Â â€œThese plaintiffs have alleged a grave breach of our most basic social compact â€” between ‘We the People’ and the government we created in our Constitution.â€
â€œPlaintiffs have alleged in sufficient detail facts supporting Secretary Rumsfeldâ€™s personal responsibility for the alleged torture.â€
â€“ United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Vance v. Rumsfeld
Chicago, IL â€• A federal appeals court today (August 8, 2011) rejected former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeldâ€™s attempt to dismiss an anti-torture suit against him.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Federal Judge Wayne R. Andersonâ€™s March 2010 decision to allow the suit over Rumsfeldâ€™s orders which allegedly led to the 2006 torture of two military contractors, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, U.S. citizens who were working in Iraq.
The Appeals Court is now the highest court to have upheld the right of citizens to pursue an anti-torture claim against a federal Cabinet-level official.Â A copy of the decision can be found here.
The Appeals Court, in a decision written by Judge David F. Hamilton, expressed its belief that the issues raised by the case go to the very heart of the constitutional democracy that â€œWe the Peopleâ€ formed:
â€œThe wrongdoing alleged here violates the most basic terms of the constitutional compact between our government and the citizens of this country. . . . . Viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, as we must at this stage, this is exactly what the plaintiffs have pled. There can be no doubt that the deliberate infliction of such treatment on U.S. citizens, even in a war zone, is unconstitutional.â€
Commenting on todayâ€™s decision, Mike Kanovitz of Loevy & Loevy, the lead attorney in both Vance and Doe, said,
â€œThis Court was faced with a choice between protecting the most fundamental rights of American citizens in the difficult context of a war or leaving those rights solely in the hands of politicians and the military.Â The Court sided with the rights of the citizens. It was not an easy choice for the Court to make, but it was the brave and right choice.â€Â
The case, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel v. Donald Rumsfeld, et al (06 C 6964), is one of only two cases out of over a dozen alleging Rumsfeldâ€™s responsibility for torture that have been allowed to proceed. The other is John Doe v. Donald Rumsfeld, et al (08-cv-1902 CKK).Â In both cases the plaintiffs are represented by Mike Kanovitz, Jon Loevy and Gayle Horn of the Chicago-based civil rights firm, Loevy & Loevy, with the Washington, DC-based nonprofit Government Accountability Project acting as co-counsel in Doe v. Rumsfeld.Â Last week the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected Rumsfeldâ€™s attempt to dismiss the Doe suit against him (see that decision here).
In 2006, Donald Vance, a Navy veteran, and Nathan Ertel were imprisoned without charges in a U.S. military prison in Iraq: Vance for over three months and Ertel for one and one-half months.Â Both men, who were private security employees in Baghdad, named former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a defendant for his role in overseeing the military prison system in Iraq.
Rumsfeld allegedly issued orders allowing torture techniques which caused Vance and Ertel to be subjected to extreme sleep deprivation, â€œwalling,â€Â â€œhooding,â€ interrogation for hours at a time, and to be held in an extremely cold cell without adequate clothing or blankets, and periodically denied food and water for long periods.Â During virtually Vanceâ€™s entire three month imprisonment at the notorious Camp Cropper near Baghdad International Airport, he was held in solitary confinement in a continuously lit, windowless cell.
â€œPlaintiffsâ€¦allege that in August 2003 Rumsfeld sent Major Geoffrey Miller to Iraq to review the United States prison system,â€ read Andersenâ€™s decision.Â â€œPlaintiffs claim that Rumsfeld informed Major Miller that his mission was to â€˜gitmo-izeâ€™ Camp Cropperâ€¦ These allegations, if true, would substantiate plaintiffsâ€™ claim that Rumsfeld was aware of the direct impact that his newly approved treatment methods were having on detainees in Iraqâ€¦ Based on these allegations, we conclude that plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to survive Rumsfeldâ€™s motion to dismiss on account of a lack of personal involvementâ€¦ Accepting at this stage that these treatment methods were in fact used, we conclude that a court might plausibly determine that the conditions of confinement were torturous.â€
As employees of Shield Group Security (SGS), Vance and co-worker Ertel suspected their employer of paying local sheiks for influence in obtaining government contracts and of other illegal dealings.Â To combat the suspected illegal activity, Vance and Ertel became unpaid informants to the FBI in Chicago and U.S. officials in Iraq.Â When SGS officials threatened Vance’s and Ertel’s lives, they arranged for U.S. military forces to rescue them.Â But after a few hours of interrogation and then rest at the U.S. embassy, the U.S. imprisoned Vance and Ertel, beginning their nightmarish imprisonment without habeus corpus. Once they were in U.S. custody, low-level bureaucrats invoked the unprecedented powers Rumsfeld had given them to imprison Mr. Vance and Mr. Ertel as “persons of interest” to the United States. Three months of interrogation followed, in which Mr. Vance and Mr. Ertel were physically abused and denied the right to counsel, the right of access to the courts, and any legitimate process to challenge his illegal detention.
For more information:
Contact: Andy Thayer, Loevy & Loevy Attorneys at Law
Phone: 312.243.5900; 773.209.1187
Contact: Dylan Blaylock, GAP Communications Director
Phone: 202.457.0034, ext. 137
Loevy & Loevy
Loevy & Loevy Attorneys at Law is the largest civil rights firm in the Midwest. Â Over the past decade, Loevy & Loevy has won more in jury verdicts against law enforcement abuses than any other firm in the region.
Government Accountability Project
The Government Accountability Project is the nationâ€™s leading whistleblower protection organization. Through litigating whistleblower cases, publicizing concerns and developing legal reforms, GAPâ€™s mission is to protect the public interest by promoting government and corporate accountability. Founded in 1977, GAP is a non-profit, non-partisan advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C.