NationStates Jolt Archive

http://voanews.com/english/2006-11-11-voa13.cfm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

US Lawyers to Seek Criminal Charges Against Rumsfeld in Germany
By VOA News
11 November 2006


A U.S.-based advocacy group says it plans to seek criminal charges in a German court against outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, for his alleged role in sanctioning torture of prisoners in U.S. custody.

In a statement Saturday, the Center for Constitutional Rights says it will file its criminal complaint against Rumsfeld in a German court Tuesday.

Attorneys for the group say the case will ultimately look at the responsibility of high-ranking U.S. officials authorizing war crimes in the war on terror. They say the complaint is related to a 2004 case that was dismissed.

The lawyers say the new case contains what it calls "substantial new evidence" and new circumstances following the resignation of Rumsfeld.

The U.S. Department of Defense has not commented.

Germany's universal jurisdiction law allows the country's courts to hear cases originating from anywhere in the world.

The group says it is representing one detainee held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and 11 Iraqis who were held at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad.

The complaint also seeks criminal prosecution of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former CIA Director George Tenet.

Rumsfeld resigned as Secretary of Defense on Wednesday, but he is expected to remain in the position until his proposed successor, Robert Gates, is approved by the U.S. Senate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a certain inevitability to this story, and I'm wondering whether this might foreshadow the fate of Misters Bush and Cheney. What think you, o sage and occasionally prescient posters of NSG?

Sue the bastards... though I doubt anything will come of it.

I'm just wondering how exactly he could be tried in a German court for something that would have been authorized in the US?

and meanwhile, no one sues the terrorist.... Of course they blow themselves up, but still.

and meanwhile, no one sues the terrorist.... Of course they blow themselves up, but still.

We're still suing the communist.

I'm just wondering how exactly he could be tried in a German court for something that would have been authorized in the US?

see below. Or above. Your choice, really.

Germany's universal jurisdiction law allows the country's courts to hear cases originating from anywhere in the world.

I'd just caught this story on CTV NewsNet a few minutes ago - they were talking to the woman who was taking it to court... this article is just a bare-bones report by comparison - it just says what's happening without getting into the nitty-gritty details.

From what I'd seen on TV though, this could go badly for Rumsfeld now that he is no longer in government.

see below. Or above. Your choice, really.

From what I'd seen on TV though, this could go badly for Rumsfeld now that he is no longer in government.

The problem is extradition, however. The US government could simply refuse to extradite him or demand that the trial be held in the United States.

What's wrong with the first thread on this topic? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506716)

The problem is extradition, however. The US government could simply refuse to extradite him or demand that the trial be held in the United States.

The Germans could give Rummy a "rendition." See if he likes them apples for a change.

The Germans could give Rummy a "rendition." See if he likes them apples for a change.

It would be deliciously ironic, that's for sure.

Oh, I suppose the Germans will come and get him? I know that our government is atleast decent enough not to give him away.

Worst thing that could come of this? Rumsfeld not allowed in Germany anymore.

Oh, I suppose the Germans will come and get him? I know that our government is atleast decent enough not to give him away.

"Decent enough"? "Decent enough"?

We destroyed a country back in 2001 because its government wouldn't extradite its murderous war criminal, and he didn't even get a trial. Now it's decent and noble of us to protect our own?

Utter bollocks. His conduct in office may well have been misjudged and deplorable, but you can't sue a politician for policy. In any case, if he left a paper trail incriminating himself, I'll be shocked.

"Decent enough"? "Decent enough"?

We destroyed a country back in 2001 because its government wouldn't extradite its murderous war criminal, and he didn't even get a trial. Now it's decent and noble of us to protect our own?

All animals are equal. But some are More Equal than others.

Sucks to be Rummy, fired and now this.

"Decent enough"? "Decent enough"?

We destroyed a country back in 2001 because its government wouldn't extradite its murderous war criminal, and he didn't even get a trial. Now it's decent and noble of us to protect our own?

Simply put it was because their killer killed Americans on American soil and abroad. It is the task of any nation to protect its own. I do not recall Rumsfeld(or the others named) hurting any Germans(or committing war crimes at all for that matter). If the American government extadited Rumsfeld, it would be a sad black day in our history.

Donald Rumsfeld was a good man and a great Secretary of Defense. He is disliked by many of the democrats but that is politics. Soon he will be the longest serving Secretary of Defense as well as the youngest man and the oldest man to ever hold the office. A great American and I salute him.

What are the hippies gonna do, try to drag him over to Germany? Good luck. They tried the same with Israeli officers. An American government official would be protected much, much better.

And even though he's not in office, Rumsfeld's army is still bigger than the hippie's army.

Simply put it was because their killer killed Americans on American soil and abroad.

So? Human beings are human beings.

It is the task of any nation to protect its own.

Then we should not have objected to the Taliban protecting their allies.

I do not recall Rumsfeld(or the others named) hurting any Germans

So? He hasn't been accused of hurting Germans.

(or committing war crimes at all for that matter).

That's what the trial is about.

If the American government extadited Rumsfeld, it would be a sad black day in our history.

No. It will be a demonstration that the United States retains some respect for human decency.

Donald Rumsfeld was a good man and a great Secretary of Defense.

Donald Rumsfeld's hands are soaked with blood.

No one deserves death, but he should be imprisoned for life for his crimes.

So? Human beings are human beings.



Then we should not have objected to the Taliban protecting their allies.



So? He hasn't been accused of hurting Germans.



That's what the trial is about.



No. It will be a demonstration that the United States retains some respect for human decency.



Donald Rumsfeld's hands are soaked with blood.

No one deserves death, but he should be imprisoned for life for his crimes.

For what? He was a great Sec Def, and I wish he would have stuck around. It's a shame he's gone, however I hope the next one is a Rumsfled and a half.


American's most subversive enemies are sometimes already here.

So? Human beings are human beings.

I disagree, every country should value its citizens lives above the lives of the rest of the world.

Then we should not have objected to the Taliban protecting their allies.

I had no problem with them protecting their own but we were protecting our own. Our interests conflicted and we crushed them.

So? He hasn't been accused of hurting Germans.

I know that.

That's what the trial is about.

This trial is nothing but a mockery.

No. It will be a demonstration that the United States retains some respect for human decency.

No.

Donald Rumsfeld's hands are soaked with blood.

No one deserves death, but he should be imprisoned for life for his crimes.[/QUOTE]

Deserves has nothing do with what happens. Rumsfeld's hands are not soaked with blood. He commited no crimes and he will not be punished.

http://randomimagemusic7.ytmnd.com/

Utter bollocks. His conduct in office may well have been misjudged and deplorable, but you can't sue a politician for policy. In any case, if he left a paper trail incriminating himself, I'll be shocked.
Well, in Nuremberg the allies failed to capture some of the real bigwigs (the Soviets got a fair few, and others were never found), so they had to make do with what they had.

Including the heads of the German military, Keitel and Jodl. Because it wasn't possible to pin anything down on them as far as war crimes are concerned, they were ultimatley hung for planning and executing a 'war of aggression'. Now, I'm not an expert, but I think a fairly solid case could be mounted that Iraq was a 'war of aggression' as well, leaving it up to the judge.

The point is that the trail is pretty obvious, and you clearly can prosecute politicians for policies that violate human rights and the like, like Saddam or indeed the Nazis.

Obviously the whole thing is mainly a gesture. Much like Sharon was asked for in Brussels for war crimes, Rumsfeld may be wanted in Germany in the future. It's just a) a reminder to him and b) something people can use in debates ("Rumsfeld is actually a wanted war criminal!").

For what? He was a great Sec Def, and I wish he would have stuck around. It's a shame he's gone, however I hope the next one is a Rumsfled and a half.

For murdering 200,000 Iraqis.

But let's be conservative, and take only a tenth of that, in case the statistics were distorted.

For murdering 20,000 Iraqis.

Including the heads of the German military, Keitel and Jodl. Because it wasn't possible to pin anything down on them as far as war crimes are concerned, they were ultimatley hung for planning and executing a 'war of aggression'. Now, I'm not an expert, but I think a fairly solid case could be mounted that Iraq was a 'war of aggression' as well, leaving it up to the judge.
Wasn’t Jodl posthumously pardoned or something?

Wasn’t Jodl posthumously pardoned or something?
Yeah, in 1953. And probably rightly so, because despite being criminally incompetent and a whimp, he wasn't a war criminal and he wasn't a Nazi.

And according to wiki, the Allies knew as much:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodl
Jodl was accused of conspiracy to commit crimes against peace; planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression; war-crimes; and crimes against humanity. Among the charges against him was his distribution of the Commando Order and the Commissar Order. The primary French judge at the Nuremberg Trials, Henri Donnedieu de Vabres protested strongly against Jodl's conviction, stating that it was a miscarriage of justice for a professional soldier to be convicted if he held no allegiance to Nazism.

[...]

His wife Luise Jodl managed to attach herself to her husband's defence team. Subsequently interviewed by Gitta Sereny, researching her biography of Albert Speer, Luise Jodl revealed that in many instances the Allied prosecution made charges against Jodl based on documents that they refused to share with the defence. Jodl nevertheless managed to prove that some of the charges made against him were completely untrue, such as the charge that he had helped Hitler gain control of Germany in 1933. He was in one instance aided by a GI clerk who chose to give Luise a document showing that the execution of a group of British commandos in Norway had been legitimate. The GI warned Luise that if she didn’t copy it imediately she would never see it again; "…it was being 'filed'."[1]

Jodl pleaded 'not guilty' "before God, before history and my people". Found guilty on all four charges, he was hanged, although he had asked the court to be executed by firing squad. Jodl's last words were reportedly "My greetings to you, my Germany." Jodl's remains were cremated at Munich, and his ashes were raked out and scattered into the Conwentzbach, a small river flowing into the larger Isar River (an attempt to deny him a permanent burial place). Jodl nonetheless possesses a cenotaph in the family plot in the Fraueninsel Cemetery, Chiemsee, Germany.

So? Human beings are human beings.

I disagree, every country should value its citizens lives above the lives of the rest of the world.
Even if your point is assumed to be correct, it doesn't follow that a country should value non-citizens lives as worthless.


I had no problem with them protecting their own but we were protecting our own. Our interests conflicted and we crushed them.

Iraq?

and meanwhile, no one sues the terrorist.... Of course they blow themselves up, but still.
What are you smoking, a terrorist planner was given a 40 year jail sentence in the UK just the other day.

M15 are watching dozens more, so we can expect a slew of more convictions in the coming months.

But why let facts get in the way of a "zOMG Europe does nothing against terrorists!" rant?

For what? He was a great Sec Def, and I wish he would have stuck around. It's a shame he's gone, however I hope the next one is a Rumsfled and a half.
How do you ascertain this? Judging by the lack of post-invasion planning, and the current shoddy state of Iraq, Rumsfeld was the most incompetent ever.

Utter bollocks. His conduct in office may well have been misjudged and deplorable, but you can't sue a politician for policy. In any case, if he left a paper trail incriminating himself, I'll be shocked.
Damn right you can, ever heard of the Nuremberg trials? Augusto Pinochet?

You're just making excuses for murderer. How anti-Christian of you.

Utter bollocks. His conduct in office may well have been misjudged and deplorable, but you can't sue a politician for policy. In any case, if he left a paper trail incriminating himself, I'll be shocked.

My apologies, I'd had to step out for a few hours - but this is exactly what the big difference seemed to be between the VOA report I quoted in the OP and the coverage I saw on CTV NewsNet earlier today. The people looking to prosecute claim they do have just that - paper trails, both printed and electronic, that directly implicate Donald Rumsfeld.

I'd've tried doing a better job linking to a more in-depth report, but I was a bit rushed for time. I agree, though - I was shocked to hear there was sufficient paper trail in existence to pursue a court case.

What are the hippies gonna do, try to drag him over to Germany? Good luck. They tried the same with Israeli officers. An American government official would be protected much, much better.

And even though he's not in office, Rumsfeld's army is still bigger than the hippie's army.

Well, the point is just that - he's no longer covered by immunity. He could still be tried in absentia, I suppose (though I'll add that I'm no expert where law is concerned).

For what? He was a great Sec Def, and I wish he would have stuck around. It's a shame he's gone, however I hope the next one is a Rumsfled and a half.What, a man so incompetent he failed two attempts at resignation was a great Secretary of Defense? Hah! :D

Oh, I suppose the Germans will come and get him? I know that our government is atleast decent enough not to give him away.

Worst thing that could come of this? Rumsfeld not allowed in Germany anymore.

I'm sure that the Germans will struggle on manfully, despite that most horrific fact.

People have been after various Israelis, Americans (Kissinger) for years without any luck. They avoid the countries likely to extradite them or try them. As long as they stay in places likely to put their asses in the air for the Americans, they're ok.

Donald Rumsfeld was a good man and a great Secretary of Defense.

The former you could argue, but the latter? He failed by his own standard let alone anyone elses. He wanted to invade and pacify Iraq. He failed, and failed miserably. Therefore whether one agrees with the war or not, he failed.

Worst thing that could come of this? Rumsfeld not allowed in Germany anymore.

if they put a warrant out over his no show in court, all the EU as well.

if they put a warrant out over his no show in court, all the EU as well.

...Assuming he doesn't show in court. And why not? If he knows he's got nothing to hide - or to be guilty about - shouldn't he go, in order to clear his good name?

...Assuming he doesn't show in court. And why not? If he knows he's got nothing to hide - or to be guilty about - shouldn't he go, in order to clear his good name?

so he knew nothing about abu ghraib? pull the other one.