NationStates Jolt Archive

Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse
A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo
By ADAM ZAGORIN

Just days after his resignation, 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 ."
Continues (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html)

How interesting. 60 years ago the Allies prosecuted Germans for war crimes. Now the Germans may prosecute allied war criminals. Good job Germany!

Continues (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html)

How interesting. 60 years ago the Allies prosecuted Germans for war crimes. Now the Germans may prosecute allied war criminals. Good job Germany!

heh? did you read your own article? its former prisoners of Abu Graib who were tortured

from the article:
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.

How many guys do we have under the title of "20th hijacker?" Jeez, I swear there's like a dozen or so. "No, Mohammed Jazum Kazum Lazum Schmo-mo-mo is the so-called '31st hijacker.'" At what point do they become more than just a terrorist?

The odds of an American being turned over to Germany for a trial of this sort is a perfect zero. It has as much merit and odds of success as the US trying the leaders of Russian, Germany, France, (etc!) for the conveniently swept under the rug oil for food scandal. :rolleyes:

How interesting. 60 years ago the Allies prosecuted Germans for war crimes. Now the Germans may prosecute allied war criminals. Good job Germany!
heh? did you read your own article? its former prisoners of Abu Graib who were tortured

:confused: WTF are you on about? (Or is irony not in your mental toolkit?)

The odds of an American being turned over to Germany for a trial of this sort is a perfect zero. It has as much merit and odds of success as the US trying the leaders of Russian, Germany, France, (etc!) for the conveniently swept under the rug oil for food scandal. :rolleyes:

They may not be turned over, but Rummy was scared enough that he refused that he wasn't willing to attend a conference there the last time they tried it.

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.

It'd be interesting to see what happens. I expect Rummy won't be dropping in to Europe anytime soon...

:confused: WTF are you on about? (Or is irony not in your mental toolkit?)

60 years ago the allied governments brought the axis leaders before the courts.
in 2006 formely held captives who were tortured in Abu Graib are trying to bring former member of the US bureaucracy before a german court.

No sorry, don't see the irony

They may not be turned over, but Rummy was scared enough that he refused that he wasn't willing to attend a conference there the last time they tried it.



It'd be interesting to see what happens. I expect Rummy won't be dropping in to Europe anytime soon...

you see that ironic.

The whole "Do as I say, not as I Do" mentality that the current US gov. seems to be preaching

60 years ago the allied governments brought the axis leaders before the courts.
in 2006 formely held captives who were tortured in Abu Graib are trying to bring former member of the US bureaucracy before a german court.

No sorry, don't see the irony

60 years ago US leaders tried Germans for war crimes. Now Germans are pressiug charges against US leaders for the exact same sorts of war crimes.

That is the exact sort of incongruous and contrary expectation that leads to it being seen as ironic.

If you don't see that, tis a pity for you.

60 years ago the allied governments brought the axis leaders before the courts.
in 2006 formely held captives who were tortured in Abu Graib are trying to bring former member of the US bureaucracy before a german court.

No sorry, don't see the irony

There's a significant difference between the crimes of the Axis leaders and the supposed crimes of the American leaders. There's no way one can rationally compare the systematic murder of millions of people--genocide--by the Nazis to the torturing of a, at best, a few hundred terrorists. I'm not quite a supporter of the war (we shouldn't have gone there in the first place; should've focused on Afgahnistan), but I have no sympathy for those who train their rifles on us, regardless of the reasons we're over there. Parading a naked Iraqi around is not at all comparable to burning someone alive or tossing them into a gas chamber.

EDIT: Didn't mean to direct that necessarily at you; it's just being thrown out there in general.

you see that ironic.

I'm sorry I didn't understand that.

The whole "Do as I say, not as I Do" mentality that the current US gov. seems to be preaching

:confused: That's even less clear.

I'm sorry, but I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here.

There's a significant difference between the crimes of the Axis leaders and the supposed crimes of the American leaders. There's no way one can rationally compare the systematic murder of millions of people--genocide--by the Nazis to the torturing of a, at best, a few hundred terrorists. I'm not quite a supporter of the war (we shouldn't have gone there in the first place; should've focused on Afgahnistan), but I have no sympathy for those who train their rifles on us, regardless of the reasons we're over there. Parading a naked Iraqi around is not at all comparable to burning someone alive or tossing them into a gas chamber.

Indeed these are not quite the same scale of war crimes. But torture and mistreatment of prisoneres are war crimes under US law. And the Yamashita standard of command responsibility was established as a precident for war crimes by the USA.

Of note is that the Chief US prosecutor at the at Nuremberg trials, Benjamin Ferencz, has said both George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein should be tried for war crimes.

http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/138319/1/

(Missed your edit. Didn't take it as aimed at me.)

But torture and mistreatment of prisoneres are war crimes under US law.

It comes down to one's idea of torture. I do not consider the events that took place at Abu Ghraib to be torture. Personally, I find torture to be an acceptable means of extracting intelligence from a prisoner...but I guess I'm just cold-hearted.

60 years ago US leaders tried Germans for war crimes. Now Germans are pressiug charges against US leaders for the exact same sorts of war crimes.

That is the exact sort of incongruous and contrary expectation that leads to it being seen as ironic.

If you don't see that, tis a pity for you.

i think we're hijacking your own thread, so i'll stop after this

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.


again no germans are pressing charges. Its 11 iraqi + 1 saudi.
The only reason it even involves a german court is because of their legal system which allows


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.

The only Irony i see is that the US is meant to be a bastion of justlice, liberty, etc... which events like this seem to disagree with.

But the irony of comparing this to events of 60 years ago, nope don't see it

It comes down to one's idea of torture. I do not consider the events that took place at Abu Ghraib to be torture. Personally, I find torture to be an acceptable means of extracting intelligence from a prisoner...but I guess I'm just cold-hearted.

But the actions taken at Abu Ghraib, which may have taken place at the express command of Rumsfeld or may have been allowed due to Rumsfeld's having failed in his command responsibility (and which are the legal basis for the charges being brought) are war crimes under both international and US* law.

*Partly dependent on USSC rulings regarding some current statutes.

It comes down to one's idea of torture. I do not consider the events that took place at Abu Ghraib to be torture. Personally, I find torture to be an acceptable means of extracting intelligence from a prisoner...but I guess I'm just cold-hearted.

but as Daistallia mentioned, neither US nor international law agree with this sentiment

EDIT: beaten to it.

i think we're hijacking your own thread, so i'll stop after this

Welcome to NSG. This sort of sidetrack happens. It's not necessarily a bad thing.

again no germans are pressing charges. Its 11 iraqi + 1 saudi.
The only reason it even involves a german court is because of their legal system which allows

Aha. You seem to be confusing the prosecution with the plaintiff.

The only Irony i see is that the US is meant to be a bastion of justlice, liberty, etc... which events like this seem to disagree with.

But the irony of comparing this to events of 60 years ago, nope don't see it

Well, since you've confused the prosecution and plantiff I can understand why you don't see it.


Edit: Now I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not or something in between?

Aha. You seem to be confusing the prosecution with the plaintiff.



Well, since you've confused the prosecution and plantiff I can understand why you don't see it.



:confused: how so?

During the Nuremberg trials were set up by the Allied victors to persecute the nazi leadership for crimes committed.

Maybe i'm being pedantic but its seems hugely different to me

Of note is that the Chief US prosecutor at the at Nuremberg trials, Benjamin Ferencz, has said both George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein should be tried for war crimes.

Now that's interesting.

you see that ironic.

The whole "Do as I say, not as I Do" mentality that the current US gov. seems to be preaching

The current one? I thought that had been American policy for a number of years now.

They may not be turned over, but Rummy was scared enough that he refused that he wasn't willing to attend a conference there the last time they tried it.



It'd be interesting to see what happens. I expect Rummy won't be dropping in to Europe anytime soon...
Future media references: "Former Secretary of Defense, current fugitive, Donald Rumsfeld..." :D

Is there a statute of limitations on war crimes?

There's a significant difference between the crimes of the Axis leaders and the supposed crimes of the American leaders. There's no way one can rationally compare the systematic murder of millions of people--genocide--by the Nazis to the torturing of a, at best, a few hundred terrorists. I'm not quite a supporter of the war (we shouldn't have gone there in the first place; should've focused on Afgahnistan), but I have no sympathy for those who train their rifles on us, regardless of the reasons we're over there. Parading a naked Iraqi around is not at all comparable to burning someone alive or tossing them into a gas chamber.

EDIT: Didn't mean to direct that necessarily at you; it's just being thrown out there in general.
They're not being charged with repeating Nazi atrocities. They are being charged with war crimes, the definitions of which are clear in both international and US law, and which are broader than just "being the Nazis." Such crimes include torture, so therefore,
...the torturing of a, at best, a few hundred terrorists...
qualifies.

Oh, and by the way, neither you nor Don Rumsfeld, nor anyone else can show any proof whatsoever that any of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib actually were terrorists, since none of them was ever charged, let alone tried and convicted. And even if they had been, torture is still a crime.

So the fact that
Parading a naked Iraqi around is not at all comparable to burning someone alive or tossing them into a gas chamber.
is utterly irrelevant to either the German case or this discussion.

It comes down to one's idea of torture. I do not consider the events that took place at Abu Ghraib to be torture. Personally, I find torture to be an acceptable means of extracting intelligence from a prisoner...but I guess I'm just cold-hearted.
No. It comes down to the law's idea of torture, and the law -- both US and international -- says that what was done at Abu Ghraib is torture. Your disagreement is not relevant. The law's opinion is the only one that matters on this point.

Unless, of course, you can show some compelling reason why the law's definition of torture is creating a gross injustice or abusive of human rights. "It's not the same as what the Nazis did" and "Well, I think we should be allowed to do it" don't cut it.

the title of this thread is extremely misleading.

if i sue you in an american court the americans arent suing, i am.

Is this a civil or criminal case?

They may not be turned over, but Rummy was scared enough that he refused that he wasn't willing to attend a conference there the last time they tried it.

It'd be interesting to see what happens. I expect Rummy won't be dropping in to Europe anytime soon...

Wouldn't you do the same? I mean, if (say) Canada wanted you for illegal llama possession and had a case pending that you were a world reknown International Lllama Smuggler... would you go to Montreal for any reason?

By the same token, I haven't gone on vacation in Morocco or Egypt either. Why go somewhere when the risk for trouble is high?

trust the master race to bring justice.

What was particularly telling about the whole incident in 2004 was Rumsfeld's refusal to stand trial. This is, mind you, with most of the evidence being sat on by the administration and the presumption of innocence being present in the modern court system.

IMO, Rummy will probably try and hide from this accusation too, because he feels that if it's brought to trial, they will convict him for his war crimes.

Well, Rumsfeld can always ask Kissinger about safe vacation spots.

I doubt this will come to trial as well. Even if issues of US national security are not involved, I can see it being used as an excuse to keep Rumsfeld from being put on trial.