US Court: "Those Held At GITMO - Are NOT Person(s)"

[kpete]

The court found the conduct of the U.S., towards its captives, to have been foreseeable. One cannot, at law, be bound to anticipate the *illegal* actions of another. Therefore, by implication, we’ve just had a United States District Court of Appeals find that torture is - legal

......................

In voiding suit, appellate court says torture is to be expected
By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008

......................

The court rejected other claims on the grounds that then-Attorney General John Ashcroft had certified that the military officials were acting within the scope of their jobs when they authorized the tactics, and that such tactics were ``foreseeable.''

``It was foreseeable that conduct that would ordinarily be indisputably `seriously criminal' would be implemented by military officials responsible for detaining and interrogating suspected enemy combatants,'' Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the court's main opinion.

Judge Janice Rogers Brown dissented with parts of the opinion, saying that ``it leaves us with the unfortunate and quite dubious distinction of being the only court to declare those held at Guantanamo are not `person(s).'

'`This is a most regrettable holding in a case where plaintiffs have alleged high-level U.S. government officials treated them as less than human,'' Brown wrote.

...................

In a 43-page opinion, Circuit Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a statute that applies by its terms to all “persons” did not apply to detainees at Guantánamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law. The Court also dismissed the detainees’ claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Geneva Conventions, finding defendants immune on the basis that “torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military’s detention of suspected enemy combatants.” Finally, the Court found that, even if torture and religious abuse were illegal, defendants were immune under the Constitution because they could not have reasonably known that detainees at Guantánamo had any constitutional rights.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/11/223033/125
The opinion is here (pdf): http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200801/06-5209a.pdf

more at:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/24654.html

[Xipe Totec]

1. Easily remedied

Have the Guantanamo detainees become corporations.

Create Shafiq Rasul Inc., Asif Iqbal Inc., and Rhuhel Ahmed Inc.

Then they will be persons in the eyes of the law, and protected by the constitution as persons.


Then they can sue.

[RuleOfNah]

2. Corporatize the Gitmoized?

Have the Guantanamo detainees become corporations.

Create Shafiq Rasul Inc., Asif Iqbal Inc., and Rhuhel Ahmed Inc.

Then they will be persons in the eyes of the law, and protected by the constitution as persons.


Then they can sue.

:wow:

That would be funny if it were not so insanely possible under the current regime. Their weak spot, corporate citizenry, combined with their branding.

[Occulus]

6. Not only possible, but actually LOGICAL.

Which is, pardon me for saying it like this, FUCKING FRIGHTENING.

It would have the blackly hilarious side effect of, ultimately, challenging corporate personhood.

We need an entire thread about this one.

[L. Coyote]

3. Ahh Yes, the legal basis of slavery rears its ugly head again.

Maybe they can grow cotton or something, you know, to pay for their upkeep!

Seriously, when states create institutions like slavery, it is always acomplished with carefully written laws defining rights, and who has them.

[Didereaux]

4. Although inane rulings are not rare, this one has certainly attained a rarefied level.

[Peace Patriot]

5. Huh?

Something tells be the Jabberwocky Bird just walked by. Go ask Alice.

[Hydra]

7. Wow, what a damn surprise

Who would have thought the courts would back up little boots? No one here saw THAT coming:sarcasm: