Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the ten other senior military officials named in the lawsuit have immunity, the court ruled, because “[n]o reasonable government official would have been on notice that plaintiffs had any Fifth Amendment or Eighth Amendment rights.” Although the  Supreme Court ruled last June in Boumediene v. Bush that detainees at Guantanamo have the right to habeas corpus, the court today ruled that “At the time of their detention, neither the Supreme Court nor this court had ever held that aliens captured on foreign soil and detained beyond sovereign U.S. territory had any constitutional rights…”

The case, Rasul v. Myers, which I’ve written about here and here, was on remand from the Supreme Court, which had instructed the D.C. Circuit to reconsider its previous ruling dismissing the case in light of the high court’s decision in Boumediene. To the dismay of many civil rights advocates, the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, insisted that even if the men were tortured, the case should be dismissed because U.S. government officials could not have known at the time that they were violating established rights, so they’re entitled to immunity.

The D.C. district court that initially heard this case had similarly dismissed the constitutional claims, but ruled that the four former prisoners had rights to sue under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because they hadn’t been allowed to practice their religion and their Korans had been desecrated. The appellate court today reaffirmed its earlier decision that because the men are “aliens” and not residents of the United States, they are not “persons” entitled to protection under the statute.

Reached this afternoon, Katherine Toomey, a lawyer at the firm Baach Robinson & Lewis, which is representing the four British men along with the Center for Constitutional Rights, said that the lawyers are now considering whether to ask for a re-hearing by the full court of appeals, or to seek review again in the Supreme Court.

A slew of lawsuits isn’t hard to imagine. About 750 people have been detained as suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Thousands more have been held around the world. Many claim they were tortured, and we know from the Bush administration’s own documents that tactics such as waterboarding, stress positions, extreme hot and cold, blaring music and sleep deprivation, and sexual and religious humiliation were all among the tactics used to wring information out of them.

Although the Military Commissions Act tries to preclude lawsuits filed by enemy combatants, many of the people held were never determined to be enemy combatants, or were still held after they were cleared for release. Of the lawsuits already filed against US officials by detainees, none of them were ever deemed enemy combatants. The Second Circuit heard arguments in the case of Maher Arar this week, and lawyers on the other case (Rasul v. Rumsfeld) have asked the US Supreme Court for review. The court will consider the request when it meets on Friday.

Although all sorts of immunities protect US officials from wrongdoing on the job, there’s a strong argument to be made that torture can never be considered part of a government official’s job, so those immunities shouldn’t apply. And the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which protects against violations of detainees’ religious rights, such as having their Koran flushed down the toilet or being forcibly shaven, is very broad. (That didn’t stop the DC Circuit from dismissing four British detainees’ claims under it earlier this year, though, as I’ve written about before.)

But as I was talking to Carolyn Patty Blum the other day, an emeritus law professor at Berkeley and consultant to the International Center for Transitional Justice, she mentioned that a commission set up to investigate torture and other abuses perpetrated by Bush officials could also recommend, in addition to prosecution, a means by which torture victims can be compensated. Even if Bush were to pardon himself and his officials, a topic of much recent discussion, that wouldn’t shield anybody from future civil lawsuits demanding monetary compensation. But a statute that set up an investigative commission that had the power to, among other things, recommend compensating victims of torture and arbitrary detention, could also protect the US government from some costly future litigation.

“If a commission led to the creation of some sort of process that allows people to clear their name and apply for some sort of monetary compensation for being arbitrarily detained, one of the benefits is it would foreclose the ability for people to pursue another remedy,” Blum explained. “That would be a net gain in terms of cost savings for the new administration.”

Although that’s not the primary reason why Obama should create an investigative commission — Scott Horton at Harper’s has made the case for one quite well — it’s yet another argument in its favor.