Judge says American can sue Rumsfeld over torture

[Anonymous]

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-allows-american-sue-rumsfeld-over-torture-204027220.html

What say the Defenders of Liberty on DCUM? Does the guy stand a chance? And why on earth has the Obama administration been defending Rumsfeld?

[Anonymous]

The administration is defending the institution of the executive branch. It's not about the individual but about the precedent that a cabinet member could be sued for official actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The administration is defending the institution of the executive branch. It's not about the individual but about the precedent that a cabinet member could be sued for official actions.

Oh, so they are taking the position that cabinet members are allowed to violate Americans' due process rights and torture them as long as they do it in the context of official actions?
Isn't this how we get admirable historical events such as the Japanese-American internment camps or the House unAmerican Activities Committee, and so on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The administration is defending the institution of the executive branch. It's not about the individual but about the precedent that a cabinet member could be sued for official actions.

Oh, so they are taking the position that cabinet members are allowed to violate Americans' due process rights and torture them as long as they do it in the context of official actions?
Isn't this how we get admirable historical events such as the Japanese-American internment camps or the House unAmerican Activities Committee, and so on?

Umm . . . no, that's not actually what they're saying. They're saying that executive branch officials can't be sued individually for official actions. Remedies must be sought against the United States as an entity, not the individual. It's a concept that every administration, regardless of party affiliation, holds very dear and fights to protect in court - for obvious reasons. The particular circumstances have very little (actually, nothing) to do with the principle at stake.

[Anonymous]

So how can we justify having an International Criminal Court that can try leaders of other countries on an individual basis while insisting on this kind of immunity for our elected officials?

Is the difference one of numbers (if you torture or murder tens of thousands, you are a war crimes suspect, but a few hundred are ok)?
Or is it that the Hague would simply never dare accuse an American official of such things because we throw our weight around?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So how can we justify having an International Criminal Court that can try leaders of other countries on an individual basis while insisting on this kind of immunity for our elected officials?

Is the difference one of numbers (if you torture or murder tens of thousands, you are a war crimes suspect, but a few hundred are ok)?
Or is it that the Hague would simply never dare accuse an American official of such things because we throw our weight around?

I think that the difference is that this is a civil suit, not a criminal case. I think that our government or an international court could bring criminal charges against an individual.