May, 31 2011, 01:21pm EDT
Legal Team for Abu Ghraib Victims: U.S. Ignores Torture in Supreme Court Brief
The Obama Administration struck a blow to the protection of fundamental human rights by recommending that the U.S. Supreme Court not hear the case of 250 civilians allegedly tortured and seriously harmed by corporate contractors at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison, according to the detainees' legal team.
WASHINGTON
The Obama Administration struck a blow to the protection of fundamental human rights by recommending that the U.S. Supreme Court not hear the case of 250 civilians allegedly tortured and seriously harmed by corporate contractors at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison, according to the detainees' legal team.
Attorney Susan L. Burke, of Burke PLLC, said, "This litigation should be allowed to contribute to the true history of Abu Ghraib. These innocent men were senselessly tortured by U.S. companies that profited from their misery. These men came to U.S. courts because our laws, as they have for generations, should allow their claims to be heard here."
On Friday, the Acting Solicitor General advised the Supreme Court not to hear a 2004 lawsuit that alleges employees of U.S. corporate military contractors CACI and Titan (now L-3 Services) participated in torture and serious abuses while they were hired to provide interrogation and interpretation services, respectively, at Abu Ghraib and other detention facilities in Iraq.
The detainees' lawyers argued that the Supreme Court should hear the case because a September 2009 appellate decision, which dismissed the suit in a 2-1 decision, gave corporate contractors more protections than U.S. soldiers enjoy and constituted judicial overreaching. The plaintiffs' brief noted that military investigations had found contractors participated in torture at Abu Ghraib. In October 2010, the Supreme Court invited the Acting Solicitor General to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the U.S. Government.
Katherine Gallagher, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, "The Obama Administration's brief acknowledges the serious flaws in the lower court's decision that cost the Abu Ghraib victims their day in court, but it ultimately says that justice for torture victims is not worth the Supreme Court's time. The torture survivors are entitled to have their claims against U.S. corporations heard on the merits in a U.S. court."
Shereef Akeel, of Akeel & Valentine, P.C., said, "We are very disappointed. By filing this Supreme Court brief, the U.S. is sending the world a terrible message about justice and democracy."
The Abu Ghraib victims are represented by Burke PLLC, of Washington, D.C.; Motley Rice LLC, of Mt. Pleasant, S.C.; the Center for Constitutional Rights; and Akeel & Valentine, P.C., of Troy, Mich.
The case is "Haidar Muhsin Saleh, et al. v. Titan Corporation, et al.," No. 09-1313. Filings in the case are available here.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464LATEST NEWS
Nobel Prize Winner Says G20 Falls Short by Not Embracing Global Nuclear Ban Treaty
"All G20 members must work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons as an urgent priority," said ICAN executive director Melissa Parke.
Sep 10, 2023
A renunciation of the threat posed by nuclear weapons by G20 leaders in New Delhi this weekend must be matched by action that would actually reduce such a threat and lead the way to the full abandonment of atomic weapons worldwide, according to one of the world's preeminent anti-nuclear organizations.
While the the G20 'New Delhi Declaration' released Saturday states that the "use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible" in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), which won the peace prize in 2017, said that does not go far enough.
ICAN's exective director Melissa Parke said in a statement that while the G20 leaders "reaffirmed the obvious truth that the use, or threat of use, of nuclear weapons is unacceptable," it is now vital that they "put these words into action."
"All G20 members must work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons as an urgent priority, including, for those who haven't done so already," said Parke, "by signing and ratifying the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons without delay."
The official Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), adopted by the United Nations in 2017 and implemented in 2020, bans signatories from the use, possession, testing, and transfer of nuclear weapons.
None of the nuclear powers in the world—including Russia, the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, India, or China—have signed or adopted the TPNW, and Ukraine, along with the majority of NATO and G20 members, have also not supported or adopted the treaty.
Since its invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, numerous Russian officials have invoked the specter of a nuclear exchange or possible use of atomic weapons if Moscow deemed it necessary. Peace advocates calling for urgent diplomacy to help end the war have continued to cite the possibility of a nuclear escalation as a chief concern.
Last month, former president and current senior official Dmitry Medvedev said Russia would have no choice but to use nuclear weapons if Ukraine's counter-offensive, backed by NATO forces, took land claimed by Moscow.
"Just imagine that the offensive… in tandem with NATO, succeeded and ended up with part of our land being taken away. Then we would have to use nuclear weapons by virtue of the stipulations of the Russian Presidential Decree,” said Medvedev.
"There simply wouldn’t be any other solution," he added. "Our enemies should pray to our fighters that they do not allow the world to go up in nuclear flames."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hurricane Lee: An Ominous Storm Even If It Doesn't Come to Land
"This is your hurricane on fossil fueled climate change."
Sep 10, 2023
Hurricane Lee, which became a monster Category 5 before weakening over the weekend and which may or may not ever make landfall, is being treated as a warning by meteorologists and climate experts who say the storm's behavior over recent days could have dire future implications.
The National Hurricane Center said Saturday that Lee would move well north of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands but that dangerous beach conditions may be seen along the Atlantic coastline of the United States. On Thursday, the hurricane jumped from a Category 3 storm to a Category 5 in less than 24 hours at a pace faster than what is called "rapid intensification"—when sustained winds increase by 35 mph over the course of a day.
Marshall Shepherd, director of the University of Georgia's atmospheric sciences program and a past president of the American Meteorological Society, explained to the Associated Press how Hurricane Lee intensified at more than double that rate, moving it into a category he called hyperintensification.
"This one increased by 80 mph (129 kph)," Shepherd said. "I can't emphasize this enough. We used to have this metric of 35 mph, and here's a storm that did twice that amount, and we're seeing that happen more frequently." If future storms, fueled by increasingly hotter ocean temperatures, continue with this trend it will have disastrous consequences for regions that rarely, if ever, experience such powerful storms.
As Lee became reached Category 5 status on Thursday, meteorologist Jeff Berardelli pointed out the increasing frequency of storms reaching that threshold:
Responding to the same trend and data, climate movement organizer Jamie Henn said: "This is your hurricane on fossil fueled climate change."
And it's a global phenomenon, not just for hurricanes forming in the Atlantic. For the first time since records began, Category 5 storms (or the equivalent) have been recorded in each of the world's designated cyclone basins.
"Hurricanes are getting stronger at higher latitudes," warned Shepherd in his assessment. "If that trend continues, that brings into play places like Washington, D.C., New York and Boston."
As science and environment journalist Matt Simon wrote for Wired on Saturday:
Rapid intensification makes hurricanes extra dangerous because they change so quickly and dramatically as they approach the coastline. It's a bit like watching a driver who’s cruising along at 25 miles per hour and then guns it right before hitting an obstruction. Residents might be expecting a storm they can ride out, but are instead faced with a full-scale hurricane that's quickly grown monstrous.
Exploring the science and talking with experts of rapid intensification, Simon explained why Lee is being treated as "a warning" and that people and communities should "get ready for more of this phenomenon as the planet warms."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Water Cannons Target 10,000 Climate Protesters Blocking Highway in Netherlands
"While the world is going up in flames, the government continues to add fuel to the fire by propping up the biggest source of the climate crisis, fossil fuels, with billions in subsidies."
Sep 09, 2023
Climate campaigners calling for an end to fossil fuel subsidies were fired upon with water cannons and physically abused Saturday near The Hague in the Netherlands as the global movement demanding an end to the dominance of the coal, oil, and gas industry continues to call on world leaders to act.
Members of Extinction Rebellion spearheaded the direct action on the A12 Utrechtsebaan highway near the center of the Dutch government. With an estimated 10,000 participants overall, the jovial protesters sat down in the road, bringing traffic to a standstill as they chanted, "The seas are rising and so are we!" even as police vehicles sprayed them with water at high velocity.
The Associated Press reported that the protesters vowed to stay until the Netherlands ends public subsidies for the fossil fuel industry or, if removed by police, to return each day until the financial support is suspended.
"This is much larger than any one of us," one participant, Yolanda de Jager, told the AP. "This concerns the whole world."
Dutch police carted some protesters off in carts while others were beaten with batons or dragged off the roadway:
Earlier this week, a new report detailed how the Dutch government spends nearly $38 billion in taxpayer funds each year to support fossil fuels. The authors of the peer-reviewed report—a joint research effort by SOMO, Oil Change International, and Milieudefensie—argued that such subsidies should be eliminated by 2025 in order to help the nation meet its emission reductions goals and also help fund the necessary transition to renewable energy.
"Phasing out fossil subsidies kills two birds with one stone: it reduces fossil fuel emissions and raises additional revenue needed to accelerate a social and equitable transition," said Audrey Gaughran, director of SOMO, also known as the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations.
OCI director Elizabeth Bast said, "The Netherlands has taken the international stage to promise an end to fossil fuel subsidies multiple times already, but it is failing to live up to its promise."
"While the world is going up in flames, the government continues to add fuel to the fire by propping up the biggest source of the climate crisis, fossil fuels, with billions in subsidies," she added. "With an urgent and fair phase-out plan the Netherlands can deliver on longstanding promises and take the lead within the EU and internationally to ensure other countries follow through."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
Independent, nonprofit journalism needs your help.
Please Pitch In
Today!
Today!