My question is why? WHY can't he be held personally responsible for actions taken in connection with his government job? That makes no sense at all to me.Former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld cannot be tried on allegations of torture in overseas military prisons, a federal judge said yesterday. US District Judge Thomas F. Hogan threw out a lawsuit brought on behalf of nine former prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said Rumsfeld cannot be held personally responsible for actions taken in connection with his government job. The lawsuit says the prisoners were beaten, urinated on, shocked, sexually humiliated, burned, locked in boxes, and subjected to mock executions. (AP)
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Torture suit against Rumsfeld is tossed
Here's something I found in The Boston Globe:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
'cuz the presnit loves him, that's why!!
ReplyDeleteDat bastid and his friends can do whatever they want and those 'publcan judges will approve. That's how they keep their jobs.
Even in "this" or "his" special case, it is understandable to ask, Why he can't be held personally responsible. But, it is also part of the democracy that elected representatives (I don't want to argue if this is the case here) have to make and allowed to make decisions, where they can't be held "personal" responsible because of the implication on a broader base. Please believe me, I would like to see this guy taken responsible. But this would bow the law as well, and some others would jump on the bandwagon, and it comes back quicker as you might like to see. (He found something he can hide behind - for now - but also he will be held one time, responsible!)
ReplyDeleteDo not harm your already tossed democracy because of this guy.