Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Suit Seeking Accountability for Guantanamo Torture
NEW YORK - December 14 -

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.

The Obama administration had asked the court not to hear the case. By refusing to hear the case, the Court let stand an earlier opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court which found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a statute that applies by its terms to all "persons" did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law. The lower 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 circuit 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 Guantanamo had any Constitutional rights.

Eric Lewis, a partner in Washington, D.C.'s Baach Robinson & Lewis, lead attorney for the detainees, said, "It is an awful day for the rule of law and common decency when the Supreme Court lets stand such an inhuman decision. The final word on whether these men had a right not to be tortured or a right to practice their religion free from abuse is that they did not. Future prospective torturers can now draw comfort from this decision. The lower court found that torture is all in a days' work for the Secretary of Defense and senior generals. That violates the President's stated policy, our treaty obligations and universal legal norms. Yet the Obama administration, in its rush to protect executive power, lost its moral compass and persuaded the Supreme Court to avoid a central moral challenge. Today our standing in the world has suffered a further great loss."

The four former detainees - Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed, and Jamal Al-Harith - were held from 2002 to 2004 at Guantánamo before being sent home to England without being charged with any offense. They filed their case in 2004 seeking damages from former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and senior American military officers for violations of their constitutional rights and of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits infringement of religion by the U.S. government against any person. Their claims were dismissed in 2008 by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit when that court held that detainees have no rights under the Constitution and do not count as "persons" for purposes of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Last year, the Supreme Court granted the men's first petition, vacated the Court of Appeals decision and ordered the D.C. Circuit to reconsider its ruling in light of the Supreme Court's historic decision in Boumediene v. Bush, which held that Guantánamo is de facto U.S. territory and that detainees have a Constitutional right to habeas corpus.

On remand, the D.C. Circuit reiterated its view that the Constitution does not prohibit torture of detainees at Guantánamo and that detainees still are not "persons" protected from religious abuse. Finally, the Court of Appeals held that, in any event, the government officials involved are immune from liability because the right not to be tortured was not clearly established.

A second petition filed with the Court on August 24, 2009 pointed out that the Court of Appeals decision stands in conflict with all of the Supreme Court's recent precedent on Guantánamo and attacked the notion that the prohibitions against torture and religious abuse were not clearly established in 2002 when the petitioners were imprisoned.

Center for Constitutional Rights Senior Attorney Shayana Kadidal, co-counsel on the case, said, "We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has refused to hold Secretary Rumsfeld and the chain of civilian and military command accountable for torture at Guantánamo, and that the Obama administration sought to block torture victims from having their day in court. Where can these men seek justice now for the terrible things that were done to them? The entire world recognizes that torture and religious humiliation are never permissible tools for a government, yet our highest court seems to think otherwise."

CCR has led the legal battle over Guantanamo for the last seven years - sending the first ever habeas attorney to the base and sending the first attorney to meet with a former CIA "ghost detainee" there. CCR has been responsible for organizing and coordinating more than 500 pro bono lawyers across the country in order to represent the men at the base, ensuring that nearly all have the option of legal representation, and is representing detainees at Guantánamo before the Supreme Court for the third time this term. In addition, CCR has been working to resettle the approximately 60 men who remain at Guantánamo because they cannot return to their country of origin for fear of persecution and torture.

Liberian torture victims seeking damages to face ex-President Taylor's son in Fla. courtroom
CURT ANDERSON - AP Legal Affairs Writer
10:45 a.m. EST, December 10, 2009 MIAMI

(AP) Five Africans who claim they were tortured and abused in Liberia when former President Charles Taylor ruled will come to a U.S. courtroom next week seeking millions of dollars from the man they say ordered the atrocities: Taylor's son, Charles McArthur Emmanuel.

Emmanuel, also known as Charles "Chuckie" Taylor Jr., was convicted in federal court in Miami last year of violating U.S. anti-torture laws as a high-level enforcer for his father. He is serving a 97-year prison sentence. The five Liberian victims filed a lawsuit against him earlier this year, winning a default judgment in May that leaves only the question of damages for a trial that begins Monday. "No amount of money could ever undo the wrongs Taylor Jr. committed or fully restore the lives he destroyed," said Piper Hendricks, an attorney for Human Rights USA who represents the victims. " More!

U.S. Statement of Interest in Apartheid Reparation Claims under the Alien Tort Statute

Apartheid class suit going ahead

Thousands in the Eastern Cape have come forward as complainants in a multi-billion dollar class action lawsuit against some of South Africa’s top international firms, writes Asa Sokopo.

The firms, which include Mercedes-Benz (Daimler), IBM, General Motors and Ford, will soon be taken to task for their alleged role in aiding the apartheid regime.

Ten thousand people in the Eastern Cape and thousands more around the country have cleared their final hurdle in one of the biggest lawsuits in the country.

This has been followed by the US government’s call on Tuesday for the dismissal of an appeal by the firms.

Lead attorney John Ngcebetsha of Ngcebetsha Madlanga attorneys told the Daily Dispatch that this was due to a recent letter written by Justice Minister Jeff Radebe for the cases to be settled out of court.

In April, a landmark ruling in a United States court gave advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza and his legal team the right to sue multinational corporations that knowingly “aided and abetted” the apartheid government.

MBSA is accused of supplying apartheid forces with armoured Unimog military vehicles, which were used to suppress public meetings and marches in the country.

GM and Ford are also accused of “aiding and abetting torture … extrajudicial killing and apartheid”.

IBM is accused of providing technology used by the apartheid regime in displacing South Africans to Bantustans.

While Ngcebetsha said that it was impossible to give an exact figure on the lawsuit, it is expected to be worth billions of dollars.

Ngcebetsha also said that the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu), through its general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi, and the Council of Churches(SACC) have also showed their support.

MBSA spokesperson Madelaine van Wyk said that Daimler never cooperated with the South African security forces for the perpetuation of apartheid.

“At numerous times Daimler’s management publicly expressed its opposition to apartheid, including the head of MBSA at that time, Jürgen Schrempp, in the immediate presence of representatives of the apartheid regime.

In 1999, Nelson Mandela awarded Mr Schrempp South Africa’s highest civilian medal, the Order of Good Hope, in recognition of his involvement in South Africa,” she said.

The class action lawsuit was brought in 2001 by Ntsebeza, with University of Cape Town sociology professor Lungisile Ntsebeza as lead plaintiff, under America’s Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreigners to bring human rights claims in American courts.

Claims were initially dismissed in 2004 by US district judge John Sprizzo but the class action suit was reinstated on April 8, by Southern District of New York Judge Shira Scheindlin.

The case will be heard on January 6.

Iraq dealings still plaguing oilman Wyatt
By Alexander Besant - Hearst Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — An attorney for Texas oil mogul Oscar Wyatt said Friday that a pending lawsuit accusing Wyatt of indirectly funding Hamas terrorists could have wide-ranging ramifications for the U.S. oil industry.

Wyatt, who was released from prison last year after serving a year for his role in an oil-for-food scandal that rocked the United Nations, now is facing a lawsuit from more than 50 Israeli citizens. They claim that bribes Wyatt paid to former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s government make him liable for the deaths or injuries of their family members who fell victim to Hamas suicide bombings.

“If buying oil from Iraq makes you an accomplice in terrorism, then we’re all in a world of hurt,” said Carl Parker of Port Arthur, Wyatt’s lawyer, who for many years was a state senator.
“If my clients are stuck, then all oil companies in the United States are stuck,” Parker said.
The case was moved this week from U.S. District Court in Washington to Houston, where the transactions took place.

The case is being brought against Wyatt under the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789, which allows foreign citizens to have their cases heard in U.S. courts.

The plaintiffs are asking for $1 billion in damages from Wyatt and his company, NuCoastal Corp., claiming he was aware such money was used as a “financial reward and incitement program which rewarded the families of martyrs and suicide bombers in an effort to incentivize acts of terrorism.”

Wyatt’s troubles with the law began in 2004, when he was named by the CIA for having been awarded vouchers by the Iraqi government to secure lucrative oil contracts.

In 2007, the Texas businessman pleaded guilty for paying kickbacks to Iraq under the oil-for-food program, which was shut down in 2003 after revelations of collusion between oil companies, U.N. officials and the Iraqi government came to light.

U.S. Court Allows Human Rights Suit Against former Bolivian President and Defense Minister to Proceed

Washington, D.C. 15 November (Asiantribune.com):
The U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida ruled November 9 that the claims for crimes against humanity and extrajudicial killings could move forward in two related U.S. cases against former Bolivian president and former Bolivian defense minister.
The court allowed the case to proceed under the Alien Tort Statute, a U.S. federal legislation.
Judge Adalberto Jordan ruled that Bolivian plaintiffs have viable claims against former president Sánchez de Lozada and former defense minister Sánchez Berzaín. Each of these plaintiffs has brought claims on behalf of a deceased relative who was targeted by forces under the defendants’ command.

“The decision is a great victory for the plaintiffs, whose family members were shot—targeted by Bolivian security forces commanded by the defendants,” said Judith Brown Chomsky, a cooperating attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). “This judgment reaffirms that U.S. courts can hear actions brought against those who abuse human rights.”
The complaints allege that in September and October 2003, Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín ordered Bolivian security forces to use deadly force, including high-powered rifles and machine guns, to suppress popular protests against government policies by targeting unarmed civilians in the indigenous Aymara community.

“This decision is a reminder that foreign heads of state cannot act with impunity,” said James Cavallaro, the Executive Director of the Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School and a Clinical Professor of Law. “It’s a powerful example of how international law is making it harder for those who violate human rights to escape accountability simply by fleeing to another country.”

On October 17, 2003, both Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín fled to the United States. The complaints were filed in September 2007.

There was no explanation if both of them have legal permanent status to reside in the United States or if a U.S. court could exercise jurisdiction over anyone who has alleged to have committed atrocities and human rights violations in their home countries while being on American soil.

The Florida court’s action seems to give a judicial explanation under the Alien Tort Statute that they could be prosecuted for such alleged crimes even if they do not have legal resident status.
The U.S. government agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, under many federal laws, has direct jurisdiction over naturalized citizens or Green Card Holders for their alleged atrocities and human rights violations committed in their home countries during internal disturbances.

“Six years after directing security forces to target Bolivian civilians, Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín move one step closer to having to answer for their actions in a court of law,” said Jeremy Bollinger, an attorney with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.
The cases, Mamani, et al. v. Sánchez Berzaín, and Mamani, et al. v. Sánchez de Lozada, seek compensatory and punitive damages under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).

If U.S. authorities intend targeting to prosecute in the judicial system of any alien who in their understanding has committed atrocities and human rights violations in their home countries this Florida court order to proceed with the Bolivian president and defense minister clearly indicates that such an action can only be avoided by keeping away from the American soil.

Baker Botts Beats Back Alien Tort Suits Against Drummond (Again)
By Andrew Longstreth

Two years ago Baker Botts partner William Jeffress won a defense verdict for coal mining company Drummond in what was believed to be the first Alien Tort Claims Act case to go to trial. Despite the verdict--which was later upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit--Drummond is still facing litigation over the 2001 murder of three union leaders at a Colombian mine.But the plaintiffs suing Drummond haven't gotten very far. On Monday, Birmingham federal district court judge R. David Proctor dismissed a suit brought by the children of the murdered union leaders, whose complaint included new allegations surrounding the killings. Judge Proctor found that some of the plaintiffs were barred from the new case because their claims were already decided in Drummond's previous Alien Tort Statute trial. And the remaining plaintiffs, he ruled, lacked standing because the ATS does not permit children of victims to seek damages for themselves.The judge did not dismiss a related suit brought by relatives of victims of violence in Columbia. But he didn't let the case proceed, either. Judge Proctor ruled that the plaintiffs' claims were insufficient as pled, but he gave them leave to try again.

Plaintiffs counsel Terry Collingsworth of Conrad & Scherer told The Birmingham News that he would amend the relatives' complaint to satisfy Judge Proctor. "We are going to provide the new level of detail the court requires," he said. He also said he would consider appealing the dismissal of the suit brought by the slain union leaders' children.Collingsworth, who's one of the best-known Alien Tort plaintiffs lawyers in the country, lost an important Eleventh Circuit appeal of ATS claims against Coca-Cola and its bottlers in August. (Here's the report on that ruling.) Drummond defense counsel Jeffress told us the Eleventh Circuit's ruling helped Drummond in the cases before Judge Proctor.