Rumsfeld faces war crimes accusations
Puck78
Posts: 737
The Associated Press: November 13, 2006
BERLIN: Civil rights activists filed a suit Tuesday asking German prosecutors to open a war crimes investigation of outgoing U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and a host of other officials for their alleged roles in abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay.
The 220-page suit was sent to federal prosecutors by U.S. and German attorneys under a German law that allows the prosecution of war crimes regardless of where they were committed. It alleges that Rumsfeld personally ordered and condoned torture.
"One of the goals has been to say a torturer is someone who cannot be given a safe haven," said Michael Ratner, the president of New York's Center for Constitutional Rights, which is behind the litigation.
"It sends a strong message that this is not acceptable."
Captured in December 2001 along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, al-Qahtani would not crack under normal questioning, so Rumsfeld approved harsher methods, according to testimony before U.S. Congress.
After FBI agents raised concerns, military investigators began reviewing the case and in July 2005 said they confirmed abusive and degrading treatment that included forcing al-Qahtani to wear a bra, dance with another man, stand naked in front of women and behave like a dog. Still, the Pentagon determined "no torture occurred."
German prosecutors already declined to investigate a more limited suit in 2004, arguing that it was up to the U.S. to hold any inquiry and that there were no indications U.S. authorities or courts would refrain from doing so.
The attorneys involved think they have a better case this time, armed with documents from 2005 congressional hearings on the al-Qahtani case. They argue that Rumsfeld's resignation last week means prosecutors may be under less political pressure to shun the case.
They also have former U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq, as a witness on their behalf.
Karpinski, who was relieved of her command and demoted to colonel last year, says she did not know about prisoner abuse and asserts that higher-ups encouraged cruel treatment.
"It was done incrementally over time to prevent people from seeing what was actually approved and permitted," Karpinski said at a news conference alongside the lawyers backing the case.
"It certainly escaped my perception ... when they thought that Janis Karpinski was getting too close to uncovering this information or these events, they took me out of the equation."
Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith and Frank Wallenta, spokesman for German federal prosecutors, both said they could not comment because they had not yet received the suit in their offices.
In addition to Rumsfeld, the suit names U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet, former commander of all U.S. forces in Iraq Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez and eight others, alleging that they either ordered, aided, or failed to prevent war crimes.
A case could not be brought with the International Criminal Court, because the United States is not a member, Ratner said, and could not be pursued through the U.N. because the U.S. has veto power.
Wolfgang Kaleck, the German attorney who is leading the litigation, said the suit's backers would appeal if prosecutors refuse to take up the case, and raised the prospect of further attempts in other European countries.
BERLIN: Civil rights activists filed a suit Tuesday asking German prosecutors to open a war crimes investigation of outgoing U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and a host of other officials for their alleged roles in abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay.
The 220-page suit was sent to federal prosecutors by U.S. and German attorneys under a German law that allows the prosecution of war crimes regardless of where they were committed. It alleges that Rumsfeld personally ordered and condoned torture.
"One of the goals has been to say a torturer is someone who cannot be given a safe haven," said Michael Ratner, the president of New York's Center for Constitutional Rights, which is behind the litigation.
"It sends a strong message that this is not acceptable."
Captured in December 2001 along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, al-Qahtani would not crack under normal questioning, so Rumsfeld approved harsher methods, according to testimony before U.S. Congress.
After FBI agents raised concerns, military investigators began reviewing the case and in July 2005 said they confirmed abusive and degrading treatment that included forcing al-Qahtani to wear a bra, dance with another man, stand naked in front of women and behave like a dog. Still, the Pentagon determined "no torture occurred."
German prosecutors already declined to investigate a more limited suit in 2004, arguing that it was up to the U.S. to hold any inquiry and that there were no indications U.S. authorities or courts would refrain from doing so.
The attorneys involved think they have a better case this time, armed with documents from 2005 congressional hearings on the al-Qahtani case. They argue that Rumsfeld's resignation last week means prosecutors may be under less political pressure to shun the case.
They also have former U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq, as a witness on their behalf.
Karpinski, who was relieved of her command and demoted to colonel last year, says she did not know about prisoner abuse and asserts that higher-ups encouraged cruel treatment.
"It was done incrementally over time to prevent people from seeing what was actually approved and permitted," Karpinski said at a news conference alongside the lawyers backing the case.
"It certainly escaped my perception ... when they thought that Janis Karpinski was getting too close to uncovering this information or these events, they took me out of the equation."
Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith and Frank Wallenta, spokesman for German federal prosecutors, both said they could not comment because they had not yet received the suit in their offices.
In addition to Rumsfeld, the suit names U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet, former commander of all U.S. forces in Iraq Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez and eight others, alleging that they either ordered, aided, or failed to prevent war crimes.
A case could not be brought with the International Criminal Court, because the United States is not a member, Ratner said, and could not be pursued through the U.N. because the U.S. has veto power.
Wolfgang Kaleck, the German attorney who is leading the litigation, said the suit's backers would appeal if prosecutors refuse to take up the case, and raised the prospect of further attempts in other European countries.
www.amnesty.org
www.amnesty.org.uk
www.amnesty.org.uk
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
www.amnesty.org.uk
but they can't just come and pick him up and fly him back to wherever...all he has to do is avoid going to that country...kissinger is a wanted man in a few countries
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
No, you're right, only the U.S. can do that to people.
In that case, he would be arrested.
www.amnesty.org.uk
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=222616
The universal jurisdiction will refer to international law, that also the US signed. This mean that they can proceed with the process. Previously it didn't work for the immunity, that now Rumsfeld has lost.
www.amnesty.org.uk
The US isn't going to recognize Germany's "universal jurisdiction". That is a pretty highly controversial topic, and the US is historically more than reluctant to give up any sovereignty, which is exactly what happens with universal jurisdiction.
What do you expect the outcome to be?
This is a dog and pony show -- a politicized trial for show, and will not produce any binding, tangable results. Rumsfeld will not be turned over to international authorities. In this case they're casting a wide net to see what they can catch. My guess is they won't catch anything.
No. I have heard of realpolitik though.
You sound pretty confident. I'd be interested to know what you base this confidence in Rumsfeld's innocence on.
Why, he got all his info from Judith Miler and Scooter Libby, so it must be true.
Perhaps you're reading words which don't exist. Please show me where I mentioned anything about Rumsfeld's innocence. I am simply arguing against a notion of "universal jurisdiction". Nice try, though.
WTF are you on about, now? You assume I think Rumsfeld is innocent because Byrnzie suggested it? You need to find new sources of info, apparently.
the US is a sovereign country. they have no jurisdiction here and nobody would ever give them extradition powers over rumsfeld. not even ralph nader. as long as he doesn't go to germany, he's safe.
You haven't understood that at a certin level it doesn't matter if the US recognise the universal jurisdiction or not. Rumsfeld can be declared guilty also without the estradiction. And he wouldn't be allowed to go to a country that recognise the sentence to him, without being arrested and imprisoned.
www.amnesty.org.uk
You mean like the Geneva Convention?
Convicting Rumsfeld will be the first step in placing accountability where it belongs. When George Bush is arrested - America can begin to regain a respectable identity. If we let him walk, we are no better than him.
Seems pretty clear to me.
are you a lawyer? im well aware of how jurisdiction works. the fact remains, rumsfeld will not be held accountable. at worst, he'll have a few potential vacation destinations crossed off his list. but he is not going to go to jail and he will not suffer any ill effects from this.
Perhaps you read what you want to read. I can't help you there. I never said anything either way about Rumsfeld's guilt or innocence. I was talking about the nature of the trial itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_vs._United_States
The fact that the U.S chose to not recognise the authority of the World court doesn't change that fact. And the fact that most people in the West are unaware of this fact due to the existence of a media system which is completely subservient to power also doesn't change this fact. Rumsfeld and Bush could both be charged with crimes against humanity, although it's highly likely that they would refuse to recognise the authority of any international court of Law, in the same way, for example, that the U.S and Israel are the only two countries in the world that have failed to officially recognise the Geneva convention. It doesn't mean that they won't go down in history as criminals, like Nixon, and Pinochet have gone down in history as criminals.
That was exactly my point. Thanks!
To Abuskedti: international law is much larger than the geneva convention. the geneva convention is part of it.
www.amnesty.org.uk
*achoo*
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
that's all fair and good...the problem is that the u.s. went and disturbed that which was not under their sovereign control...thus falling into the realm of international discretion...
from my window to yours