Lebron v. Rumsfeld: the Fourth Circuit Drops an Anvil on Bivens

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Howard Gilbert says:

    On July 24, 2000 Jose Padilla enlisted in the Army of Afghanistan under the Taliban government in effective control of that country. Over the next two months he received basic training at the Al Faroque camp and became an ordinary solider in an ordinary army of an ordinary country. On 9/11 the US was attacked by a unit of Al Qaeda operatives and Afghan Army soldiers. One consequence of this attack was an “international armed conflict (IAC, international law speak for what we usually call a “war”) between the US and Afghanistan. Padilla, a member of the regular armed forces of a foreign country that attacked the US and triggered a war became an enemy combatant in the same sense and in the same way that Japanese soldiers became enemy combatants after Pearl Harbor. On May 8, 2002 Padilla was arrested at the customs counter of O’Hare Airport on a material witness warrant issued in conjunction with a subpoena from a Grand Jury investigating the 9/11 attack. When interviewed by the FBI, he admitted that he was still an active duty soldier in the Afghan army, that he had come to the US on a military mission of sabotage to execute “The Apartments Operation” as it was called. He was acting under orders from his commanding officer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and had even paid for his airline ticket out of military operating funds given to him to execute the mission.

    Based on his statement, the US decided that Padilla was not a civilian and was therefore immune to a Grand Jury subpoena. However, he was an enemy combatant subject to detention by the military as a prisoner of war for the duration of hostilities. Hostilities here are not some amorphous “War on Terror” but rather the international armed conflict between the US and the Taliban former government of the country of Afghanistan.

    While in military custody at the Consolidated Navy Brig in Charleston SC, everything that happened to Padilla 24 hours a day was recorded on video. All the DVDs where inventoried, and except for one disk from March 2004 which was lost, they have all been available to his legal team since his criminal case five years ago. We have been told that Padilla was always cooperative and tried to answer questions as best he could.

    Padilla was not subject to torture or enhanced interrogation. First, why would the CIA use black prisons in undisclosed locations and destroy all the evidence of real enhanced interrogation sessions if, at the same time, the Navy was going to use the same techniques in Charleston, SC against an American citizen whose capture and location were front page news after they were disclosed by the Attorney General in a press conference one day after his transfer, and while everything that happened to him was being video recorded to provide evidence if anything illegal happened (and provide evidence that nothing illegal happened). More importantly, we know from published interviews with someone involved with the CIA waterboarding that enhanced interrogation was used only to get someone talking at all and was discontinued and replaced by normal by the book interrogation as soon as they started talking. The reason is that enhanced interrogation (and real torture) produce unreliable intelligence. The subject tells you what he thinks you want to hear and not what is really true. Anything to get it to stop. Padilla was a cooperating witness talking from the first FBI interview. He was the last person in US custody that anyone would use enhanced interrogation or torture with, since it would be counter productive and compromise the value of the intelligence he was providing.

    This does not, however, prevent lawyers from alleging torture when filing a Bivens action. So the question is, how far do the courts allow the claim to proceed before they are required to provide some actual evidence of torture, or any other complaint they made.

    Padilla was a soldier. He was an enemy soldier, but when an enemy soldier surrenders he agrees to follow the orders of American officers. He can be ordered to do push ups until they hurt, just like any American soldier in boot camp. Soldiers do not enjoy a soft life. If Padilla had to sleep on a bed without a mattress, as one point in the complaint alleges, he still probably was more comfortable at night than he was during his three month assignment to guard duty at an Afghan Army post north of Kabul during the winter of 2000. Certainly he was more comfortable than a GI defending the periphery of Henderson Field on Guadalcanal, sleeping in a water filled foxhole and subject to nightly artillery barrages from Japanese troops. The point is that if you think about “stress positions”, and no mattress, and loud noises at night, your reference point has to be an infantry battalion on the march and not a night at Motel 6.

    Padilla was held under specific conditions that the DOD approved for prisoners of war in the current conflict. Originally this suit named over sixty high ranking members of the DOD involved in the policy. Now you may disagree with some of their rules, but the core finding of this decision is that a Bivens action is intended to provide relief from Federal officers engaged in clear violations of constitutional rights. It is not a mechanism for the courts to second guess the extensive and serious deliberations of the DOD about what are permissible and impermissible conditions for prisoners of war detained in the current conflict.

    Farmer Miller did not get to sue because of the damage to his cornfield at Antietam. The residents of Gettysburg did not get to sue because top ranking military policy let the Confederates get so far north. The soldiers in Patton’s army did not get to sue because of conditions on the forced march north to relieve Bastogne. That Padilla was a soldier in the Afghan rather than the US Army makes his case neither stronger nor weaker than the GI his army fights against.

    It may be that the conditions of Padilla’s detention crossed some line. If so, we will not find that line in the superficial analysis of the complaint in this case. The Fourth Circuit has decided that a civil suit for money damages (even $1) is not an appropriate context to make that determination. More importantly, it has decided that whatever that line is, it is a matter for the political branches to work out. If you think Padilla was “injured” by this policy, you should go to a VA hospital and see the GI’s who were really injured in this war. Most of them would be quite happy to spend three and a half years in the exact same conditions that Padilla experienced, if at the end of the period you gave them their legs back.

  2. Joe says:

    “Padilla was not subject to torture or enhanced interrogation.”

    Hard to take the rest of what you said seriously when you toss that in. Not “it is unlikely” or “I” (fwiw) “don’t think so.” No, simply didn’t happen. Helped by “someone” who “involved” in some fashion. This person apparently knew what happened in every case, including the intent of all the actors involved.

    “enhanced interrogation (and real torture)”

    “real” torture apparently being what you think counts or would be logical (as we know, torture is only used logically) for a given situation

    Your legal reasoning is as usual quite open to debate but I don’t recall seeing you letting the cat out of the bag about your bias quite THIS blatantly (sounds more like someone else I know at the likes of Balkinization). The last paragraph is rather blatant in this department.

  3. Sam Bagenstos says:


    I think your legal analysis should be right, but I wonder how it all fits with the recent trend in Bivens cases in the Supreme Court outside of the national security context. At least since Wilkie v. Robbins, I read those cases (at a high level of generality) as essentially assimilating the Bivens inquiry to the Court’s now-restrictive jurisprudence on implied statutory causes of action. Minneci v. Pollard this Term is an example of that, as well. I’m interested in how those cases, and the analytical approach they employ, affect your analysis.