcroft et al take an oath to support the Constitution?

    If a course for remedy is not provided to this man, then we should at least delete the wording “With Liberty and JUSTICE for all from the Pledge of Allegiance”

  • August 8, 2011 at 7:54 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    first of all, just because he’s a veteran does not give him any extra benefits. of course i want to thank him for his service because i am a navy vet. but the crux of this story is based on the final paragraph..

    “In November 2005, when he was to go on home leave, Navy Criminal Investigative Service agents questioned him about his work, refusing his requests for representation by his employer, the Marines or an attorney. The Justice Department says he was told he was suspected of helping provide classified information to the enemy and helping anti-coalition forces attempting to cross from Syria into Iraq.”

    my first reaction is are they sure they got the right guy? because a vet helping as a contractor to the marines, does not like someone who would betray his country, but then again, we have seen different things during a war. they better had good evidence or believed to have good reason to bring him in for questioning. as far as torture, they had better first classify him as a pow because anything beyond talking should have been prohibited. this could get interesting without leaking any classified information.

  • August 8, 2011 at 9:07 am
    Water Bug says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Wow! The howling lefty socialists are out in force on this one. If the guy was passing classified information to the enemy or undermining the war effort he needs to be stopped. Why not wait until the facts come out before engaging in pontless rants against President Bush or Donald Rumsfeld.

    • August 11, 2011 at 2:11 pm
      GregCW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Like I said previously innocent until PROVEN guilty!

      • August 12, 2011 at 1:52 pm
        Cheri says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Too bad that veteran did not have that same benefit before being tortured.

  • August 8, 2011 at 9:17 am
    Objective says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Once again, you only read into a story pursuant to your own opinion. Did you see the part where the Obama Administration is representing Rumsfeld through the Justice Department (meaning the people who are there now!). There is no politics here. The Judge is saying that the guy has rights under the constitution here and abroad. That’s all!

    • August 8, 2011 at 1:36 pm
      Bill says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Not quite. The Judge is saying the Plaintiff has sufficient reason to pursue a judgment personally against Sec. Rumsfeld, and if successful, to be paid damages from Rumsfeld’s personal assets. The Plaintiff probably has to show that Rumsfeld was “out to get him,” or that Plaintiff’s relationshiop with Rumsfeld was unique, so that the only conclusion that can reasonably be inferred is that Rumsfeld was “out to get him.”



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*