Court Says Torture Was To Be Expected

Four British Muslims were held by the U.S.at Guantanamo for over two years before being repatriated back to Britain. When they got back, the British immediately released them without charges.

Three of the men had gone to help with humanitarian relief. They were taken prisoner by a warlord who sold them to U.S. troops. The fourth was trying to leave Pakistan to return to Britain, when he was captured by the Taliban and jailed as a spy. He was taken captive by Americans when they drove out the Taliban.

None of these men were ever armed and none of them fought in the Afghanistan war for any side. But that didn't matter to U.S. troops, who sent them to Guantanamo where they were held for two years being tortured and humiliated.

Understandably, these Britons were upset with the United States after being released, and they filed suit in federal court. They said their detention and torture violated the Alien Tort statutes, the Geneva Conventions, the religious freedom law and the U.S. Constitution.

A lower court kicked out their case, and they appealed. Last friday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia also denied their right to sue. But I have to wonder about the reasons the judges gave for dismissing the suit. It is seriously flawed, if not just downright wrong.

First, the court said the men couldn't be recognized as "persons" under the law, because they were aliens who were held outside the United States. This makes no sense because other appeals courts have ruled that Guantanamo is U.S. territory because it is subject only to U.S. authority. Anything that happened at Guantanamo, happened on United States territory.

But as wrong as that was, their other justification was even more ridiculous, and will be an embarrassment for all U.S. citizens before the court of world opinion. They said the torture the men experienced was not a violation, because under the circumstances it was to be expected. What?!! EXPECTED?!!

Why should it matter whether it was expected or not? It was against U.S. and international law. Do the Geneva Conventions say torture is OK if it is to be expected? No! Does the Constitution say it is OK to deny basic rights if it is to be expected under the circumstances? No!

Wrong is wrong, whether it is expected or not. It is very disappointing to see that an appeals court is willing to ignore the rules because they expect those rules to not be followed. Why can't we expect everyone, including ourselves, to follow the rules regardless of the circumstances?

This ruling will only further convince the world that we are a lawless nation, who is unwilling to follow the rule of law. How embarrassing for the nation once glorified as the shining example of following the rule of law.