The case, John Doe v. Donald Rumsfeld, et al, (No. 08-cv-1902 CKK), is being heard by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the decision is available here.
Out of the many suits brought against Rumsfeld over the torture of detainees in Iraq, this is only the second case that has been allowed to proceed. The other case is Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel v. Donald Rumsfeld, et al (06 C 6964). In both cases, plaintiffs are being represented by Mike Kanovitz and Gayle Horn of the civil rights law firm Loevy & Loevy, based in Chicago. The Washington, DC-based nonprofit Government Accountability Project is co-counsel in Doe v. Rumsfeld.
"This case affects tens of thousands of American citizens who work on behalf of the United States in war zones. We are relieved that the courts are going to exercise their constitutional role of judicial review instead of giving the President a blank check when it comes to the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens," said Attorney Mike Kanovitz of Loevy & Loevy.
"There is a clear record showing that Mr. Rumsfeld authorized the use of brutal interrogation techniques that violated our nation’s constitution. Like all Americans, my clients just want a level playing field and a fair jury. Now they are going to get that,” said Kanovitz.
Last year, a federal court in Chicago held in Vance that two American citizens who were also tortured while detained by U.S. forces in Iraq could bring constitutional claims against Mr. Rumsfeld. That decision is currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. A decision is expected soon.
In November 2005, while working as a translator in Iraq for the Marine Corps, "Doe," an American citizen, was taken into custody as he was returning home to the United States on leave. Doe alleges that he was kidnapped by U.S. military personnel and whisked away to Camp Cropper, a U.S. military base in Iraq. As the suit notes,
Plaintiff was not held for the purpose of an investigation or prosecution by any branch or component of the Iraqi government. Nor did United States officials charge him with any crime, nor had he committed any crime. Plaintiff was not told when or if he would ever be able to leave. For months, no one in his family could find out if he was even alive. All they knew was that he had disappeared.... Throughout his detention, Plaintiff was held in torturous conditions of confinement, subjected to threats on his life, and denied an attorney or even access to a legitimate court to challenge the government’s actions.
After being held incommunicado for nine months without charges, Doe was released without explanation or an apology.
In John Doe v. Rumsfeld, the plaintiff was granted anonymity by the court due to concerns about retaliation.