Rummy on Trial

Maybe everyone already knows about this, but I just read this morning on Al Jazeera's English news site that the ACLU has initiated a trial against Donald Rumsfeld implicating him in the claims of torture in Guantanamo resulting from President Bush's War Against Terror. I just recently started reading Al Jazeera online and I like it so far, but this article doesn't clearly state that it's just a civil trial and not a criminal one, which I think is a very important distinction. I think the Associated Press does a better job of covering the story, but I would have never searched for the AP article in the first place had I not first read the prominently displayed link to their story on Al Jazeera's website.

Anyway, in deciding whether to let the trial proceed, the judge acknowledges that torture is clearly illegal, but he is worried about what precedent this trial would set if we, in effect, extend the rights of the Constitution to all people everywhere and begin allowing the courts to second-guess any decision the military makes at home and abroad. That's an interesting point. On the one hand, the US military should be held accountable not only if they violate international law, but also if they act in ways that are contrary to American moral standards. But on the other hand, the Constitution is an American document for Americans. Afgani, Iraqi, and other citizens clearly do not fall under the protection of the US Constitution. Referring to Judge Thomas Holden, who is hearing the case, the AP writes,

"Foreigners outside the United States are not normally afforded the same protections as U.S. citizens, Hogan said, and he was wary about extending the Constitution across the globe. Doing so, he said, might subject government officials to all sorts of political suits. Osama bin Laden could sue, Hogan said, claiming two American presidents threatened to have him murdered." (Matt Apuzzo, Houstan Chronicle, 12/8/2006)