| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Court rules Guantanamo Brits can sue |
| 2006-05-09 |
| A US court has ruled four Britons can take court action claiming their religious freedoms were infringed while they were detainees at Guantanamo. The four, who were released in 2004 without any charges, are claiming $US10 million ($13.04 million) in damages from US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior military officials. A US District Court in Washington ruled yesterday action could go ahead under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says US government officials must not stop any person carrying out their religious beliefs. The action by Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Ruhal Ahmed and Jamal al-Harith also alleges the Pentagon chain of command authorised and condoned torture and other mistreatment. The US government argued at a hearing that the action should be dismissed. But Judge Ricardo Urbina ruled the Britons' claims that they were mistreated and stopped from practicing their religion while incarcerated at the Guantanamo Naval Base could proceed under the 1993 act. His decision said the allegation was that US government officials committed a "direct affront to one of this nation's most cherished constitutional traditions". US courts have previously dismissed actions brought on behalf of Guantanamo detainees under the Geneva conventions and other actions claiming the behaviour of the US military at Guantanamo had been unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is currently considering a case challenging the legality of military tribunals held at the base. "Mr Rasul and the other plaintiffs in this case were denied basic rights to worship as part of a systematic attempt to denigrate them as human beings," said their lead lawyer Eric Lewis. "Judge Urbina's decision sends a strong message that Secretary Rumsfeld and the Generals who implemented these policies will be held accountable," said Mr Lewis. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #9 Not only can they Sue they can Joan or maybe Glenda. With a little imagination anything's possible....... |
| Posted by: Dorf 2006-05-09 23:36 |
| #8 I demand that we immediately enforce the Geneva Convention, as regards to illegal combatants. Give them a military tribunal, execute the guilty. I mean, how is it possible that we did not allow them to practice their religion? We gave each prisoner a Koran in his native language, put up signs pointing to Mecca, provided Muslim chaplains, halal food, prayer rugs. They probably broadcast the call to prayer five times a day. About the only things we didn't give them were radical imams preaching jihad, infidels to kill, and suicide belts. |
| Posted by: Rambler 2006-05-09 23:17 |
| #7 I doubt they'll win - US laws apply only to US citizens, legal rsidents, the 50 States, and any area under US jusrisdiction. As Brtons, they only genuine claim they MIGHT have is not being immediately released to Brit authorities after capture, plus of course the infamous US Ninth's ruling that America is an illegal and unconstitutional nation to begin with, i.e. any and all US Governing/Public Authorities is illegal andor unlawful to begin with ergo the USA has no right to wage wars, or defend from war or attack, let alone prosecute or investigate anyone for anything. IN THE REAL WORLD, HOWEVER, AND AS FOREIGN NATIONALS, IFF THEY WERE CAUGHT IN REAL OR ALLEGED ARMED COMBAT AGAINST US FORCES, THE ARMY-USDOD CAN HOLD THEM INDEFINITELY UNTIL THE ARMY-USDOD AND ONLY THE ARMY-USDOD IS SATISFIED OF THEIR ROLE IN THE ACTION. I'd be surprised if this article amounts to anything mnore than the usual anti-Dubya/GOP, "error-prone America =wilful Imperialist America" MSM bluster. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-05-09 22:38 |
| #6 execute them now. Satisfies law and forgoes future appeals. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-05-09 22:30 |
| #5 How did we ever manage to win WWII? |
| Posted by: doc 2006-05-09 21:50 |
| #4 How can someone who qualifies for summary execution have any rights? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-05-09 21:40 |
#3 The dishonorable District Jerk Urbino was appointed by guess who, elevating him from divorce court?Judge Urbina was appointed to the United States District Court in July 1994. He received a B.A. in 1967 from Georgetown University and graduated from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1970. He served as staff attorney for the D.C. Public Defender Service from 1970 to 1972 and then entered private practice. From 1974 to 1981 he taught at Howard University Law School and directed the UniversityÂ’s Criminal Justice Program. He was appointed Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in April 1981, and served as Presiding Judge of the CourtÂ’s Family Division from 1985 to 1988. For all you tempted to vote third party, enjoy all the Urbinos who get on the bench courtesy of your self centered statement. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-05-09 21:25 |
| #2 I am guessing Clinton appointment but to lazy to look it up. All lawyers and Judges are 2 bit scumb INMSHO as everyone knows. I am a reall hard ass on it. I am extreme about it. According to just about everyone in the Democrat party and on the left we are not in a war. By claiming that they are free to cut and run and act like it's police work. The WoT is not the "unjust illegal war" in Iraq but just police work an giving away state serects and treason is not a criminal act. If the plantifs are dead can they still sue? Just saying, you know because, I want to know thats all. |
| Posted by: SPoD 2006-05-09 21:23 |
| #1 What bullshit. Are we at war or not? |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-05-09 21:06 |