Gitmo Torture Appeal Rejected关塔那摩酷刑上诉驳回

US appellate court rejects British victims’ suit for Guantánamo torture damages 美国上诉法院拒绝英受害者诉讼关塔那摩酷刑赔偿

By由 John Burton约翰伯顿

On January 11, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a case brought by four British citizens seeking money damages to compensate them for having been tortured by the US government. 1月11日，美国上诉法院哥伦比亚地区巡回驳回了诉讼案4名英国公民寻求金钱赔偿，以补偿它们因饱受美国政府的不满。 The four individuals were held for more than two years at the United States Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. 4个个人被关押了两年多，在美国关塔那摩海军基地位于古巴。

With an outlandish display of convoluted and specious logic, the three-judge panel issued a precedent establishing that non-US citizens outside US national borders cannot seek any redress in any US court for torture or other deprivations of constitutional and statutory rights inflicted by US government officials.同一个古怪展示的错综复杂和似是而非的逻辑，三名法官组成的小组发表了一个先例，建立非美国公民，美国以外的国家边界不能寻求任何补救，任何美国法院为酷刑或其他剥夺宪法和法定权益受到美国政府官员。

Ironically, the decision was issued on the sixth anniversary of the Guantánamo Bay’s opening, which was marked by protests and demonstrations around the world.讽刺的是，这项决定是对发行六周年的关塔那摩湾的开放，它的标志是抗议和示威活动，世界各地。 About 200 demonstrators, many wearing orange jumpsuits, marched from the US Capitol to the Supreme Court building in Washington, DC.大约200名示威者，不少穿着橙色的囚服，游行，从美国国会到最高法院大楼，在华盛顿特区。 Others demonstrations took place in London, Sydney, Rome, Athens and Madrid.其他示威活动发生在伦敦，悉尼，罗马，雅典和马德里。 Terry Hicks, the father of freed Australian Guantánamo prisoner David Hicks, participated in a protest in the Australian city of Adelaide.特里希克斯，父亲获释关塔那摩的澳大利亚囚犯戴维希克斯，参加了一次抗议在澳大利亚阿德莱德市。

Incarcerating as many as 800 prisoners at its peak, the Guantánamo prison population today is reportedly around 275.关押多达800名囚犯处于高峰期，关塔那摩监狱人口今天是据报大约275 。

To reach its politically pre-determined result—ratifying the Bush administration’s creation of a legal “black hole” beyond both domestic and international law—the three-judge panel concluded that Guantánamo Bay prisoners: (1) cannot sue under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) or the Geneva Conventions because their torturers acted within the scope of their federal employment; (2) have no rights under the US Constitution because they are neither US citizens nor within US territorial jurisdiction; and (3) are not “persons” protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).为了达到其政治上预先确定结果的批准布什政府的建立一个法律上的"黑洞" ，超出了两国的国内法和国际法-三名法官组成的小组得出结论认为，关塔那摩湾囚犯： （ 1 ）可以不起诉，根据外国民事侵权章程（苯丙胺类兴奋剂）或日内瓦四公约，因为他们施刑的范围内行事，他们的联邦就业; （ 2 ）没有权利根据美国宪法，因为他们既不是美国公民，也不符合美国的属地管理; （ 3 ）不"的人"保护恢复宗教自由法（ rfra ） 。

Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed and Jamal Al-Harith were captured in Afghanistan by General Rashid Dostum, a Northern Alliance warlord, on November 28, 2001. shafiq进会员， asif伊克巴尔， rhuhel艾哈迈德和贾马尔基地Harith的人在阿富汗抓获的，由一般拉希德杜斯塔姆将军，北方联盟的军阀，对2001年11月28日。 They were turned over to the US military and held in Guantánamo until their release in March 2004.他们被移交给美国军方关押在关塔那摩监狱，直到将他们释放，在2004年3月。 (See （见 “Britain: Freed Guantánamo Bay detainees detail beatings and abuse” "英国：获释关塔那摩湾拘留详细毒打和虐待" ) ）

The following October, attorneys from the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in New York City filed a complaint for damages in federal district court, alleging that then secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with several high ranking military officers, expressly approved and promulgated policies to abuse and torture Guantánamo Bay prisoners.以下10月，律师，从宪法权利中心（中央控制室） ，在纽约市提交了一份投诉，要求赔偿，在联邦地区法院，指控当时的国务卿，国防部长拉姆斯菲尔德和迈尔斯将军，参谋长联席会议主席的工作人员，随着几个高级将领，明文批准颁布政策，以虐待和折磨关塔那摩湾的囚犯。

The CCR complaint sets out in detail the “cruel, inhuman and degrading” conditions to which the plaintiffs were subjected.绝食的投诉，详细列出了"残忍，不人道和有辱人格"的条件，而原告遭受了。 They were placed in “wire cages of about 2 meters by 2 meters” exposed to the elements, including scorching sunlight, and often were removed only once a week for a two-minute shower and again once a week for “five minutes recreation while their hands remained chained.”他们被安置在"钢丝笼约2公尺乘2米的"接触到的内容，包括炎热的阳光，而且往往被拆除，只有每周一次，两分钟的淋浴，并再次，每周一次， "五分钟休闲，而其手中仍用铁链" 。

Throughout their ordeal, the prisoners were repeatedly “beaten, shackled in painful stress positions, threatened by dogs, subjected to extreme temperatures and deprived of adequate sleep, food, sanitation, medical care and communication,” while being subjected to repeated, lengthy and coercive interrogations.其整个磨难，囚犯在监狱中被一再"毒打，脚镣，在痛苦的压力位置，威胁，狗，受到极端温度，剥夺睡眠不足，食品，卫生，医疗照顾与沟通" ，而遭受重复，冗长和胁迫盘问。

In addition to such physical and mental abuse, the plaintiffs allege “they were harassed while practicing their religion, including forced shaving of their beards, banning or interrupting their prayers, denying them copies of the Koran and prayer mats and throwing a copy of the Koran in a toilet bucket.”除了这种身体和精神虐待，原告指称， "他们骚扰的，而实践自己的宗教，包括强迫剃自己的胡子，禁止或打断他们的祈祷，剥夺了他们的副本可兰经和祈祷垫，并投掷一本可兰经在一个厕所水桶" 。

The government and military defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.在政府和军队被告方提出一项动议，罢免投诉。 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the reviewing court must accept all the factual allegations of the complaint as true and deny the motion to dismiss unless established law absolutely precludes recovery under any reasonable interpretation of the facts.根据联邦民事诉讼程序规则，复审法院必须接受所有事实的指控，投诉，因为真实而拒绝该动议罢免除非既定法律绝对排除复苏下，没有合理的解释与事实不符。 In March 2005 the trial judge dismissed parts of the case, but allowed the claim that the defendants interfered with the prisoners’ religious freedom to go forward.在2005年3月，主审法官驳回部分的情况下，但允许该声称被告干扰囚犯的宗教信仰自由向前迈进。 Both sides appealed.双方都提出上诉。 Last Friday’s decision followed almost three years later.上周五的决定，其次是近3年后的事。

Circuit Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson—appointed by George HW Bush to fill the seat vacated by Kenneth W. Starr in 1990—issued a 43-page opinion disposing of each claim on the most reactionary grounds possible.巡回法院法官卡伦lecraft恒基委任老布什，以填补悬空的议席由丁小Starr系，在1990年发表了一份43页的意见处置每声称对最反动的理由。

Henderson was joined by Judge A. Raymond Randolph, also appointed by the first president Bush.亨德森一起法官答：雷蒙德伦道夫，还任命了由第一任总统布什。 Randolph has previously authored two noxious decisions upholding the Bush administration’s assault on democratic rights.伦道夫此前曾执笔的两个有毒决定坚持布什政府的攻击对民主权利。 In Al Odah v. United States , he ruled that Guantánamo prisoners have no habeas corpus rights (See在Al odah诉美国 ，他裁定，关塔那摩囚犯并没有人身保护权（见 “US appeals court upholds denial of habeas corpus rights to Guantánamo detainees” "美国上诉法院坚持否认人身保护令的权利到关塔那摩被拘留者" ), and in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld he ruled that Guantánamo prisoners can be tried before military commissions that do not comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (See ） ，并在哈姆丹诉拉姆斯菲尔德 ，他裁定，关塔那摩的囚犯可以受到审判之前，军事委员会不遵照统一军事法典（见 “US court upholds military trials for Guantánamo prisoners” "美国一家法院坚持军事审判关塔那摩囚犯" ). ） 。

The Supreme Court later reversed both of these earlier decisions.最高法院后来推翻了上述两项先前的决定。 Because of subsequent Congressional actions, however, the issues presented by them remain unresolved.由于随后的国会的行动，不过，提出的问题，他们仍然没有得到解决。

Henderson wrote that the four plaintiffs could not sue the defendants under the Alien Tort Statute or the Geneva Conventions because each defendant was acting “within the scope of his employment.”恒基写道，该四名原告不能起诉被告根据外国民事侵权法规或日内瓦四公约，因为每名被告被代理"的范围，他的职业" 。

Henderson made the extraordinary declaration, “Torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military’s detention of suspected enemy combatants.” On this basis, she rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the immunity for federal employees acting within the scope of employment should not apply because the defendants torture policy “was never authorized,” was “seriously criminal,” “has long [been] condemned” by the United States and was a “substantial departure from the government’s ‘normal method’ of detaining and interrogating persons of interest.”恒基作出了不平凡的宣言， "酷刑是一个可预见的后果，军方的拘留可疑敌方战斗人员" ，在这个基础上，她拒绝了原告的论点，即豁免权，联邦雇员的范围内活动就业不应适用，因为被告酷刑政策"从未授权" ，是"严重的犯罪" ， "长期以来， [被]谴责" ，是由美国和是一个"重大的偏离了政府的正常方法'的拘留和审讯的人的兴趣"

Henderson then dismissed the constitutional claims based on denial of due process and cruel and unusual punishment by claiming, “Guantánamo detainees lack constitutional rights because they are aliens without property or presence in the United States.”亨德森则驳回索赔宪政的基础上否定了正当程序和残忍和不寻常的惩罚声称， "关塔那摩被拘留者缺乏宪法所赋予的权利，因为他们是外国人，没有财产或驻留在美国" 。

The argument is absurd as the US government exercises complete jurisdiction over the military base at Guantánamo, which it occupies pursuant to a perpetual $1 lease extracted from the Cuban government in 1903.其论点是荒谬的，因为美国政府行使完全的管辖超过军事基地在关塔那摩，其中占地依据一份永恒的一元租赁摘自古巴政府在1903年。 The opinion also defies recent Supreme Court precedent directly on point.该意见还无视最高法院最近的先例，直接就点。 Even if this were not the case, the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution constitutes a restriction on US governmental power, not a grant of rights or special privileges limited to US citizens or people within the national borders.即使是这样的情况并非如此，人权法案，美国宪法规定，构成限制，对美国政府权力，而不是给予的权利或特权，只限于美国公民或人民内部国界的限制。

The appellate court’s position means that under the Constitution anyone in the executive branch of the US government can go anywhere outside the strict territorial boundaries of the United States itself, capture anyone not a US citizen, and then subject him or her to extreme physical, mental and emotional abuse without any concern for liability in any US court arising from violations of US or international law.上诉法院的地位，是指根据宪法的人在行政部门的美国政府可以去任何地方外，严格领土边界的美国本身，捕捉任何人不是一个美国公民，然后受到他或她的极端物理上，精神上和情绪虐待，没有任何关心的赔偿责任在任何美国法院所带来的侵犯美国或国际法律。

Finally, the appellate court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants “inhibited and constrained religiously motivated conduct central to Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs,” when they “imposed a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ abilities to exercise or express their religious beliefs” and “regularly and systematically engaged in practices specifically aimed at disrupting Plaintiffs’ religious practices.”最后，上诉法院驳回了原告声称被告"抑制和制约，具有宗教动机进行中央到原告的宗教信仰， "当他们"施加了相当大的负担，对原告的能力行使或表达他们的宗教信仰" ， "定期系统地从事实践的具体目的是扰乱了原告的宗教惯例" 。

In the most patently offensive part of her opinion, Henderson wrote that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which provides that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion,” cannot be used by the British plaintiffs tortured at Guantánamo Bay because “persons”—as used in the statute—do not include “aliens … located outside sovereign United States territory.”在最具有攻击性的一部分，她认为，恒基写道恢复宗教自由法，其中规定， "政府应不会大幅负担一个人的行使宗教， "不能用于由英国人原告折磨关塔那摩湾的，因为"人" -用来作为该规约-不包括"外星人…位于外主权，美国的领土" 。

This argument was too much for the third member of the panel, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a right-wing judge appointed by George W. Bush, who enjoys a well-deserved reputation as a judicial loose cannon.这一论调被太多为第三小组的成员，法官人员Janice罗杰斯布朗，一名右翼法官任命是布什，他们都享有良好的声誉，作为一个司法松散炮。 Brown attacked the majority’s reasoning, but not its result.布朗抨击多数人的推理，而不是其结果。 “There is little mystery that a ‘person’ is an individual human being … as distinguished from an animal or thing,” Rogers wrote, adding that the opinion “leaves us with the unfortunate and quite dubious distinction of being the only court to declare those held at Guantánamo are not ‘person[s].’ This is a most regrettable holding in a case where plaintiffs have alleged high-level US government officials treated them as less than human.” "没有什么神秘的一个'人'是一个单独的人… …因为区别于动物或物件， "罗杰斯在日记中写道，在意见中， "留给我们的不幸和相当可疑的区别作为唯一法庭宣判那些举行关塔那摩不是'人[小] '这是一个最令人感到遗憾的，在控股的情况下，原告有所谓的高级别美国政府官员把它划归不到人" 。

Eric Lewis, a law partner in Washington, DC’s Baach Robinson & Lewis, who argued the appeal for the plaintiffs, called it “an awful day for the rule of law and common decency when a court finds that torture is all in a day’s work for the Secretary of Defense and senior generals….埃里克刘易斯一项法律，合伙人在华盛顿特区的baach罗宾逊＆刘易斯，他们辩称，呼吁为原告，称它是"一个可怕的日子，法治和礼仪时，法院认定酷刑，是所有在一天'的工作，为任国防部长和高级将领… … 。 It is an awful day for our tradition of respect for religious freedom and for our moral standing in the world when a court finds that these detainees are not ‘persons’ whose rights to observe their religion with dignity and without harassment are worthy of protection.”这是一个可怕的日子，我们的传统，尊重宗教自由，并为我们的道德在世界上的声望时，法院认定，这些被拘留者不是'人'的权利，以观察他们的信仰与尊严，不受骚扰，都是值得保护" 。

The Center for Constitutional Rights announced that it will be filing a petition for review in the Supreme Court.宪法权利中心宣布，该公司将提交一份请愿书供审查，在最高法院审理。

Comment on 'Gitmo Torture Appeal Rejected' : 评论'关塔那摩酷刑上诉驳回' ：

RSS 的RSS TrackBack URL 跟踪 RUI

Related News: 相关新闻：