Two United States citizens can’t sue the federal government and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for being subjected to torture while detained by US force during the Iraq War, the Supreme Court decided Monday.
The high court rejected an appeal early Monday filed by Donald
Vance and Nathan Ertel, two US citizens who say Mr. Rumsfeld
should be held responsible for the treatment they endured while
detained for several weeks in 2006. Both men were placed in a
military prison in Baghdad for around three months that summer.
They had filed a complaint with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation about the Iraqi-owned security contractor they
worked for, then were scooped up by US forces and put behind bars
days later.
In a 2011 interview with Democracy Now!, Vance explained that
only a few months into working for the contractor, Shield Group
Security, he “started to notice some pretty frightening and
alarming illegal activity.”
“It ranged from bribery, theft, weapons dealing,” he
explained. “It was a gamut of illegal activities.”
Vance told the FBI about the allegations in 2005 and became an
unpaid informant for them shortly thereafter. Then in April 2006,
his cover was blown and he and Ertel were brought to the US
embassy in Baghdad – only to be turned over to the US military
and checked in to a temporary detention facility.
While detained in Baghdad, Vance and Ertel say they were tortured
and their rights of habeas corpus were violated. Specifically,
the men say they were subjected to sleep deprivation techniques
and other inhumane treatment, and Vance wasn’t allowed to make
contact with anyone in America until two weeks after his arrest.
Vance was kept in custody for more than two months after
authorities learned from the FBI that he was an informant.
“Even Saddam Hussein had more legal counsel than I ever
had,” Vance later told the New York Times “While we
were detained, we wrote a letter to the camp commandant stating
that the same democratic ideals we are trying to instill in the
fledgling democratic country of Iraq, from simple due process to
the Magna Carta, we are absolutely, positively refusing to follow
ourselves.”
In the interview with Democracy Now!, Vance recounted exactly
what happened for more than 90 days that summer:
“During my detainment, myself and Nathan Ertel, we endured the
authorized enhanced interrogation techniques that the military
currently employs. It ranges from sleep deprivation, food
manipulation, sensory deprivation, sensory overload, a technique
called ‘walling.’ And all of their questions surrounded on topics
like, ‘What did you tell the FBI? How long have you been doing
this? Why did you do this?’ And, of course, I answered all of
their questions, but I was not seeing any end to my
detention.”
Both men hoped to sue Rumsfeld and the federal government for a
slew of crimes, including false arrest, unlawful detention,
unlawful search and seizure, denial of right to counsel in
interrogations and denial of necessary medical care and denial to
present witnesses and evidence.
Because Sec. Rumsfeld personally approved of the so-called
enhanced interrogation techniques used in the prison, Vance and
Ertel filed a suit against him and the US government in late
2006. The case has since gone through a series hoops and other
obstacles, ending this week when the Supreme Court shot down an
attempt to appeal an early ruling.
Vance and Ertel asked the Supreme Court to reverse in 2012
decisions by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in which they
ruled that Rumsfeld could ont be sued for his role in approving
the torture techniques. The high court rejected that request,
reaffirming the Seventh Circuit Court’s decision.
“The earlier ruling was so broad that it applied to all
military officials, including the individuals who carried out
torture,” Stephen C. Webster wrote for Raw Story. “The
Supreme Court rejected an appeal of that ruling on Monday without
comment, solidifying the lower court’s opinion that military
officials are immune to civil lawsuits over torture.”
This article originally appeared on: RT