[JURIST] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] released a full-page advertisement [image] in the New York Times on Sunday, imploring President Barack Obama to fulfill his pledge to try suspected 9/11 [JURIST news archive] terrorists in federal courts. The ad, which features a series of pictures that morph Obama's picture to one of former president George W. Bush, extols the virtues of the US criminal justice system and outlines the fact that the vast majority of suspected terrorists have been tried in non-military courts. The ACLU also sent a letter [text, PDF] to Obama on Sunday, conveying a similar message to that in the advertisement. In the letter, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero discussed many of the problems associated with military tribunals:

Most of the attention on the legal problems with the military commissions has focused on the looser evidentiary statute, particularly the admissibility of coerced evidence and hearsay evidence that would be barred from every federal or state criminal trial or court martial in the United States, but there are also fundamental constitutional questions that could jeopardize the use of military commissions and could result in the reversal of any conviction. I believe these challenges are significant enough that the risk of such challenges succeeding should alone be sufficient reason to reject military commissions, particularly for defendants alleged to have had a role in the September 11 attacks.

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois [official website] on Friday denied [decision, PDF] a motion to dismiss a torture suit brought against former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld [JURIST news archive] by two American citizens captured while working in Iraq. Judge Wayne Andersen dismissed two other counts but allowed the count alleging the plaintiffs were subject to cruel and degrading treatment methods during their detention. The plaintiffs, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, were working for a private Iraqi security firm called Shield Group Security. There they witnessed suspicious activity that they reported to US authorities, but they were later arrested by US forces and detained without representation. The plaintiffs brought a cause of action recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics [opinion text] against Rumsfeld, claiming that he was personally responsible for the alleged unconstitutional treatment they faced while in detention. While allowing the suit seems in conflict with the recent decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal [JURIST report], which extended heightened pleading requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) [text] beyond antitrust cases, the judge wrote that Iqbal "requires vigilance on our part to ensure that claims which do not state a plausible claim for relief are not allowed to occupy the time of high-ranking government officials," but is not supposed to be a "categorical bar on claims against" them.

Rumsfeld has faced multiple suits brought in relation to treatment of detainees. Last month, a judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that claims of unlawful treatment and wrongful death brought on behalf of two former Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] detainees are barred by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) [text, PDF]. The claim was brought [JURIST report] against Rumsfeld and more than 100 military officers and personnel under the Alien Tort Claims Act [text], which provides that district courts have original jurisdiction to hear claims for torts "committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." In another suit last December, the US Supreme Court [official website] declined to hear [JURIST report] a lawsuit against Rumsfeld and other military officials brought by four UK citizens who were detained at Guantanamo.