106:, nor been a member of a terrorist group. For more than two years, they were imprisoned without charge in Guantánamo by the United States. During their detention, they "were subjected to repeated beatings, sleep deprivation, extremes of hot and cold, forced nakedness, death threats, interrogations at gun point, menacing with unmuzzled dogs, and religious and racial harassment." In March 2004 they were released and returned to
262:" for purposes of U.S. law, and claims under the Geneva Conventions and the Alien Tort Statute were dismissed as defendants were immune since, "torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military's detention of suspected enemy combatants," and they could not have known that the detainees had constitutional rights.
194:"This is the first case demanding accountability from the government officials who condoned and perpetrated torture and abuse at Guantanamo," said CCR attorney Emi Maclean. "Our courts need to show the world - and the U.S. government - that it takes the documented abuse of detainees in U.S. custody seriously."
63:
On April 24, 2009, the Court of
Appeals dismissed the case again, on the grounds of "limited immunity". It ruled that the courts at the time of the alleged abuses had not yet clearly established prohibitions against the torture and religious abuses suffered by the detainees. On December 14, 2009, the
225:
February 6, 2006: D.C. District Court issued a memorandum opinion dismissing both the plaintiffs' international law and constitutional claims. As administrative remedies had not been exhausted, the international law claims were not ripe. Since the defendants were acting within the scope of their
245:
dismissed the case, reversing the decision made by the district court that the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act is applicable to Guantánamo, and affirming the dismissal by the district court of the constitutional and international law claims. Circuit Judge
233:
May 8, 2006: D.C. District Court issued a memorandum opinion denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) claim, indicating that Guantánamo is subject to the RFRA. In his ruling, District Judge
163:, and senior military officers who are responsible for the treatment of Guantánamo detainees had approved interrogation techniques that were known to violate U.S. and international law. The alleged practices include
578:
242:
46:
Some aspects of the case were dismissed at the
District Court level, and the Appeals Court overturned the lower court ruling on coverage of religious protections. In 2008 the United States Supreme Court granted
282:
April 24, 2009: the Court of
Appeals dismissed the case based on "limited immunity", saying the courts had not clearly established that behaviors suffered by the detainees were prohibited at the time.
238:
addresses the scope of RFRA by saying, "Flushing the Koran down the toilet and forcing
Muslims to shave their beards falls comfortably within the conduct prohibited from government action."
208:
80:, a legal and educational organization devoted to the protection of human rights both in the United States and abroad, and the law firm of Baach Robinson & Lewis.
95:
for a religious retreat. Rasul, Iqbal, and Ahmed were captured by an Uzbek warlord and transferred to U.S. custody in
Afghanistan. Al-Harith was captured by the
528:
370:
123:
ruled that the detainees in Guantánamo, and foreign nationals in general, have the right to judicial review of their detentions by the U.S. court system under
171:; prolonged arbitrary detention; cruel and unusual punishment; preventing the exercise and expression of religious beliefs, and denial of liberties without
470:
99:
in
Pakistan and was accused of being a British spy. After the fall of the Taliban, he ended up in U.S. custody after the fall of the Taliban.
332:"'Torture' trio lose US appeal; GUANTANAMO: Tipton men accused Rumsfeld of criminal conduct". Birmingham Evening Mail. January 12, 2008.
583:
144:
about their experiences based on their published account, beginning with their trip to
Pakistan, through their detention at Guantánamo.
266:
153:
120:
188:
212:
77:
39:. They charged that illegal interrogation tactics were permitted to be used against them by Secretary Rumsfeld and the military
371:“CCR Case Argued Before Court of Appeals; First Case Filed By Former Guantanamo Detainees Demanding Accountability for Torture”
258:
wrote a partial concurrence. The
Religious Freedom Restoration Act was deemed inapplicable as detainees were ruled not to be "
168:
43:. The plaintiffs each sought seek compensatory damages for torture and arbitrary detention while being held at Guantánamo.
35:
detainees, filed suit in 2004 in the United States District Court in Washington, DC against former Secretary of Defense
466:"Can Victims Sue State Officials for Torture?: Reflections on Rasul v. Myers from the Perspective of International Law"
500:
219:
60:(2008), which ruled that detainees and foreign nationals had the habeas corpus right to bring suit in federal courts.
20:
215:
and Baach Robinson & Lewis law firm on behalf of Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed, and Jamal Al-Harith.
136:
247:
160:
28:
273:, vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit for further consideration in light of
141:
560:
451:
420:
402:
255:
251:
320:
275:
227:
184:
176:
56:
235:
180:
40:
32:
54:
vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals based on the intervening
479:
156:
36:
91:
to do humanitarian relief work in the wake of September 11, while Al-Harith had gone to
107:
572:
115:
103:
341:
Seper, Jerry. "Terror suspects can't sue Pentagon; Four say military used torture",
73:
16:
354:
Gumbel, Andrew. "Britons held at Guantanamo Bay win right to sue their captors,"
72:
The four Britons: Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, and Rhuhel Ahmed, also known as the "
172:
84:
76:," and Jamal Al-Harith, a Manchester-based web designer, are represented by the
24:
218:
March 16, 2005: Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case based on lack of
505:
270:
49:
484:
465:
323:, Center for Constitutional Rights, 6 March 2008, accessed 2 January 2013
92:
88:
382:
533:
259:
164:
96:
83:
According to their own report, Rasul, Iqbal, and Ahmed had traveled to
285:
December 14, 2009: The US Supreme Court declined to review the case.
243:
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
366:
364:
134:
Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, and Rhuhel Ahmed were featured in
579:
Guantanamo Bay captives legal and administrative procedures
102:
None of the plaintiffs had ever taken up arms against the
64:
US Supreme Court declined to accept the case for hearing.
316:
314:
312:
310:
308:
306:
304:
302:
300:
298:
209:
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
119:(2004). In this landmark case for detainee rights, the
529:"U.S. appeals court dismisses Guantanamo torture suit"
501:"Detainees barred from challenging torture, abuse"
373:, Center for Constitutional Rights, 7 March 2008.
254:, wrote for the majority, while Circuit Judge
179:(ATS), the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the
8:
175:. These are seen to be in violation of the
483:
471:Journal of International Criminal Justice
294:
113:Shafiq Rasul was the lead plaintiff in
269:granted the plaintiffs' petition for
7:
499:Denniston, Lyle (11 January 2008).
267:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
527:Vicini, James (11 January 2008).
189:Religious Freedom Restoration Act
387:, website, accessed 7 March 2008
213:Center for Constitutional Rights
78:Center for Constitutional Rights
230:for the constitutional claims.
169:inhuman or degrading treatment
1:
464:Fassbender, B. (1 May 2008).
130:Representation in other media
110:and released without charge.
358:(London), p. 35, 11 May 2006
220:subject matter jurisdiction
152:The plaintiffs charge that
600:
584:Donald Rumsfeld litigation
563: (D.C. Cir. 2009).
454: (D.C. Cir. 2008).
432:" 4 sue over Camp X-Ray,"
250:, joined by Circuit Judge
226:employment, they receive
421:433 F.Supp.2d 58
403:141 F.Supp.2d 26
345:, A02. January 12, 2008.
434:Birmingham Evening Mail
423: (D.D.C. 2006).
405: (D.D.C. 2006).
384:“The Road to Guantánamo
265:December 15, 2008: the
248:Karen LeCraft Henderson
140:(2006) a docu-drama by
159:, the Chairmen of the
137:The Road to Guantánamo
561:563 F. 3d 527
452:512 F. 3d 644
161:Joint Chiefs of Staff
436:, p. 13, 12 May 2006
343:The Washington Times
198:Timeline of the case
154:Secretary of Defense
142:Michael Winterbottom
485:10.1093/jicj/mqn009
321:”Rasul v. Rumsfeld”
256:Janice Rogers Brown
252:A. Raymond Randolph
276:Boumediene v. Bush
241:January 11, 2008:
228:qualified immunity
203:October 27, 2004:
185:Geneva Conventions
177:Alien Tort Statute
57:Boumediene v. Bush
416:Rasul v. Rumsfeld
398:Rasul v. Rumsfeld
236:Ricardo M. Urbina
207:was filed in the
205:Rasul v. Rumsfeld
181:U.S. Constitution
591:
564:
558:
552:
546:
545:
543:
541:
524:
518:
517:
515:
513:
496:
490:
489:
487:
461:
455:
449:
443:
437:
430:
424:
418:
412:
406:
400:
394:
388:
380:
374:
368:
359:
352:
346:
339:
333:
330:
324:
318:
121:US Supreme Court
41:chain of command
599:
598:
594:
593:
592:
590:
589:
588:
569:
568:
567:
554:
553:
549:
539:
537:
526:
525:
521:
511:
509:
498:
497:
493:
463:
462:
458:
445:
444:
440:
431:
427:
414:
413:
409:
396:
395:
391:
381:
377:
369:
362:
356:The Independent
353:
349:
340:
336:
331:
327:
319:
296:
292:
200:
157:Donald Rumsfeld
150:
132:
70:
37:Donald Rumsfeld
29:Jamal Al-Harith
12:
11:
5:
597:
595:
587:
586:
581:
571:
570:
566:
565:
556:Rasul v. Myers
547:
519:
491:
478:(2): 347–369.
456:
447:Rasul v. Myers
438:
425:
407:
389:
375:
360:
347:
334:
325:
293:
291:
288:
287:
286:
283:
280:
263:
239:
231:
223:
216:
199:
196:
149:
146:
131:
128:
125:habeas corpus.
69:
66:
33:Guantánamo Bay
31:, four former
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
596:
585:
582:
580:
577:
576:
574:
562:
557:
551:
548:
536:
535:
530:
523:
520:
508:
507:
502:
495:
492:
486:
481:
477:
473:
472:
467:
460:
457:
453:
448:
442:
439:
435:
429:
426:
422:
417:
411:
408:
404:
399:
393:
390:
386:
385:
379:
376:
372:
367:
365:
361:
357:
351:
348:
344:
338:
335:
329:
326:
322:
317:
315:
313:
311:
309:
307:
305:
303:
301:
299:
295:
289:
284:
281:
278:
277:
272:
268:
264:
261:
257:
253:
249:
244:
240:
237:
232:
229:
224:
221:
217:
214:
210:
206:
202:
201:
197:
195:
192:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
147:
145:
143:
139:
138:
129:
127:
126:
122:
118:
117:
116:Rasul v. Bush
111:
109:
105:
104:United States
100:
98:
94:
90:
86:
81:
79:
75:
67:
65:
61:
59:
58:
53:
51:
44:
42:
38:
34:
30:
26:
22:
18:
555:
550:
538:. Retrieved
532:
522:
510:. Retrieved
504:
494:
475:
469:
459:
446:
441:
433:
428:
415:
410:
397:
392:
383:
378:
355:
350:
342:
337:
328:
274:
204:
193:
151:
135:
133:
124:
114:
112:
101:
82:
74:Tipton Three
71:
62:
55:
48:
45:
17:Shafiq Rasul
15:
540:29 February
512:29 February
173:due process
85:Afghanistan
25:Ruhal Ahmed
573:Categories
506:SCOTUSblog
290:References
271:certiorari
187:, and the
68:Plaintiffs
50:certiorari
21:Asif Iqbal
191:(RFRA).
167:; cruel,
93:Pakistan
89:Pakistan
534:Reuters
260:persons
211:by the
165:torture
148:Charges
108:Britain
97:Taliban
559:,
450:,
419:,
401:,
279:(20xx)
183:, the
27:, and
87:from
542:2020
514:2020
480:doi
575::
531:.
503:.
474:.
468:.
363:^
297:^
23:,
19:,
544:.
516:.
488:.
482::
476:6
222:.
52:,
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.