home

U.S. to Pay Detainee in Abuse Lawsuit

President Bush says the U.S. does not engage in torture. Not in Iraq, and not at home. Then why did the U.S. agree to pay $300.000 to two detainees to settle their torture lawsuit?

The federal government has agreed to pay $300,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by an Egyptian who was among dozens of Muslim men swept up in the New York area after 9/11, held for months in a federal detention center in Brooklyn and deported after being cleared of links to terrorism.

....In the settlement agreement, which requires approval by a federal judge in Brooklyn, lawyers for the government said that the officials were not admitting any liability or fault. In court papers they have said that the 9/11 attacks created "special factors," including the need to deter future terrorism, that outweighed the plaintiffs' right to sue.

But are they are settling the case with money just to make it go away? Or because they are afraid a Brooklyn, NY jury might award the detainees much more money?

The settlement dismisses one of the detainees from the lawsuiit -- the one who had insisted on calling John Ashcroft and other officials as witnesses under oath.

The Government may want to downplay the significance of the settlement, but listien to what the defense lawyers had to say:

Lawyers who represent both the Egyptian, Ehab Elmaghraby, who used to run a restaurant near Times Square, and the second plaintiff, a Pakistani who is still pursuing the lawsuit, described the outcome as significant.

"This is a substantial settlement and shows for the first time that the government can be held accountable for the abuses that have occurred in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and in prisons right here in the United States," said one of the lawyers, Alexander A. Reinert of Koob & Magoolaghan.

....The lawsuit accuses Mr. Ashcroft and the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, of personally conspiring to violate the rights of Muslim immigrant detainees on the basis of their race, religion and national origin, and names a score of other defendants, including Bureau of Prison officials and guards at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. A 2003 report by the Justice Department's inspector general found widespread abuse of the noncitizen detainees at the Brooklyn center after 9/11, and in recent months, 10 of the center's guards and supervisors have been disciplined.

As for the torture,

Mr. Elmaghraby, who spent nearly a year in detention, and the Pakistani man, Javaid Iqbal, held for nine months, charged that while shackled they were kicked and punched until they bled. Their lawsuit said they were cursed as terrorists and subjected to multiple unnecessary body-cavity searches, including one in which correction officers inserted a flashlight into Mr. Elmaghraby's rectum, making him bleed.

In a telephone interview from his home in Alexandria, Egypt, Mr. Elmaghraby, 38, said he had reluctantly decided to settle because he is ill, in debt and about to have surgery for a thyroid ailment aggravated by his treatment in the detention center.

The Government hasn't exactly denied the allegations:

The government had argued that the lawsuits should be dismissed without testimony because the extraordinary circumstances of the terror attacks justified extraordinary measures to confine noncitizens who fell under suspicion, and because top officials need governmental immunity to combat future threats to national security without fear of being sued.

The Inspector General backs up the detainees' claims.

The inspector general's report said that little effort was made to distinguish between legitimate terrorism suspects and people picked up by chance, and that clearances took months, not days, because they were a low priority. Among the abuses described in the report -- many of them caught on prison videotape -- were beatings, sexual humiliations and illegal recording of lawyer-client conversations.(my emphasis)

Another telling factor is that many of the guards were disciplined:

She [Traci L. Billingsley, a spokeswoman for the Federal Bureau of Prisons] would not identify the 10 employees disciplined, but said that two had been fired and two demoted, and that the others had received suspensions ranging from 2 to 30 days. She listed the offenses as "lack of candor, unprofessional conduct, misuse of supervisory authority, conduct unbecoming, inattention to duty, failure to exercise supervisory responsibilities, excessive use of force, and physical and/or verbal abuse."

I think this is the first settlement we've seen, but it won't be the last. I can just envision a 2008 campaign commercial showing photos or videos of the prisoners' abuse, with a soundtrack over it of Bush's voice saying "We do not torture."

What better way to show he is a liar? The U.S. has engaged in torture in U.S. prisons, at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and undoubtedly other facilities overseas. Their ghost air prisoners, like Maher Arar, also have been tortured. Do you think Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed get to have picnics in the afternoon while interrogated in a prison located in a country that endorses the use of torture?

President Bush has turned us into a torturing country. G-d help those Americans who get caught by the Iraqis, Egyptians, Saudis or Afghans. It will be payback time. I think the Bush Administration will continue to pay big dollars to keep secret the details of those claiming torture. The more the world hears about it, the more our troops will be in harm's way if captured.

[Graphic created exclusively for TalkLeft by CL.]

< Rotten Potatoes: Contagious Entry | A New Low >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: U.S. to Pay Detainee in Abuse Lawsuit (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:32:13 AM EST
    Send the bill to the republican party. Send the bill for the Iraq war to the republican party. If the nitwit in chief and dr evil want to do fundraisers, let 'em knock themselves out.

    Re: U.S. to Pay Detainee in Abuse Lawsuit (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 05:20:03 AM EST
    A lawyer asking the question "why did they settle" is just too amusing. Companies settle because the cost of settling is lower than the cost of litigation all the time; the government applies the same cost/benefit analysis. You know this - it would be nice to see you admit it.

    Re: U.S. to Pay Detainee in Abuse Lawsuit (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 06:14:38 AM EST
    JR - I agree with your comment, but the JD should not have done this. It should have went to trial, and let the best team win.

    Re: U.S. to Pay Detainee in Abuse Lawsuit (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 06:23:02 AM EST
    oops on the post button... et al - From the post:
    G-d help those Americans who get caught by the Iraqis, Egyptians, Saudis or Afghans.
    So far I haven't seen anyone "caught." I have seen several "kidnapped" and beheaded. I wonder if Nick Berg or Daniel Peral would swap places with either of these two?

    Re: U.S. to Pay Detainee in Abuse Lawsuit (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 06:59:28 AM EST
    A lawyer asking the question "why did they settle" is just too amusing. Companies settle because the cost of settling is lower than the cost of litigation all the time; the government applies the same cost/benefit analysis. You know this - it would be nice to see you admit it.
    Cost is only one factor. Companies settle all the time because they don't want the negative press and YOU know this. Uncle Sam couldn't care less about a couple hundred thousand dollars. In this case, it is pretty clear that they don't want the trial all over the front page of the New York Times.

    Re: U.S. to Pay Detainee in Abuse Lawsuit (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 07:52:25 AM EST
    As one of the attorneys working on the companion class action that is discussed in the piece today, I just wanted to point out that I don't think many are using the word 'torture' to describe what happened to the detainees in the immigration sweep. (None of the lawsuits have TVPA claims, but our suit has Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment claims.) As horrific as what happened to these men is, it is not the kind of techniques they use in Guantanamo, Bagram, or Abu Ghraib. And I think we have to be careful how we use these terms so that they don't get watered down and they still have force when we use them to describe those acts that are, in fact, torture.

    Re: U.S. to Pay Detainee in Abuse Lawsuit (none / 0) (#7)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 08:59:44 AM EST
    Kinda hard to win a case when your own IG sez:
    The Inspector General backs up the detainees' claims. The inspector general's report said that little effort was made to distinguish between legitimate terrorism suspects and people picked up by chance, and that clearances took months, not days, because they were a low priority. Among the abuses described in the report -- many of them caught on prison videotape -- were beatings, sexual humiliations and illegal recording of lawyer-client conversations.


    Re: U.S. to Pay Detainee in Abuse Lawsuit (none / 0) (#8)
    by Steven Sanderson on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 09:39:38 AM EST
    Where will the damages monies come from? Social spending cuts? Bush has abused a lot of detainees and if a tidal wave of damage awards ever materializes then Bush can realize his dream of destroying Social Security, Medicare, and other social spending.

    Re: U.S. to Pay Detainee in Abuse Lawsuit (none / 0) (#9)
    by Lww on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 10:08:41 AM EST
    Just curious if the good attorneys waived their 50% fee, seeing how the poor guy is ill and broke in Egypt? Sure they did...

    Re: U.S. to Pay Detainee in Abuse Lawsuit (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 11:35:51 AM EST
    LWW: Well, he is represented by a 501(c)(3) (a nonprofit) so the lawyers can't take any more than they spent on the case.

    Re: U.S. to Pay Detainee in Abuse Lawsuit (none / 0) (#11)
    by Lww on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 11:43:13 AM EST
    Glad to hear that. Thanks.

    Re: U.S. to Pay Detainee in Abuse Lawsuit (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 11:53:14 AM EST
    The settlment figure seems incredibly low to me. A good dominatrix would charge far more for the hours of 'abuse' these guys endured. JR- the cost that would be incurred by the gov is not measured in $$ but in political liability. Ashcroft' s sworn testimony would harm the Republican machine far more than opening up the door to future settlements and implied guilt. You know that, but you choose to participate in the echo chamber 'we don't torture'. Pretty thin.

    Re: U.S. to Pay Detainee in Abuse Lawsuit (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 02:17:59 PM EST
    I am not aware that the tax status of a legal group affects the fees that it can charge its clients; if someone has a citation to legal authority to supports the fee limitation, I would like to see it. In any case, those fees allow organizations to continue to represent people without the funds to pay for their attorneys. Or does LWW think that only the rich should have representation?

    Re: U.S. to Pay Detainee in Abuse Lawsuit (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:39:59 PM EST
    Squeaky writes:
    The settlment figure seems incredibly low to me. A good dominatrix would charge far more for the hours of 'abuse' these guys endured.
    I'll take your word for it. ;-) upagainstthelaw - Interesting. I wonder how much money they got came from the government, and how much tax revenue was lost on the tax deductible contributions from individuals, companies and corporations?

    Re: U.S. to Pay Detainee in Abuse Lawsuit (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 07:19:44 AM EST
    Dark Avenger - "Musings" are allowed in Life and in the Internet.. In fact, "I wonder..." is a clear indicator to most readers that it is a question.

    Re: U.S. to Pay Detainee in Abuse Lawsuit (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 10:04:27 AM EST
    PPJ-
    In fact, "I wonder..." is a clear indicator to most readers that it is a question.
    Actually most who use the words I wonder... are asking a rhetorical question that they already know the answer to, or are fairly certain of the answer. That is how I use the is and that is how I read it when others use it.

    Re: U.S. to Pay Detainee in Abuse Lawsuit (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 09:31:09 PM EST
    Posted by JimakaPPJ February 28, 2006 07:14 AM
    JR - I agree with your comment, but the JD should not have done this. It should have went to trial, and let the best team win.
    Gee, I couldn't help but notice how there was no desire on your part for Justice or to see the case decided on the merits. Then again, given your position and political leanings, I can't say that I blame ya.

    Re: U.S. to Pay Detainee in Abuse Lawsuit (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 12:25:41 AM EST
    Good, now pay 10 million americans who have been abuse in our jails and prisons.