Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, International, Lawyering, Politics, Society

Federal Judge Dismisses Abu Ghraib Case Under Sweeping Ruling Under The Alien Tort Statute

ph_leeU.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee has issued a sweeping victory for the Obama Administration and its contractors in seeking to bar any recourse for people injured or killed in U.S. camps or prisons like Abu Ghraib. Lee dismissed a lawsuit detailing well-supported accounts of abuse of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison — holding that the injured parties could not use U.S. courts to seek judicial review and relief for the abuse. He closed the door to the U.S. judicial system to four Iraqi plaintiffs under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) as well as one plaintiff who was deemed as barred under Iraqi law.


Lee took the narrowest possible reading of the law to bar the claims. He relied on the decision of Chief Justice John Roberts Lee in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. where the Court ruled that certain international claims could not be heard under the Alien Tort Statute. International law violations occurring on U.S. territory are covered by the law. However, Roberts left open the door to violations abroad if they “touch and concern” U.S. territory “with sufficient force.” The Plaintiffs argued that the U.S. had set up these camps abroad to shield them from review and that the prisons were in fact U.S. facilities. Lee took a literal meaning of territory and held that the “plaintiffs’ ATS claims do not allege that any violations occurred in the United States or any of its territories. Therefore, on these facts, the court holds that Kiobel’s bar against extraterritorial application of the ATS governs.”

Before the ruling, the Obama Administration was preventing key witnesses from entering the country to testify against its contractors in a full-court press to avoid judicial review.

The Lee ruling illustrates the hypocrisy of the United States in proclaiming our government as committed to the rule of law while denying review of the most egregious abuses by our government and its contractors. It also reflects the Obama Administration continue scorched earth approach to public interest litigation seeking review of the actions of the government from warrantless surveillance to torture to prison abuse. President Obama has made clear that his preferred court and form of transparency is the secret FISA court with secret rulings, rubber stamp approvals, and no adversarial process.

The Lee opinion establishes that there is literally no recourse or justice to be found in U.S. courts for some of the most abused victims of our government. Unfortunately, few members of Congress have the courage to seek a legislative correction of the law. Once again, Democrats are silent in the face of the Obama Administration’s successful effort to close our courts to these litigants. The ruling will only encourage the White House to continue to shift operations just over our border to create a legal black hole in which virtually any abuse can be shielded from judicial review under the Act.

Source: Washington Post

27 thoughts on “Federal Judge Dismisses Abu Ghraib Case Under Sweeping Ruling Under The Alien Tort Statute”

  1. What Steve Fleischer said. I have said this before. The rule of law and measured judicial performance in this country is rapidly becoming a distant fading memory. What would have happened to Daniel Ellsberg if he had released the Pentagon Papers in 2013?

    One need look no further than the matters of Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Thomas Drake. Or Barry Seal, who is no longer among the living.

    1. There would be no difference with what happened to Ellsberg today than what happened back then. Ellsberg was indicted, and started trial, which was aborted because of gross governmental misconduct. As for the cases cited, they are all FAR different from each other. Manning did a massive dump of top secret material irrespective of the damage. Assange at least had the decency to review and censor much of the material before posting it so as not to kill people. Assange and Snowden have good legal arguments on their behalf. In Assange’s case, there is no legal reason for the US government to go after him, nor does it have legal standing or jurisdiction. In Snowden’s case, he did violate the law and his contracts, but he also acted as a good faith whistleblower who should be protected under US law governing such acts. He did in fact, by leaking the facts, disclosed ILLEGAL acts. Thus he has and should have immunity from prosecution. I can see the reason that the Obama administration is going after him, since it is their legal obligation to do so. I thus have no problem with Obama doing what he is doing either.

  2. Or here’s an idea, Dogs, since you’re so impatient with the pace and topics of columns here . . . go start your own blog and then you can control both pace and content based on your schedule.

    Just a thought.

  4. Aaay. The blog is getting stale and off any premise of being dedicated to the Constitution. The absence of a toipic on the Voting Rights Act case called Shelby County speaks volumes. Res ipsa. Forget the loquitur.

  5. The biggest decision from the Supreme Court since Dredd Scott (going backwards in time) was just decided in the Shelby County case. It needs to be discussed on this blog. Or I am not a dog blogger.

  6. I guess that you would have to agree that the defendants at Nurenburg were denied their rights since they did not have access to US courts. Then you will also have to agree that the US can take NO POWs unless US courts hear their case. This is patently absurd.

  7. It seems that any issue, even remotely related to the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan are sacred cows according to the Judicial branch. Maybe the Supremes will rein in this administration’s look the other way mentality.

  8. “The Lee opinion establishes that there is literally no recourse or justice to be found in U.S. courts for some of the most abused victims of our government.”

    Just how the fascists want it. Coming soon to a courtroom near you.

  9. Again I am so confused. Mr. O received the Peace Prize, he promised the ways of the GWB administration are over. There has to be an error in this reporting. Mr. O is a wonderful person that loves transparency, golf, and exotic vacations. He wouldn’t hurt anybody.

  10. The Lee ruling illustrates the hypocrisy of the United States in proclaiming our government as committed to the rule of law while denying review of the most egregious abuses by our government and its contractors.”

    Bingo:

    Yes it’s no use saying that you don’t know nothing
    It’s still gonna get you if you don’t do something
    Sitting on a fence that’s a dangerous course
    Ah, you could even catch a bullet from the peace-keeping force
    Even the hero gets a bullet in the chest
    Oh yeah, once upon a time in the west

    (Dire Straits, Once Upon A Time In The West)

  11. Sweeping is correct. There is a huge amount of sweeping going on.
    The US has thrown a rug over the Constitution and in plain sight is sweeping these breaches of law under it.
    The MSM is doing its best to beat down the “lump” so American citizens won’t notice. WOE IS US….and the US.

    Orwell was right, Those that control history control the future. (something like that).

  12. “The Lee ruling illustrates the hypocrisy of the United States in proclaiming our government as committed to the rule of law…”

    The U.S. is committed to the rule of law – to using the law to silence and defeat opponents.

    Is it any wonder that Snowden ran for cover rather than trust the U.S. judicial system?

    The greater problem is that ordinary citizens are slowly learning not to trust American courts (look at the recent BofA case where a man faces 13 years for “graffiti”).

    Once Americans lose faith in getting justice, our societal compact breaks down.

    Remember Thucydides: “…the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”.

  15. I still think the 4th amendment in relation to Noriega was a bad decision…. It held that the 4th amendment has no applicability outside the US….. Bad decision the and screwing people today…

  17. Soetoro a/k/a Obama = Abacha (Nigeria), Strasser (Senegal), Biya (Cameroon), Mugabe (Zimbabwe), Amin (Uganda), Mengistu (Ethiopia), Taylor (Liberia), Toure (Guinea), Kabila (DR Congo), Mobutu (Zaire/Congo), Banda (Malawi), Bokassa (Central African Republic), de los Santos (Angola), and Eyadema (Chad). Oops I forgot Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice, and Clarence Thomas (USA). Just sayin’. BTW, in the end Booker T. Washington won the debate with his colleague W.E.B. DuBois. Washington (read “Up From Slavery”) was the first black invited to the White House, while DuBois, the first black to earn a doctorate at Harvard, surrendered and expatriated to Ghana, the home of Kwame Nkrumah (a follower of Marcus Garvey), where he died in 1963. Over and out.

Comments are closed.