New York Times article, "Pakistani,
Held in Iraq, Wins a Round in Court," by Katrin Bennhold discusses the
recent success in a British court for an alleged terrorist suspect to sue the
British government for inhumane treatment, otherwise known as torture. In this
particular court case, the plaintiff, Yunus Rahmatullah, is a Pakastani
citizen. He was originally detained in Iraq during a raid of his apartment by
the British armed forces. Once captured, he was taken to Camp Nama and Abu
Ghraib prison before being sent to a military base in Afghanistan. Rahmatullah
claimed that he was first tortured by the British. Then, he was handed off to U.S.
military personnel, who performed similar acts of cruelty. In May 2014, he was officially released. Now,
he is set on exposing his extraordinary rendition and its damaging
consequences.
This occurrence of events sounds
quite familiar much like past court cases involving El Masri, Mohammed, and
their respective defendants, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the UK. The
plaintiff, a former prisoner charged with terrorism or association to it, goes against the state or certain state officials to
unmask the reality of torture. From this court ruling, Rahmatullah has been granted
the chance for redress and a formal investigation into the committed acts of
torture during his imprisonment. The British government has been attempting to
reverse the court decision and any following action through used excuses,
specifically noting the potential harm towards relations with the U.S.
Despite their best efforts, the
British government is at a loss. Their determination has no effect—investigations
must be pursued on both American and British sides to uncover Ramahtullah's
allegations of torture. This relates to the reading, Uncloaking Secrecy:
International Human Rights Law in Terrorism Cases, as the UK and U.S. each
disguise their illegal actions citing public interest immunity and state secret
privilege, respectively. In Ramahtullah's case, the UK cannot defend themselves
from disclosing any perceived sensitive information. The court is demanding
transparency. The UK can no longer hide behind the U.S. and its tightly adhered
state secret privilege that has rendered several torture victims in circuitous
appeal proceedings.
With a sympathetic streak for
former prisoners of either extraordinary rendition or torture, this court ruling
has a significant effect on three other comparable cases, where the victims are
able to sue specific parties that played a role in their imprisonment and
subsequent treatment. Yet, controversy and pessimism still exists. Very few think
that the U.S. will change its current assessment of revealing illicit
activities. As stated in the article, the Obama administration is disinclined
to acknowledge the wrongdoings of the Bush administration. Instead, they keep
tossing these torture cases aside. Even with the UK court system trying to hold
the government responsible, the U.S. refuses to hold its officials accountable
for their illegal acts. It raises the question of why the U.S. seems to view
itself as a higher entity than other states? Will legitimate loopholes eventually
be found in the secret state privilege doctrine and be admissible in future
court cases and proceedings? While the UK government has been cooperative with
its courts, their legality was compromised. Reportedly, in another case, lawyer
client confidentiality had been breached. So called spies neglected the
steadfast rule, listening in on private conversations. This brings further
questioning of whether states are truly concerned about the threat of
disrupting national security versus maintaining their justifications for
torturing alleged terrorists. How are basic human rights being disregarded so
nonchalantly?
Although there are still many
facets of controversy and layers of issues being raised around these cases,
this successful court ruling is one step forward for similar victims' cases. The
future of torture victims seeking reparations is still far from reach, but
there is slow and sure progress being made in courts. If one court sets a
precedent, other courts should follow.
Article Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/world/pakistani-held-in-iraq-wins-a-round-in-court.html?ref=topics&_r=0
No comments:
Post a Comment