Secretary Rumsfeld Attempts to Shirk Responsibility for U.S. Torture Policies, Say ACLU and Human Rights First

May 25, 2006 12:00 am

Media Contact
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
United States


Military Law Experts Say Preventing Abuse Is Part of Rumsfeld’s Job

torture is unamerican

> Report to the UN Committee Against Torture

> Government Torture and Abuse

NEW YORK — The American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First today announced their response to arguments by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and three other defendants that they are immune from a lawsuit holding them accountable for torture and abuse of civilians detained by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The Constitution prohibits the Secretary of Defense from adopting or permitting policies of torture or cruelty against civilians detained in U.S. military custody,” said Lucas Guttentag, lead counsel in the lawsuit and director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “He and the other defendants seem to believe that the Constitution is irrelevant if the victims are foreign nationals tortured outside the United States. That is not the law. The courts must be able to hold government officials accountable for the horrors of Abu Ghraib and the widespread abuse that resulted from the Rumsfeld policies.”

The filing is the latest development in a lawsuit against Secretary Rumsfeld brought by the ACLU and Human Rights First in March 2005 on behalf of victims of torture in U.S. custody. The ACLU also brought three related lawsuits against Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, former Brigadier General Janis Karpinski and Colonel Thomas Pappas. The four cases were consolidated and transferred to the federal district court in Washington D.C. last year. Today’s filing comes in response to arguments by Secretary Rumsfeld and the other defendants that even if all the facts in the complaint are proven true, the case must be dismissed because they are immune from liability.

“Our laws clearly state that commanders are responsible for the actions of their troops if they knew or should have known of their wrongdoing. Secretary Rumsfeld’s argument that ordering torture was ‘within the scope of his employment’ shows a complete disregard for U.S. and international law,” said Hina Shamsi, counsel in the lawsuit and senior counsel in the U.S. Law and Security Program at Human Rights First.

The combined lawsuit, which is the first federal court case to name a top U.S. official in the ongoing torture scandal in Iraq and Afghanistan, charges the Secretary and three senior commanders with legal responsibility for acts of torture and abuse against nine Iraqi and Afghan former detainees. The men represented in the lawsuit were held in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they were subjected to abuse, torture and other cruel and degrading treatment, including severe and repeated beatings, cutting with knives, sexual humiliation and assault, mock executions, death threats, and restraint in contorted and excruciating positions. None of the men was ever charged with a crime. All have been released.

Eight military law experts this week filed a “friend-of-the–court” brief in support of the ACLU and Human Rights First’s arguments on behalf of their clients. According to the experts, “It was the essence of Secretary Rumsfeld and other defendants’ scope of employment to educate and train those within their command responsibility to adhere to domestic and international standards and to do everything within their power to prevent and punish deviations from them.” The experts gave the court their opinion that, contrary to the position of Secretary Rumsfeld, allowing the federal case to proceed would not intrude into matters of national security and military decision-making.

Following the filing of the original lawsuits, the ACLU and Human Rights First filed an amended complaint on January 6, 2006, after the four lawsuits were consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Washington.

More information about the case including the latest filing and the friend-of-the court brief filed by the military law experts can be found online: and

Read the Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss

Read theAmici Curiae of Concerned Retired Military Officers And Military Law And History Scholars in Support of Plaintiffs’ Consolidated

Sign up to be the first to hear about how to take action.

Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release