<html>
<body>
<font size=3>
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/scotus/la-na-scotus-gitmo16-2008dec16,0,2192618.story">
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/scotus/la-na-scotus-gitmo16-2008dec16,0,2192618.story</a>
<br>
<i>From the Los Angeles Times<br><br>
</i><b>Supreme Court revives lawsuit by former detainees<br><br>
</b>Four British Muslims who spent more than two years at Guantanamo want
top Pentagon officials held responsible for their treatment.<br>
By David G. Savage<br><br>
December 16, 2008<br><br>
Reporting from Washington The Supreme Court revived a lawsuit Monday by
four British Muslims who said they were tortured and abused at the prison
at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and harassed and humiliated during daily
prayers.<br><br>
The former prisoners are attempting to hold top Pentagon officials
responsible for the abuse, including former Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld.<br><br>
The lawsuit was thrown out last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals in
Washington, which concluded that the Guantanamo prisoners had no rights
under the Constitution because they were foreigners held by the
military.<br><br>
In a one-line order Monday, the justices set aside the appeals court's
decision and ordered the judges to take a new look at the case.<br><br>
In June, the Supreme Court rejected the premise that all Guantanamo
prisoners had no rights. In a 5-4 ruling, the justices said the
Constitution's protection for the right of habeas corpus extended to all
Guantanamo detainees. The decision cleared the way for prisoners to sue
for their freedom before a judge.<br><br>
Citing that ruling, lawyers for the former prisoners at the U.S.-run
detention center in Cuba appealed to the high court in August.<br><br>
"The torture, abuse and religious humiliation of Muslim detainees at
Guantanamo Bay stands as a shameful episode in our history," their
lawyer, Eric Lewis, wrote in his appeal.<br><br>
The four British men include Shafiq Rasul. He was the lead plaintiff in
the 2004 ruling that first granted the right of habeas corpus to
prisoners held at Guantanamo.<br><br>
Rasul, a native of Tipton, England, traveled to Pakistan in 2001 to study
computer science. He and three other men went to Afghanistan a few months
later to help with a humanitarian crisis. The men were captured by
warlords and turned over to U.S. forces. They spent more than two years
at Guantanamo before they were freed and returned to England.<br><br>
In their suit, the men say they were shackled in painful positions,
threatened by dogs, subjected to extremes of hot and cold, and harassed
during their daily prayers.<br><br>
Their suit named Rumsfeld and top generals who were in charge of
Guantanamo.<br><br>
Bush administration lawyers had urged the high court to reject the appeal
and dismiss the suit.<br><br>
U.S. Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre said the appeals court had
correctly concluded "that military detainees could not impose
personal monetary liability on the nation's military commanders for
overseas conditions of confinement during a time of war."<br><br>
The justices rejected that idea Monday.<br><br>
Lewis, the lawyer for the British men, said the court's action was
"a clear signal to the Court of Appeals that its decision . . . was
wrong and should be overturned."<br><br>
Savage is a writer in our Washington bureau.<br><br>
<a href="mailto:david.savage@latimes.com">david.savage@latimes.com</a><br>
<br>
<br><br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>