DOE V RUMSFELD 2011: a sweet smell of karma is in the air

According to a Government Accountability Project media release on 3 August 2011:

Yesterday, a federal court in Washington, DC upheld the validity of a constitutional rights claim against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for his role in the torturing and illegal imprisonment of a U.S. citizen who was working as a translator in Iraq.

At LongIslandPress on 4 August:

Lawyers for the man, who is in his 50s, say he was preparing to come home to the United States on annual leave when he was abducted by the U.S. military and held without justification while his family knew nothing about his whereabouts or even whether he was still alive.

Court papers filed on his behalf say he was repeatedly abused, then suddenly released without explanation in August 2006. Two years later, he filed suit in U.S. District Court in Washington arguing that Rumsfeld personally approved torturous interrogation techniques on a case-by-case basis and controlled his detention without access to courts in violation of his constitutional rights.

Excerpts from a U.S District Court (District of Columbia) Order and Opinion dated 2 August 2011 in the matter of John Doe v Donald Rumsfeld et al:

In this challenge to the conditions of and procedures used in detaining an American citizen at a United States military compound in Iraq, Plaintiff John Doe sues former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, other high-ranking United States government officials, and several unidentified United States officials and agents. He alleges multiple constitutional violations in his seizure and detention…..

Doe also sues Defendants Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, Robert S. Mueller III, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Alan Bersin, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner, and John Morton, Assistant Secretary of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in their official capacities, to secure the return of the property seized upon his detention and for alleged violations of his right to travel.

Finally, Doe brings claims against unidentified officers or agents of the United States, alleging:

(1) false arrest,

(2) unlawful detention and conditions of confinement,

(3) torturous and unlawful interrogation,

(4) denial of the right to counsel and the right to confront adverse witnesses,

(5) denial of the right to present witnesses and to have exculpatory evidence disclosed,

(6) denial of access to courts and to petition,

(7) blacklisting, and
(8) conspiracy……

The Court finds, however, that Doe had a constitutional right to be free from conduct and conditions of confinement that shock the conscience, that such right was clearly established at the time of Rumsfeld's conduct, and that Doe has pleaded factual allegations sufficient to support a claim that Rumsfeld's conduct violated this clearly-established right. Accordingly, Rumsfeld’s qualified immunity defense to Doe’s substantive due process claim fails…..

The Court thus finds, under the circumstances alleged, that a reasonable federal official would have understood conscience-shocking physical and psychological mistreatment—including temperature, sleep, food, and light manipulation—of a United States citizen detainee to violate the detainee’s constitutional right to substantive due process. Accordingly, Rumsfeld is not entitled to qualified immunity from Doe’s substantive due process claim…..

..the Court DENIES Rumsfeld’s motion to dismiss Doe’s substantive due process claim. The Court GRANTS Defendant Rumsfeld’s motion to dismiss Doe’s procedural due process and access to courts claims.

The Court further GRANTS the government’s motion to dismiss Doe’s return of seized property claim; the Court permits Doe leave to amend his complaint if he can plead, in good faith, factual allegations supporting a reasonable inference that the government’s refusal to return his property was a “final agency action.”

Finally, the Court DENIES the government’s motion for a more definite statement of Doe’s right to travel claim.