Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld In Germany Over Prison Abuse

emzie

wicked witch of the North
Moderator
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
21,364
Location
Ottawa, Canada
I want to make it clear this isn't the German government bringing the charges.

So is this political or a case with real merit? It's not as if these men would ever be extradited to Germany, so they'll never 'face justice' -- nevertheless, should this have been done?

This is along the lines of 'should Bush be put on trial'

Just days after his resignation, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called "20th hijacker" and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a "special interrogation plan," personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski — who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case — has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: "It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ."

A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.

Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.

Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides "universal jurisdiction" allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a "a big, big problem." U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.

In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case — that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue — has been proven wrong.

"The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer," says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments underlying the German prosecutor's previous inaction no longer hold up.

Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is the latest example of efforts in Western Europe by critics of U.S. tactics in the war on terror to call those involved to account in court. In Germany, investigations are under way in parliament concerning cooperation between the CIA and German intelligence on rendition — the kidnapping of suspected terrorists and their removal to third countries for interrogation. Other legal inquiries involving rendition are under way in both Italy and Spain.

U.S. officials have long feared that legal proceedings against "war criminals" could be used to settle political scores. In 1998, for example, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet — whose military coup was supported by the Nixon administration — was arrested in the U.K. and held for 16 months in an extradition battle led by a Spanish magistrate seeking to charge him with war crimes. He was ultimately released and returned to Chile. More recently, a Belgian court tried to bring charges against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged crimes against Palestinians.

For its part, the Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html
 
Wether or not rumsfield deserves the charges i dont think this would happen anyway.
 
this is gonna be completely useless, the US won't have its citizens charged under international law - they're certainly gonna ignore some german court
 
Riffraff said:
this is gonna be completely useless, the US won't have its citizens charged under international law - they're certainly gonna ignore some german court

I would say the same thing about some european leaders.

Imagine the positions of blair and bush were switched.

Blair started the war but is still the prime minister of the UK. Would he be tried?
 
Germany can set up a court with Universal Jurisdiction in name, but it's meaningless if other countries dont recognize its authority. Any attempt to bring Rumsfeld in front of the court without the authorization of Congress and the President would ammount to a declaration of war, which of course Germany wont do. If Germany wasn't willing to go after Saddam, who is guilty of myriad war crimes and crimes against humanity, why would they even bother going after Rumsfeld, whose greatest "war crimes" could have only been allowing the intimidation and humiliation of prisoners?
 
From the Washington Post, a pretty good guess as to why Rumsfeld was indicted.

Brigadier General Jane Karpinski stating that Rumsfeld knew about, or even ordered treatment of prisoners at odds with the Geneva Conventions via Global Research (no clue how reliable they are, but it's Brig. Gen. Karpinski speaking. More background on Karpinski here).

Human Rights Watch weighing in here.

Hamdan v Rumsfeld Supreme Court ruling affirming that the military commissions tribunals do not comply with the Geneva Conventions standards. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions constitute a war crime according to international and US domestic law.

Rumsfeld approving "alternative interrogation techniques which would make George Orwell spin in his grave.

I'm not really a fan of 'universal jurisdiction' laws seeing as they are so open to charges of hypocrisy when it comes to who gets charged and who doesn't. But it's quite clear Rumsfeld won't get charged in the US, particularly after the ex post facto legalization of the military tribunals and abolition of habeas corpus for aliens last month. There's even talk of outlawing prisoners being able to even talk about the 'interrogation techniques' they were subjected to, making the prevention of abuses next to impossible. So if Rumsfeld won't get charged in the US, it'll have to be in Germany, and maybe other nations will follow suit, too. Maybe he'll never be convicted, but at the very least we can have justices hound him wherever he goes until there's some sort of proper reckoning. Turn him into the next Pinochet, maybe.
 
Trajan12 said:
Do they have any life or are they bored?

Yeah, in the Western world, war crimes investigations are usually started because people don't have anything better to do....... :rolleyes:
 
Trajan12 said:
Do they have any life or are they bored?

"Dude, do you have any pot?"
"No man, whacha wanna do?"
"Let's bring war crime charges against Rumsfeld.

These aren't bored Germans bringing the charges but rather, people who were interned in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. I'm sure they're more 'pissed' than 'bored.
 
augurey said:
"Dude, do you have any pot?"
"No man, whacha wanna do?"
"Let's bring war crime charges against Rumsfeld.
:lol:

These aren't bored Germans bringing the charges but rather, people who were interned in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. I'm sure they're more 'pissed' than 'bored.
I'll grant that: they should bring their case in a court that actually has personal jurisdiction of the defendant. Otherwise, it's just political grandstanding. The German court hasn't any pretence of such jurisdiction.

But I confess, I'm only an American lawyer. Any German attorneys to comment on German procedural requirements? I'd be interested. :goodjob:
 
Trajan12 said:
I mean do they have anything better to do than attempt cases that are impossible?

They're impossible because the US will not let any of it's citizens be tried for any crime during a war before the world, which suggests there is only accountability if you're not American, or if your Sharon. This makes no sense to me, if someone has something to answer for before humanity, he should at least take the stand, or it's kinda hypocritical. Let him be judged by his peers, if he's innocent as I suspect he might be, then at least justice is being practiced. Let's face it theirs none for political prisoners, even the Israelies do this. It's a double standard, and it's kinda sad. But then of course you are above reproach as everything you do is right;) :p
 
Any other country in the world is free to try any American for war crimes if they want. All they need to do first is invade and conquer us.
 
Even assuming for a moment that everything they are saying is true, this is still bogus. These so-called crimes were ordered by non-Germans, against non-Germans, and did not take place on German soil. No German court has the authority to hear such a case.

Idiots really shouldn't be allowed in court.
 
If they're going to file a case, shouldn't it be at the United States Supreme Court?

People who think their rights were violated by an American on American territory bringing the case to Germany just seems like...the wrong place to go.

Edit: it would appear that I cross-posted.
 
Stegyre said:
I'll grant that: they should bring their case in a court that actually has personal jurisdiction of the defendant. Otherwise, it's just political grandstanding. The German court hasn't any pretence of such jurisdiction.

It does have a pretence; it's called universal jurisdiction. As far as I can tell, German law provides for this. Of course, the question whether universal jurisdiction' is a good thing is another matter entirely, as I mentioned.
Of course, they had to wait for Rumsfeld to leave office. German prosecutors actually already attempted to charge him last year, but that investigation was shot down because German authorities were confident the US justice department would handle the matter ( :lol ) and of course because it would have seriously complicated German-US relations, particularly within NATO.
 
jameson said:
It does have a pretence; it's called universal jurisdiction. As far as I can tell, German law provides for this. Of course, the question whether universal jurisdiction' is a good thing is another matter entirely, as I mentioned.
Of course, they had to wait for Rumsfeld to leave office. German prosecutors actually already attempted to charge him last year, but that investigation was shot down because German authorities were confident the US justice department would handle the matter ( :lol ) and of course because it would have seriously complicated German-US relations, particularly within NATO.
Universal jurisdiction is the worst idea since communism.
 
Top Bottom