home

Germany and the Rumsfeld War Crimes Lawsuit

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 02:35:28 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Yesterday I wrote about the lawsuit the Center for Constitutional Rights and other groups are filing in Germany seeking a war crimes prosecution against Donald Rumsfeld.

Time Magazine has more on the lawsuit today.

Here is the backgrounder from C.C.R. (pdf) on the lawsuit.

< The GOP Bright Spot: Lieberman | A True Republican Leader (Deep Undercover) >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Germany and the Rumsfeld War Crimes Lawsuit | 36 comments (36 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Civilian Targets (none / 0) (#1)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 02:53:34 PM EST

    One wonders why those that organized and supplied the rockets and warheads filled with ball bearings to be aimed and fired at civilians in Isreal don't warrant a charge od war crimes.  Perhaps the German's know they would just be laughed at.

    It's OK when the U.S. and Israel does it (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:49:01 PM EST
    Because it's just an "accident" when our cluster bombs kill civilians. Or wait, it's the enemies' fault for hiding near civilians. Yeah, thats the ticket!

    Parent
    Fan of (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:55:25 AM EST
    Actually when you start a war and then hide in the general population... yes "responsible" does seem to be correct.

    But then I'm not a fan of Hezabollah and/or other terrorists.

    Parent

    Aw, c'mon, PPJ. One of the primary... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Bill Arnett on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 10:59:55 AM EST
    ...reasons the rethugs lost was bush's last ditch attempt to label Democratic candidates as "terrorist sympathizers" and averring that a win for Democrats meant a win for terrorist and soon, battles in our streets for control of America because we would clearly lose the WOT unless rethugs won the election.

    He was, in effect, just as you are doing now, labeling more than have the nation and a complete political party as traitors and terrorist lovers.

    You just can't keep hurling such scurrilous, specious, puerile charges against several million people without it eventually dawning on the public that if you truly believe that, you are insane. Or a compulsive liar. Or both.

    I know you to be neither insane nor a compulsive liar, but I think you err when you continue the malicious slurs that cost the rethugs the election, which is exactly what you are doing when you make statements like, "But then I'm not a fan of Hezabollah and/or other terrorists.", which, by inference indicates that you think the rest of us are fans of terrorism.

    It is my most fervent hope that nonsense like this will stop, that the rethugs will recognize the loyalty of all Americans without regard to party and stop the juvenile, untrue, intelligence-insulting, spewing of false garbage such as this.

    Parent

    Enabling (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 02:58:15 PM EST
    From the Time 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.
    ...
    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.

    Does Germany have any way of making an arrest of a private citizen of the US outside Germany, and is there an extradition process in place that would enable this?

    Are there treaties or other current US laws that the administration is in violation of if it rejects adherence to the ICC?

    the German law is independent of the ICC (none / 0) (#3)
    by scribe on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 03:05:12 PM EST
    To my knowledge, they have enacted their anti-war-crimes law at least in part, in reaction to their own excesses, and in part in reaction to later excesses by people like Pinochet.  Their law appears similar to the Spanish law under which Pinchoet was prosecuted (after being busted in England).

    As I understand it (and this latest iteration of this matter has not hit German media, as yet), the way an arrest warrant would be enforced would be just like any other international criminal prosecution, i.e., through Interpol.

    I could be wrong on the latter, but I'm 99 44/100% sure on their law being independent of the ICC.

    Parent

    Independent of the ICC and enforceable arrest? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 03:08:35 PM EST
    Aaahhhh, interesting. Thanks, scribe.

    Parent
    re (none / 0) (#5)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 03:15:51 PM EST
      We can't control what some international activist group decides to do, but tactically what could possibly be a worse move in term of domestic U.S. politics?

      Nothing the average American likes better than foreigners not only telling us what to do but actually seeking (obviously futilely) extraterritorial prosecutions of our citizens. Donald Rumsfield would be one of the most difficult Americans to make a sympathetic martyr but never underestimate the ability of the misguided to find a way.

       Here's a good time for Reid and Pelosi to tell these nuts to _ off because we don't appreciate this sort of interference with our sovereignty and, thank you very much, the Congress is now on the job.

    the Congress is now on the job. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 03:19:58 PM EST
    Hopefully, Decon. I'm not aware of any charges against Rumsfeld or Gonzales or Tenet being brought or contemplated domestically. Are you?

    Parent
    I don't expect any "charges" (none / 0) (#7)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 03:31:20 PM EST
      I do expect him to be subpoenaed to testify before Congress next year. Of course, he will gain immunity if he testifies truthfully, but I am,  and I think everyone should be, far more interested in action leading to political change and a redirection of foreign and military policy than I am in show trials that would likely be nothing but counter=productive.

       

    Fostering political change (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 03:39:40 PM EST
    I am far more interested in those things also. I have no interest in seeing any more "show trials". They ARE "counter-productive". I'd prefer to see him properly charged and fairly tried. I think it would go a long way to fostering political change.

    Of course, I'd also like to see him found guilty, but, one step at a time, right?

    Parent

    If he has violated specific criminal statutes (none / 0) (#9)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 03:55:55 PM EST
     ...then he should be prosecuted. Congress should use its investigatory power to gather evidence and if that evidence establishes probable cause then it should be referred for prosecution. (Fitzgerald will likely be vailable by then.)

       I just cringe when I see stunts like this which serve no real purpose and actually complicate the accomplishment of real work.

    Stunts? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 04:08:08 PM EST
    Prosecutions are for finding out IF he has "violated specific criminal statutes". You cannot wait until you know he has before prosecuting him.

    I know, I know. that's not really what you meant with your subject line. I just point it out for clarification.

    Congress should use its investigatory power to gather evidence and if that evidence establishes probable cause then it should be referred for prosecution.

    I see no movement towards even evidence gathering domestically. Instead, the Republicans did their best to cover their and his a$$. Should the Democrats do the same? Were the recent elections a sham and waste of time?

    If even a Democratic controlled congress won't investigate and gather evidence to determine if there is probable cause, there is no reason why other juridictions or countries should not. That would not be a stunt. That would be truth seeking.

    The truth is, after all, what we are all after, yes?

    Parent

    Truth (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 04:09:10 PM EST
    Even if it makes us cringe. Especially if it makes us cringe. Yes?

    It's only been 3 days since the election (none / 0) (#12)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 04:15:55 PM EST
     and the Democrats don't even take power in
    Congress  until January.

      Moreover, even if the Congress did not take action, such prosecutions (which are NOT going to happen-- anyone can petition but the Germans aren't fools) would be manna from heaven for the Republicans who would self-righteously (and very hyporcrically but that won't get any traction) rail to the masses about radical Europeans attempting to infringe upon our sivereignty.

       they'd score a lot of easy points and paint Democrats into the corner of either siding with them or appearing disloyal to the country solely because of partisanship. That's why Democrats should quickly denounce this nonsense now before Republicans can claim it as their issue.

      Some times much as it might pain you you just have to be smart.

    3 days? How do we get beyond 3 days? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 04:31:43 PM EST
    Then there really was no point in having the Midterms at all, was there?

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?

    You know, I think that some times much as it might smart you you just have to deal with the pain.

    To move forward.

    Parent

    the point (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 04:34:19 PM EST
    That was the point of this, after all. Something so many died to put an end to.

    re (none / 0) (#15)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 04:36:45 PM EST
      Not the same but not as much different as YOU would like. The thing is that being as different as YOU would like would lead to never again having a majority in either House or the Presidency. When you are as far from the mainstream as you are it is a choice between accepting the lesser evil in power or doing things that anyone with any perspective recognizes as assisting the greater evil.

      The Democratic Party cannot acquiesce to people like you  and have any chance at success. If you can't accept that then show your displeasure by leaving  the Party. Otherwise grow upo and learn that gaining and retaining power requires appealing to the middle not to you.

    Grow up? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 04:53:06 PM EST
    Germany has had much very painful experience in taking responsibility, in being accountable, and in avoiding "avoidance of responsibility".

    There is much we can learn from them, albeit painfully, about how to

    grow up.

    Thanks for your thoughts.

    Parent

    100% Wrong (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 08:34:39 AM EST
    edger - Your belief that this country is as bad as or worse than Hitler's Germany has been well established.

    That you are absolutely totally without doubt wrong is also known by the more rational memebers of the population.

    And Decon is right. You and the nut jobs in Germany
    will undoubtedly elect a Repub Pres and majority in 2008.

    Where do you think Reagan came from??

    Parent

    You know, I hear this a lot (none / 0) (#35)
    by Officious Pedant on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:42:36 PM EST
    from people with a tenuous grip on history.

    The government of Germany was democratically elected. The democratically elected leader of Germany appointed Hitler to his post, in accordance with the laws of Germany.

    Hitler then sought to use the Constitution to pass laws, such as the Enabling Act, to act against the perceived "threat" of Communism in Germany. Not to mention modifying others "for the good of the people and the State. Then he began to use those laws to ban Jews from various political and social organizations. The rest, as they say, is history.

    The point being, that a slide from Democracy to fascism, exhibited by increased militarism and fervent nationalism (some might even call that exceptionalism), within the laws of a nation, is not that big a leap. Particularly not with an external threat to hang over the heads of the electorate. (Global Caliphate, anyone?) Nazi Germany, Jim, is a cautionary tale, not an impossibility to repeat.

    Consider that the next time your conservative leadership warns that if we don't listen to calls without a warrant, we'll be murdered in our beds by terrorists. Or, that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, so modifying certain laws, or curbing certain rights, is perfectly acceptable.

    Parent

    Gaining and retaining power? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 04:58:55 PM EST
    Otherwise grow upo and learn that gaining and retaining power requires appealing to the middle not to you.

    Of course, if gaining and retaining power is all you are after, regardless of the cost, then eveything I've said here today must sound pretty moronic.

    And not very thoughtful.

    Parent

    xx (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 08:35:23 AM EST
    edger - If you aint the lead dog the view never changes.

    Parent
    Re: The View (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:47:29 PM EST
    Well, that's an interesting observation. You know that from your personal view of the asses, sorry, I mean leaders, that you follow, I take it. :-)

    Parent
    You are truly seeking to be offensive... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Bill Arnett on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 01:59:46 PM EST
    ...as well as totally asinine telling Edger to "grow up".

    The facts are that many war crimes have been committed by this maladministration and everyone who truly believes in equality under the 'rule of law" can have no serious objection to people filing charges against potential war criminals.

    From a historical perspective, go read up on the Nuremberg Trials after WWII and the striking details of the crimes that happened then that have been repeated now.

    I kind of halfway defended you in another post, but after such baseless insults levied at Edger, a long time very respected member of this community, it's a mistake I won't repeat.

    Calling for justice when wrongs have been committed is never a mistake, but the duty of civilizations.

    Your comment, "When you are as far from the mainstream as you are..." simply displays the arrogance off someone purporting to speak for the mainstream and cast false assertions against good people stating well-thought opinions with which you are free to disagree and state your reasons why.

    That does not authorize you to be a jerk.

    Remember:

    No one asked you to come here.
    No one will ask you to stay.
    No one will miss you if you go.
    And keep your cheapshot personal attacks to yourself.

    Jeralyn, if you should read this I now subscribe to your theory that Decon is a chatterer, but I would further label him a troll.

    Parent

    Re: chatterers (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:19:11 PM EST
    Thanks for the kind words, Bill. And btw, his "arrogance off someone purporting to speak for the mainstream" sparked the beginning of the gelling of a partly formed thought that had been rolling around the back of my mind for a day or two, and came into focus for me when Big Tent talked about Althouse this morning. It seems there are not only blog trolls, but real world trolls too. So Decon has been educational, though probably not in the way he'd have wished. ;-)

    Parent
    war crimes, a partial list (none / 0) (#16)
    by Sailor on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 04:38:19 PM EST
    Definition
    War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:
    Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
    Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
    Torture or inhumane treatment
    Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
    Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
    Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
    Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
    Taking hostages

    The following acts as part of an international conflict:
    Directing attacks against civilians
    Killing a surrendered combatant
    Using poison weapons

    bush, rummy and cheney have ordered and/or justified all of those.

    Sercret prisons, holding children hostage to make their fathers talk, using WP and uranium rounds, targeting hospitals, torture etc.

    The Case Againt Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#19)
    by theologicus on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:31:27 PM EST
    Decon worries that the legal aciton against Rumsfeld will not play well domestically.  Decon may not be wrong.  But what does that say about us?

    Donald Rumsfeld: The War Crimes Case
    Marjorie Cohn of Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild

    jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/11/donald-rumsfeld-war-crimes-case.php

    Prosecuting a war of aggression isn't Rumsfeld's only crime. He also participated in the highest levels of decision-making that allowed the extrajudicial execution of several people.

    Willful killing is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, which constitutes a war crime.

    In his book, Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib, Seymour Hersh described the "unacknowledged" special-access program (SAP) established by a top-secret order Bush signed in late 2001 or early 2002. It authorized the Defense Department to set up a clandestine team of Special Forces operatives to defy international law and snatch, or assassinate, anyone considered a "high-value" Al Qaeda operative, anywhere in the world. Rumsfeld expanded SAP into Iraq in August 2003.

    But Rumsfeld's crimes don't end there.

    He sanctioned the use of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, which are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and thus constitute war crimes.

    Rumsfeld approved interrogation techniques that included the use of dogs, removal of clothing, hooding, stress positions, isolation for up to 30 days, 20-hour interrogations, and deprivation of light and auditory stimuli.

    According to Seymour Hersh, Rumsfeld sanctioned the use of physical coercion and sexual humiliation to extract information from prisoners. Rumsfeld also authorized waterboarding, where the interrogator induces the sensation of imminent death by drowning. Waterboarding is widely considered a form of torture.

    Rumsfeld was intimately involved with the interrogation of a Saudi detainee, Mohamed al-Qahtani, at Guantánamo in late 2002.

    General Geoffrey Miller, who later transferred many of his harsh interrogation techniques to Abu Ghaib, supervised the interrogation and gave Rumsfeld weekly updates on his progress. During a six-week period, al-Qahtani was stripped naked, forced to wear women's underwear on his head, denied bathroom access, threatened with dogs, forced to perform tricks while tethered to a dog leash, and subjected to sleep deprivation.

    Al-Qahtani was kept in solitary confinement for 160 days. For 48 days out of 54, he was interrogated for 18 to 20 hours a day.

    We are looking at very serious allegations.  There are more important matters than how this might or might not play in Peoria.

    Very serious allegations - not just legally (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:11:52 PM EST
    Thanks for that Theo. I hadn't seen that from Cohn. I'm not a lawyer and I don't and can't argue these things from a strictly legal standpoint. That doesn't mean I don't get at least some of the implications of laws or legal arguments, and the fact that...

    There are more important matters than how this might or might not play in Peoria.

    ...is one of the points I was trying to get across. It also strikes me that how trying Rumsfeld and/or others in this administration might or might not play in Peoria is the central point, and necessary to the healing and continued existence of America, or more correctly, to the idea of America, and to who she is and can be.

    I wonder if Germany would be the grown up nation and advanced and respected member of the world community it is today, if not for the experience of the Nuremburg Trials.

    Parent

    THEO (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:57:06 PM EST
    Off topic, but related to it, I have something I'd like to send to you Theo, by email.

    I tried the email address you posted here, but my email to you bounced. Can you send me an email to edger10@gmail.com and I'll reply to it? Thx.

    Parent

    rumsfeld v. hussein (none / 0) (#23)
    by orionATL on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 10:33:14 PM EST
    re: rumsfeld and war crimes

    on this issue, i wonder if the south african reconciliation hearings don't provide a guide for rumsfeld and bush and cheney:

    in political affairs, the rule seems to be that the greater your authority and ultimate supervisory culpability, the more likely you will only have to talk a bit, beg a bit of forgiveness, and then retire to your nice little bungalow rendezvous -

    which, in rumsfeld's case, is in Annapolis, md, right next door to his old buddy shootin' dick cheney.

    15,000+ american soldiers will live the rest of their lives with physical disabilities from this needless invasion, and nearly three thousand are worm food.

    power may corrupt, but it sure helps to keep an ultimate accounting on hold.

    on hold, that is, as long as your side is cock-of-the walk.

    just as saddam h. about this equilibrium.

    I hereby volunteer (none / 0) (#24)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 12:34:07 AM EST
    to place Mr. Rumsfeld under citizen's arrest pending an extradition hearing.

    Can I do that?

    Try (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 08:38:48 AM EST
    I think the result would be that you would be under arrest and held.

    But you can certainly try.

    To be fair though I woul recommend against it. But then you never pay any attention...

    Parent

    so, it's ok................ (none / 0) (#25)
    by cpinva on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 05:47:13 AM EST
    for the U.S. to interfere with other country's soveriegnty, but not ok for them to interfere with our's? ok, i understand, he who owns the gold makes the rules. got you, no problem.

    rumsfeld should be given a fair trial, than hung, drawn & quartered, his parts put on pikes, and placed in strategic locations around the perimeter of Washington, as a warning to others.

    it's the only way to be sure.

    cpinva calls for Rumsfeld's death (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 08:51:07 AM EST
    cpinva - First, thanks for the comment, it makes excellent quote material and I'll stick it in my little, "Over the top," file so we can see it again.

    And since you are wanting to pass out capital punishment, perhaps you can start a list of everyone who wanted to wack the Saddam. For example:

    So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

    Like that one? I have many more if you want to see them.

    And while you and edger and the Germans are busy worrying about the US, can we get a little attention on the Germans, French and Russians who were enabling Saddam to the point that he thought they would prevent the US from invading?

    Parent

    Karma... (none / 0) (#31)
    by desertswine on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 12:05:53 PM EST
    rumsfeld should be given a fair trial...

    Yes he should be sitting in the cage right nest to Kissinger.

    Germany and the Rumsfeld War Crimes Lawsuit | 36 comments (36 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment