PDA

View Full Version : War Crime Charges for Rummy?


Demontestament
11-14-2006, 03:25 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/14/germany.rumsfeld.ap/index.html

BERLIN, Germany (AP) -- Lawyers for inmates of Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay filed a lawsuit in Germany Tuesday against outgoing U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, hoping his resignation and testimony from a former general will help prosecute him for war crimes.

The suit, which also names a host of other U.S. officials, was sent to federal prosecutors 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.

Former U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq, said she would testify against her superiors because only a handful of low-ranking soldiers have been convicted over the abuse at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib jail.

Karpinski, who was relieved of her command and demoted to colonel last year, said she wanted to "be a voice for my soldiers."

"They were tried and convicted in the world court before they ever set foot in any courtroom ... while people who are far more culpable and responsible have walked away blameless," Karpinski said during a presentation of the case in Berlin.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said U.S. officials had not seen the 220-page complaint, but said media reports suggested it was "frivolous."

"Abu Ghraib is something that the U.S. government has investigated very thoroughly," Whitman said, noting more than a dozen probes as well as hearings before the U.S. Congress. "The appropriate individuals have been held accountable."

The suit is brought on behalf of 12 alleged torture victims -- 11 Iraqis held at Abu Ghraib and Mohamad al-Qahtani, a Saudi being held at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who has been identified by the U.S. as a would-be participant in the September 11 attacks.

Captured in December 2001 along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, al-Qahtani would not crack under normal questioning, so Rumsfeld approved harsher methods, according to the testimony before 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 2005, 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.

Since then, there have been "no efforts in the United States to go up the chain of command -- they've basically been given impunity from any investigation or prosecution," said Michael Ratner, president of New York's Center for Constitutional Rights, which is behind the litigation.

'Better case'
The attorneys 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.

Karpinski says she did not know about prisoner abuse and asserts that higher-ups encouraged cruel treatment. She said the now-notorious photos of prisoners being degraded in Abu Ghraib were staged at the behest of interrogators and were intended for use in pressurizing other prisoners.

Interrogation techniques were changed "incrementally over time to prevent people from seeing what was actually approved and permitted," she said.

"When they thought that Janis Karpinski was getting too close to uncovering this information or these events, they took me out of the equation."

Frank Wallenta, spokesman for German federal prosecutors, said his office received the suit in an e-mail early Tuesday. He said it would take "some time" to examine the material and decide whether to open an investigation.

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.

The lawyers said the case could not be brought with the International Criminal Court, because the United States is not a member, and could not be pursued through the U.N. because the U.S. has veto power.

Kaleck 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.

Man Rummy can't win right now, he steps down as SoD and now a law suit wanting him and others for face War Crimes for Crimes against Humanity, alleging he personally ordered the torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib. Honestly I can believe that he would do something like this, just looking at the guy you can tell he has something twisted in his mind at all times.

bayushisan
11-14-2006, 03:38 PM
Actually I don't see the U.S. going along with this at all. Besides Germany is hardly one to be casting stones about human rights abuses.

Theory?
11-14-2006, 03:51 PM
Actually I don't see the U.S. going along with this at all. Besides Germany is hardly one to be casting stones about human rights abuses.

That's really the kind of empty-headed thinking that gets you in trouble. Hitler doesn't run the government anymore. Statistically, there are more Neo-Nazi's and/or people who share similar views with the Nazi's living and employed in American than Germany.

Donald Rumsfeld is a criminal. The amount of blood on his hands far exceeds any forgivable limits. I don't see how well this will play out, but it's interesting to see them finally taking action.

Sprngpilot
11-14-2006, 03:51 PM
It'll never stick. Trust me, this will quietly go away.

Silver_Derstin
11-14-2006, 04:12 PM
It'll never stick. Trust me, this will quietly go away.

Actually, maybe it won't. Maybe someone, somewhere, in a country that is richer then the United States (like, let's say, EVERYONE IN THE WORLD at the moment) will start saying that Donald Rumsfeld actually IS a war criminal (everyone actually knows that, just needs to be tried for it) and will force the US to hand him over, like the US did with all sorts of other war criminals which were hidden in other countries.

Remember, if they don't, US will lose yet again more international credibility, same with the Bush government. When that goes into the negatives, it'll funny.

Another thing to remember: The US can't declare war on the European Union. So that strategy ain't gonna work, sorry.

Sprngpilot
11-14-2006, 04:28 PM
Actually, maybe it won't. Maybe someone, somewhere, in a country that is richer then the United States (like, let's say, EVERYONE IN THE WORLD at the moment) will start saying that Donald Rumsfeld actually IS a war criminal (everyone actually knows that, just needs to be tried for it) and will force the US to hand him over, like the US did with all sorts of other war criminals which were hidden in other countries.

Remember, if they don't, US will lose yet again more international credibility, same with the Bush government. When that goes into the negatives, it'll funny.

Another thing to remember: The US can't declare war on the European Union. So that strategy ain't gonna work, sorry.

I just don't see that happening. International politics are far too complicated for everyone to band together on any one issue. There's just too many strings attached to any decision to get unanimous support for something as heated as this. For example, I am willing to bet that the British government will not support this. A few other countries will either support the US and Rumsfield or choose to stay out of it for various reasons (political favors, economic benefits, whatever the case may be). In that scenario alone the US would probably be able to cobble together a strong enough alliance to fend off the charges. If they can't even get the whole EU to side with Germany on this it simply won't get off the ground.

I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem likely to go anywhere.

KN
11-14-2006, 04:29 PM
Actually I don't see the U.S. going along with this at all. Besides Germany is hardly one to be casting stones about human rights abuses.

This is where you phailed for all eternity.

Demontestament
11-14-2006, 04:32 PM
The lawyers said the case could not be brought with the International Criminal Court, because the United States is not a member, and could not be pursued through the U.N. because the U.S. has veto power.


So basically, "we are not in your club so them rulz don't apply to us and we Rule the UN so lay off rummy!" O.o, so I guess we can be war criminals all we want and not answer for the crimes.

Grahamr
11-14-2006, 04:37 PM
Kn, Bayu....

Break it up!!!!!!!

Or i shall summon the Modgernaut!

KN
11-14-2006, 04:38 PM
The US denies the existance of this court, and as a matter of fact, should they ever attempt to trail a US citizen, the US has allowed itself to use force to get this person out of this obviously EVIL court's grasp.

I'm not making that **** up.


I'm glad John Bolton might be going though...

Sprngpilot
11-14-2006, 04:38 PM
So I guess we can be war criminals all we want and not answer for the crimes.

Unfortunately that seems to be the case by design. If I remember correctly the US specifically avoided membership in the ICC for fear of being "wrongfully accused" of war crimes by international opponents like Iran and N. Korea... of course this arrangement also means actual cases of war crimes would go unpunished. A stupid, selfish move on this county's part IMO. It's kinda hard to give weight to any international organization when the most powerful country and main architect behind it refuses to join out of fear of reprisal (see: League of Nations for an even cleaner example).

bayushisan
11-14-2006, 04:41 PM
All things considered though, should Iran and North Korea (both widely known for some of the worst human rights abuses in history) even be allowed to sit on such a commitee? Isn't that kind of like putting a pedophile in charge of prosecuting a child molestor?

KN
11-14-2006, 04:45 PM
All things considered though, should Iran and North Korea (both widely known for some of the worst human rights abuses in history) even be allowed to sit on such a commitee? Isn't that kind of like putting a pedophile in charge of prosecuting a child molestor?

North Korea is not actually in the committee at all. Iran is still in the ratification process, where they may be stuck for a loooong time.

They have no part in this court, and the only incentive we have to let Iran in is to drag them to the accused stand the moment they are in, as that means they acknowledge the existence of the court. Which means we have their balls.

bayushisan
11-14-2006, 04:47 PM
North Korea is not actually in the committee at all. Iran is still in the ratification process, where they may be stuck for a loooong time.

They have no part in this court, and the only incentive we have to let Iran in is to drag them to the accused stand the moment they are in, as that means they acknowledge the existence of the court. Which means we have their balls.

and as we all know KN does love to have people by the balls ;) sorry KN couldn't resist.

KN
11-14-2006, 04:49 PM
and as we all know KN does love to have people by the balls ;) sorry KN couldn't resist.

You know me too well ;)

Sprngpilot
11-14-2006, 04:50 PM
All things considered though, should Iran and North Korea (both widely known for some of the worst human rights abuses in history) even be allowed to sit on such a commitee? Isn't that kind of like putting a pedophile in charge of prosecuting a child molestor?

Please allow me to be philosophical in my answer:

Justice, in its purest form, should be obvious and upheld no matter the background of victims and/or accusers. If we begin discriminating against other countries in an attempt to determine whether or not they have the "right" to make charges of wrongdoing we being travelling down a dangerous path.

To me it seems your point about countries with poor human rights records is similar to saying a person with a criminal record is not allowed to accuse the police of brutality, no matter the case. In that example our court system would hear the case and determine if the charges had merit, not deny the person's right to accuse the police in the first place.

Simply put if the US has nothing to hide in the way of warcrimes it should not fear false charges from countries with a grudge against us. To avoid jurisdiction like we did smacks of something to hide.

KN
11-14-2006, 04:53 PM
It's odd how "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't oppose *insert violation of civil rights here*" is so easily said by US officials, but when THEY are up for the full cavity search, they chicken out.

Silver_Derstin
11-14-2006, 10:02 PM
It's odd how "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't oppose *insert violation of civil rights here*" is so easily said by US officials, but when THEY are up for the full cavity search, they chicken out.

Comes with being the only country in the world that could declare unilateral war on the rest of the world and kill every single living being on Earth.

Only reason the US doesn't support the international court of justice is the fact that they bloody well know that they would be losing in it far more then winning in it. Dubya, Rumsfeld, Cheney, many US multinationals... They'd all get tried there and be sentenced at least to monstruous, international level fines.

wxDiva
11-14-2006, 10:07 PM
*Peers into crystal ball*

I can imagine this will be put off until 2009. Big guess as to why.

Tollwutig
11-15-2006, 11:47 AM
*Peers into crystal ball*

I can imagine this will be put off until 2009. Big guess as to why.

I am guessing the Court date will be scheduled for Jan 21st 2009 to be exact. I still don't see who ever gets in the White House in '08 letting Rummy be prosecuted though as he has political ties in both parties.


Also don't look for the 110th Congress to do much against Rumsfeld. First the Senate would Filibuster anything that go to them, and even if someone got him prosecuted for something, Bush would just pardon him with an executive order.

Silver_Derstin
11-15-2006, 12:42 PM
Also don't look for the 110th Congress to do much against Rumsfeld. First the Senate would Filibuster anything that go to them, and even if someone got him prosecuted for something, Bush would just pardon him with an executive order.

The International Court should ALSO press charges against Dubya, though (and I sure as hell hope they do). If the EU and China stopped lending money to the US and started doing actual pressures against the US (which they have the right to do, since the US pretty much said **** you to the UN), even the congress would bend pretty quickly.

KN
11-15-2006, 12:45 PM
If I recall, the US is in debt to Mexico.

Yes, Mexico.

Read that again.

Mexico

Tollwutig
11-15-2006, 02:57 PM
If I recall, the US is in debt to Mexico.

Yes, Mexico.

Read that again.

Mexico


Well the US is in debt to everyone, but then we have really big guns and the ability to ruin the world economy, so no one is really willing to send us the Bill.

ZippyDSMlee
11-15-2006, 11:58 PM
Can we have some oversight now?? PLEASE??? before the world bends US over? 0_o

dosen't mater if it sticks the appearance of a functioning goverment would be nice...him buch chaney and the lot need to have hearings held on their behalf....

KN
11-16-2006, 08:25 AM
Well the US is in debt to everyone, but then we have really big guns and the ability to ruin the world economy, so no one is really willing to send us the Bill.

No, I'm afraid the power to ruin the world economy has since passed to China.

You still have the big guns though.

Silver_Derstin
11-16-2006, 08:43 AM
No, I'm afraid the power to ruin the world economy has since passed to China.


China and the EU, actually, but most China since they're lending money to the EU too.

Tollwutig
11-16-2006, 10:41 AM
No, I'm afraid the power to ruin the world economy has since passed to China.

You still have the big guns though.

Actually the US could ruin both the EU and Chinese economy. Actually Wal-Mart could ruin the Chinese economy with zero help from anyone else.

Not to mention what Microsoft could do...

Remember if the US were to take an isolationist economic policy, while it's economy would suffer in the short run the sudden need for manufacturing jobs would stabilize it quickly, where as the loss of exporting to Wal-Mart would completely destroy the Chinese economy since Wal-Mart counts for roughly 30% of that Nations GPN.