The Case Against Rumsfeld

Press Conference Statement of Michael Posner Executive Director, Human Rights First (formerly Lawyers Committee for Human Rights)

Press Conference, March 1, 2005
Washington, DC

Following the attacks on this country on September 11, 2001, the U.S. government took a number of actions aimed at protecting our national security. Many of these steps were prudent and sensible. But other actions, such as those we address in this lawsuit, have seriously undermined human rights principles fundamental to what the United States is as a nation.

Over the past quarter century, the organizational style of Human Rights First has been to look for ways to challenge improper policies and practices through dialogue with decision-makers and constructive debate on the merits of an issue. It has been our hope these past several years, as this country has wavered in its commitment to reject torture and abusive interrogation practices, that the same efforts would yield results.

Even as the scope of the abuses became clearer, we still relied on this approach. We have campaigned vigorously for the creation of an independent commission, appointed by Congress, to investigate U.S. detention and interrogation practices. We envisioned a commission similar in scope and authority to the recently completed 9/11 Commission, with subpoena powers and a broad mandate to examine illegal practices - not just at Abu Ghraib, but wherever people are being held in U.S. custody. Our hope was that we could achieve accountability for torture, and correction of the policies that led to it, without resort to the courts. In bringing this action today, we have reluctantly concluded we were wrong. Our traditional approach would not bear results.

We are here today asking U.S. federal courts for relief for two reasons: First, to end the practice and the policy of torture. The United States was founded on the simple principle that all people, by virtue of their humanity, have inalienable rights under law. Torture and calculated cruelty inflicted as official policy - the kind of abuses suffered by our clients and documented by our complaint - cannot be reconciled with this principle. Such conduct strips people of their dignity and deprives them of their humanity. It is the opposite of a regime of rights under law. It is for this reason such treatment has long been prohibited by the laws of the United States, and by treaties the United States has ratified and urged the world to embrace.

Secretary Rumsfeld's failure to observe and enforce these prohibitions against torture and other inhuman treatment goes to the very core of the U.S. system of law. This lawsuit presents the opportunity to make clear that the United States is still committed to the rule of law, and that every American, no matter how high-ranking, is bound to comply with those rules.

The second reason we are bringing this lawsuit is to ensure meaningful accountability. We are before you now, having filed court papers this morning, as a last resort. We will continue to press for an independent commission, which would signal a formal, national commitment to investigate what has happened and why and to recommend corrective action. But we now believe that, unfortunately, such a commission is very unlikely to happen without added pressure, including the pursuit of legal remedies through the courts.

We have spent the past two years - beginning even before the Abu Ghraib photos came to light - engaging with members of the Administration and Congress urging reform of U.S. interrogation practices. Following the release of those photos, and the widespread revulsion those images evoked, we hoped the administration would surely recognize the need for fundamental reforms.

Yet almost a year after that graphic evidence, the policies that led to them, and the leaders who put them in place, are largely unchanged. On the contrary, there continue to be almost daily news stories suggesting that these policies continue, and making clear that the abuses are widespread. And some of the architects of these policies are being promoted throughout the government.

The United States has a legal system designed to prevent the kind of treatment that Secretary Rumsfeld allowed here, and to hold all those who violate the law accountable for their wrongdoing. Apart from the success of the military justice system in prosecuting the lowest ranking troops, this system has not worked as it should. So today we are asking the courts to make sure the world can watch America set a better example.

Finally, I must add a word about what this case is not. This case is not about the United States as a whole, or the thousands of brave men and women who continue to serve their country honorably in the most dangerous conditions every day. Throughout our efforts, we have consulted with retired military leaders, testing our assumptions and recommendations. These discussions have led to a partnership with them about the need for reform - for national and troop security and for America to promote its democratic interests around the world. As a show of this alliance, we are very appreciative that Admiral John Hutson and General James Cullen have joined Human Rights First as "of counsel" on this suit.

Admiral Hutson and General Cullen believe, as we do, that this case is about policy and leadership failures that are the responsibility of Secretary Rumsfeld himself. U.S. courts have long made clear that public officials who violate the law in such egregious ways exceed the scope of their authority, and can therefore be held personally responsible for the harms their policies inflict. We are suing Secretary Rumsfeld to challenge the policies he authorized, the actions he took that sanctioned torture and other coercive methods of interrogation, and the actions he failed to take to prevent torture and abuse or to stop it once he knew it was happening.

For 27 years, Human Rights First has challenged serious human rights abuses like torture and illegal detentions in the former Soviet Union, Haiti, Egypt, Cuba and South Africa under Apartheid. Senior U.S. officials in Republican and Democratic Administrations have aided our cause and played an extraordinary role in placing human rights firmly on the international agenda. They have relied, as we have, on our nation's rich constitutional tradition as a standard for measuring adherence to the rule of law.

Our hope is that this lawsuit will create an opportunity for the United States to live up to that proud tradition.