SOTUS has refused to hear a suit seeking accountability for Guantanamo torture

[AAjax]

http://trueslant.com/allisonkilkenn...t-rules-torture-is-a-foreseeable-consequence/

"The Supreme Court has refused to hear a suit seeking accountability for Guantanamo torture. (h/t Digby) SCOTUS received an assist from the Obama White House, which had asked the court not to hear the case.

Today, the United States Supreme Court refused to review a lower court’s dismissal of a case brought by four British former detainees against Donald Rumsfeld and senior military officers for ordering torture and religious abuse at Guantánamo. The British detainees spent more than two years in Guantanamo and were repatriated to the U.K. in 2004."

Gosh, this is getting even more depressing by the minute. Is there any justice to be had in the US?

 

[Zorkorist]

Can you elaborate on the story, because I admit I am unfamiliar with it.

These British detainees, were captured in Afghanistan/Iraq?

They were Muslim... duh.

etc.?

-John

 

[cubeless]

Can you elaborate on the story, because I admit I am unfamiliar with it.

These British detainees, were captured in Afghanistan/Iraq?

They were Muslim... duh.

etc.?

-John

this wasn't j of s and the guys he hangs out in his basement with, was it? ;p

anyone can sue in the us...

 

[JEDIYoda]

http://trueslant.com/allisonkilkenn...t-rules-torture-is-a-foreseeable-consequence/

"The Supreme Court has refused to hear a suit seeking accountability for Guantanamo torture. (h/t Digby) SCOTUS received an assist from the Obama White House, which had asked the court not to hear the case.

Today, the United States Supreme Court refused to review a lower court’s dismissal of a case brought by four British former detainees against Donald Rumsfeld and senior military officers for ordering torture and religious abuse at Guantánamo. The British detainees spent more than two years in Guantanamo and were repatriated to the U.K. in 2004."

Gosh, this is getting even more depressing by the minute. Is there any justice to be had in the US?

That was justice. Sorry if some of us think you are making a big deal out of nothing!!

 

[Patranus]

http://trueslant.com/allisonkilkenn...t-rules-torture-is-a-foreseeable-consequence/

"The Supreme Court has refused to hear a suit seeking accountability for Guantanamo torture. (h/t Digby) SCOTUS received an assist from the Obama White House, which had asked the court not to hear the case.

So much for the separation of powers.....

 

[Zorkorist]

I'd learned it as three branches of power, with checks and balances.

The judiciary, congress, and executive branches.

But your post sent chills down my bones, when I realized how today, they are but one.

One, dominating power.

 

[PokerGuy]

I wouldn't mind seeing an article about it written by a less biased source. The one referenced in the OP is clearly libtard slanted garbage.....

 

[whylaff]

Two things..

The Court typically avoids hotly debated political issues. (Let me add, that what the Court views as “hotly debated” and what this forum or Internet in general does are two very different things.) This would probably qualify as one of them. The President asking them not to hear the case has no bearing on the issue—they can if they want to.

Secondly, if there are members of the Court who are interested in addressing a particular issue, they will often wait until the ideal case comes about.

 

[Moonbeam]

Take it to the Hague.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Take it to the Hague.

I agree.. Obama should be charged with war crimes for his activities.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Religious abuse?

When is that protected under any rules of war?

 

[Craig234]

http://trueslant.com/allisonkilkenn...t-rules-torture-is-a-foreseeable-consequence/

"The Supreme Court has refused to hear a suit seeking accountability for Guantanamo torture. (h/t Digby) SCOTUS received an assist from the Obama White House, which had asked the court not to hear the case.

Today, the United States Supreme Court refused to review a lower court?s dismissal of a case brought by four British former detainees against Donald Rumsfeld and senior military officers for ordering torture and religious abuse at Guantánamo. The British detainees spent more than two years in Guantanamo and were repatriated to the U.K. in 2004."

Gosh, this is getting even more depressing by the minute. Is there any justice to be had in the US?

Our system lacks justice and is legally barbaric on this issue. People ignore it in part because they personally have far more rights, and the just don't give a crap about the foreigners, withoutthe right photos.

 

[Fern]

I'd learned it as three branches of power, with checks and balances.

The judiciary, congress, and executive branches.

But your post sent chills down my bones, when I realized how today, they are but one.

One, dominating power.

Sounds like you're being overly dramatic.

The Exec branch, as well as a host of other interested parties, have long been supplying the SCOTUS with amicus briefs.

I.e., nothing new with that.

Author of the (blog) article appears unfamiliar with the law and court decisions and has just produced an emotional rant piece.

While I've little doubt the decision to not hear the case is controversial among some, at least we should be looking at educated analyses (from both sides) before getting all up in arms.

Fern

 

[Rainsford]

Sounds like you're being overly dramatic.

The Exec branch, as well as a host of other interested parties, have long been supplying the SCOTUS with amicus briefs.

I.e., nothing new with that.

Author of the (blog) article appears unfamiliar with the law and court decisions and has just produced an emotional rant piece.

While I've little doubt the decision to not hear the case is controversial among some, at least we should be looking at educated analyses (from both sides) before getting all up in arms.

Fern

Indeed. SCOTUS has their reasons for doing things, but so far I have seen no evidence that they are puppets of the executive branch. Far from it. Despite the best efforts of generations of Presidents, SCOTUS tends to do whatever they want.

 

[Double Trouble]

That's one of the upsides of having appointments for life to the SCOTUS. They don't have to answer to any political pressure or the whim of voters etc. The downside is, you can't undo a mistake when it becomes clear that someone appointed to the SCOTUS is not fit for that job.

I haven't seen anything to indicate that the scotus is somehow in the white house's pocket.

 

[Craig234]

That's one of the upsides of having appointments for life to the SCOTUS. They don't have to answer to any political pressure or the whim of voters etc. The downside is, you can't undo a mistake when it becomes clear that someone appointed to the SCOTUS is not fit for that job.

I haven't seen anything to indicate that the scotus is somehow in the white house's pocket.

We have a right-wing court and a President whose policies on this issue are as far or further right than Bush's. The court isn't under pressure from the President, they're aligned with him on this issue.

I haven't looked into this issue to say whether the court's right-wing extremism has any role in this ruling - it might be a perfectly correct ruling as far as I know without any role for ideology.

But whatever the case on that, IMO the system, the rules in place are not providing justice to the innocent detainees (and probalbly not the guilty ones either).