RSS
Using PayPal
Condi Rice's Torture Trip & Why Isn't El-Masri Suing the US Government for $75 mil Instead of $75,000
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Wednesday, Dec 07, 05, 11:59PM
Condoleeza Rice is having a tough time in Europe selling the line that the Bush administration doesn't believe in torturing detainees -- and would not "render" terror suspects to other countries for legal processing unless we were sure that they would not be tortured there either.
Yes, she's been saying that -- without coughing or choking -- but much of Europe can't quite gulp down what she's offering.
From the New York Times:
Responding to pressure at home and abroad to set clearer standards for the interrogation of terrorist suspects, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that the policy of the United States was not to allow its personnel, whether on American or foreign soil, to engage in cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners.But her statement did little to clear up widespread confusion about where the administration draws the line or to dispel hints of an internal debate among President Bush's inner circle on that topic. It was interpreted variously as a subtle but important shift in policy, a restatement of the administration's long-held position or an artful dodge intended to retain flexibility in dealing with detainees while soothing public opinion in the United States and Europe.
Ms. Rice, traveling in Europe this week, has faced constant questions about the treatment of detainees, partly prompted by reports that the United States maintained secret detention facilities in European countries. On Tuesday, the issue surfaced in talks with the new German chancellor, Angela Merkel.
And in Washington, the administration is facing a strong push by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, for legislation to bar inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees.
Speaking Wednesday in Kiev, Ukraine, Ms. Rice suggested that the prohibitions contained in an international convention against the use of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment were applied by the United States to American personnel working anywhere in the world.
Rice 'finally' confided to German Chancellor Angela Merkel that the United States made a mistake in rendering an innocent man, a German citizen, Khaled El-Masri, to an Afghanistan prison for 'questioning.'
El-Masri is now seeking damages of at least $75,000 in what is being called by some a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. government and the private transportation firms involved in his rendition.
But why a low bar of $75,000.00?
First, Khaled El-Masri was kidnapped by agents acting on behalf of the U.S. government while he was vacationing in Macedonia. Second, He is a German citizen of Lebanese descent, and we sent him neither to German authorities or to Lebanese authorities; we sent him to Afghanistan. Third, he languished in prison for two months AFTER George Tenet was informed that he was innocent. Fourth, the U.S. kept him on a security watch list after confirming his innocence and rejected his entry into the United States through Atlanta -- only recently reversed by the Secretary of State herself days ago.
Sidney Blumenthal has a great piece on this very subject that was posted moments ago on Salon, titled similary "Condi's Torture Tour." I recommend reading the whole piece.
Whether one supports or opposes any form of rendition practices, when America gets something as systematically wrong as this, the government should have a "restitution program." George Bush & Co. should be quickly offering this man at least a million dollars for the humiliation and scars from this episode -- but the Bush administration repeatedly shows that it needs to be beaten up by peer pressure and public opinion to do the "right thing."
When the British shoot an innocent man in the head on their subway system -- as they did -- and lie about the circumstances of his behavior and their surveillance, their should be publicly transparent restitution to that man's family. When American authorities mistakenly shoot anyone in the name of broad national security objectives -- and there was a misapplication of power and force, no matter what the circumstances -- there should be restitution and an effort made to understand why that error occurred.
Frankly, when innocent Iraqis are killed by the tens of thousands in America's so-called effort to liberate them, the only way to encourage military authorities to modify their tactics and stop killing innocents is to somehow acknowledge their deaths, to know their faces, and to offer restitution to those wrongly, mistakenly killed and injured.
And this man is seeking just $75,000.00? It should be $75 million.
-- Steve Clemons
UPDATE: A loyal TWN reader, ACP, shared the following: "$75k is the minimum jurisdictional amount for a case brought in diversity in federal court so in the complaint you have to allege 'at least $75,000.00' in damages."
This is a useful technical complement to the above post, but that said, a prominent journalist friend of mine from Egypt stated that winning just "one single dollar" in such a lawsuit would be historic and have significantly positive implications.
-- Steve Clemons
Besides what you mentioned, his wife left him in the time that he was disappeared. Having not heard from him she returned to her homeland thinking he had abandoned her.
He is not asking for anything more than the funds to put his life back together again.
Let's see how the U.S. media (as usual)downplays this one.
Can't you see Dick Cheney now on a Sunday morning talk show, in his usual downhome boy talk, ["Well, you see, the mistake was made by a couple of "newbies" to our defense intelligence agencies..."].
Steve, you have to remember to listen to what this administration actually says.
"... the United States was not to allow its personnel, whether on American or foreign soil, to engage in cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners."
This means 1 of 2 things (maybe both):
1. This administration does not consider what they are doing to be "cruel, inhumane or degrading".
and/or
2. While U.S. personnel are not allowed to do it, it is OK for the U.S. to use non-U.S. personnel "to engage in cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners."
It is my understanding that Masri has stated his damages as "at least $75,000" because that is the minimum threshold for federal lawsuits filed in diversity -- which is what this suit is because Misri is a foreign citizen suing the U.S. In my experience, Plaintiffs often don't put a "hard and fast" damages amount in their complaint, because damages are sometimes hard to determine at the outset of a suit, and the Plaintiff doesn't want to prejudice himself by lowballing the number prematurely. Because the diversity jurisidiction statute requires the "amount in controversy" to be $75,000, a federal suit Plaintiff will usually allege damages "of at least" that much -- it is not an indication of what they'll ultimately ask a court to award.
If anybody sees this differently, let us know.
By the way, this story is egregious and very embarassing for our country and the Administration. Who made these decisions? They need to be fired, now.
Keeping him on the "watch list" might have been an outgrowth of the original mistake. One of the sad outcomes of the prison abuse in Iraq by US troops has been to create enemies out of mis-detained innocents.
Could it be that someone was afraid that "Sure, he wasn't a terrorist before, but after we've held him like this, who knows what he'd do."
Nothing like aiding the recruiting efforts of those we're fighting . . .
By the way, this story is egregious and very embarassing for our country and the Administration. Who made these decisions? They need to be fired, now.
Posted by Matt F.
Well, gee THATS gonna happen. I mean after all, we know how important ACCOUNTABILITY is to the Monkey Boy.
Slightly off the topic of El-Masri, I wanted to point out an AP article "Allies Welcome Rice's Comments on Torture" appearing today in my Yahoo news feed. Apparently, our NATO allies are wonderfully reassured by Ms. Rice's statements. Lead graf:
"European foreign ministers said Thursday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had 'cleared the air' by assuring NATO allies that the U.S. does not allow torture of terrorist suspects and respects principles of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war."
They must have been coughing as much as Ms. Rice wasn't...
Sick. Just Sick. Is this Robert Wielaard, the author, just another suck-up? I thought the Euro press were generally used to our mendacity....
Rice 'finally' confided to German Chancellor "Angela Merkel that the United States made a mistake in rendering an innocent man, a German citizen, Khaled El-Masri, to an Afghanistan prison for 'questioning.'"
Pretty damn magnanimous of Madame Secretary. I agree with Steve, nothing shows the love and says I'm sorry like reparations.
$75K? Someone is low ballin' here. I'd look around for a second opinion.
Matt F. is correct about the reason for the $75,000. In his complaint, El-Masri asked "for compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but in an amount over 75,000." This is merely to establish that the federal district court has diversity jurisdiction under Title 28, Section 1332 of the United States Code. I have no doubt El-Masri will seek far higher damages.
"Frankly, when innocent Iraqis are killed by the tens of thousands in America's so-called effort to liberate them, the only way to encourage military authorities to modify their tactics and stop killing innocents is to somehow acknowledge their deaths, to know their faces, and to offer restitution to those wrongly, mistakenly killed and injured."
Note: the link is not for the squeamish.
I'm surpised the el masri case has blown up, given that his experience was not as serious compared to another case, one much closer to the US . In Canada the Maher Arar case is far more troubling. In 2002 Arar, Canadian with dual syrian citizenship carrying a Canadian passport, was detained while travelling through JFK airport and subsequently rendered to Syria. There he was tortured for over a year, then released back to canada, because he was innocent. His case has been the subject of a public inquiry in Canada, which has brought a lot of the Canadian intelligence apparatus into public light. With the extensive public coverage of it here... I'm suprised there isn't a greater awareness of it in the US (not so much in the general public, but more the people interested in this sort of stuff.)
I think we're only seeing the tip of the ice berg when it comes to innocent victims of the war. Have you seen the Life Magazine photo essay on birth defects of the war?
Depleted uranium was a great way to get rid of excess nuclear waste. That, the radioactive material that disappeared during the looting, vaccinations with unknown side affects, and new materials in various weapons systems will haunt both the US and Iraqis for generations.
I'm sure we'll find many more cover-ups to come.
On top of this add the high debt and lack of attention to the infrastructure of the US.
That life magazine story is sobering. Thanks Dons Blog.
You know, why should we believe anything this administration tells us? They obviously have had no problems telling lies to justify and gain support for a war in Iraq. Should anyone, anywhere really believe a thing they put out there anymore? No!
This administration has zero credibility around the world, and it's increasingly finding the same thing here at home.
When Condi Rice claims that the U.S. does not render individuals to other countries for the purposes of torture, my response is a big, fat, "Yeah, right." I don't believe a word she has to say.
The $75,000k is the minimum amount of a claim he can have get him into Federal court. In all liklihood, his claim is actually seeking damages "in an amount in excess of $75,000."
Richard, the reason the El-Masri case is given recent focus is because of Rice's European visit -- his German citizenship and his having been snatched from Europe. No one following this thinks he's the only example of an innocent rendered to torture by the U.S. He's just the 'poster boy' best suited to bring the issue home to Europeans.
As an attorney who has practiced in federal courts for some years, I can confirm that $75,000 is indeed just the jurisdictional minimum for diversity cases filed in US federal courts, and is included in complaints filed in federal court as a matter of course. That figure means exactly nothing when it comes to an amount that might be demanded at trial. Also, as some have noted above, complaints based not on contract but on some type of personal injury rarely contain an actual amount claimed, which may, in the plaintiff's (and his attorney's) mind, may go up or down depending upon the evidence uncovered in discovery.
Reader Comments (20) - post a comment