Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse

rick_reno

Moderator
This might get interesting.

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

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 ."

A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.

Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.

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.

In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case — that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue — has been proven wrong.

"The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer," says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments underlying the German prosecutor's previous inaction no longer hold up.

Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is the latest example of efforts in Western Europe by critics of U.S. tactics in the war on terror to call those involved to account in court. In Germany, investigations are under way in parliament concerning cooperation between the CIA and German intelligence on rendition — the kidnapping of suspected terrorists and their removal to third countries for interrogation. Other legal inquiries involving rendition are under way in both Italy and Spain.

U.S. officials have long feared that legal proceedings against "war criminals" could be used to settle political scores. In 1998, for example, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet — whose military coup was supported by the Nixon administration — was arrested in the U.K. and held for 16 months in an extradition battle led by a Spanish magistrate seeking to charge him with war crimes. He was ultimately released and returned to Chile. More recently, a Belgian court tried to bring charges against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged crimes against Palestinians.

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.
 
Heist,

I will not debate whether these were small acts by individuals or a grander scheme, but when I was an officer in the US Army I was responsible for the actions of each and every man under my watch. Does this not apply to people higher up or does it stop with the Lt.s and Capt.s?
 
How many people died in 9/11??

How many people have been killed and tortured by Al Queda?

Fight fire with fire.

S
 
Germany (or, more accurately, the goofs over in Germany doing this)is way over the line on this one. This, by the way, is why the international criminal court was such a stupid idea. What a joke.
 
Sheesh - the attorney group TRYING to bring a lawsuit is led by William Kuntsler, and is notorious for its defense of Marxist/Communist/socialist/murderist types. A real group of scumbags. Michael Ratner's hero is Che Guevara - that should tell you plenty what they represent - with these anti-Americans "treason" is a place to start.

http://www.oceanbooks.com.au/clibrary/about-articles/chefb12.html

"The Cuban revolution had occurred a few years earlier and for many of us seeking to change our society, Cuba was a desirable model. And it was Che Guevara, more than any other figure, who embodied both that revolution and solidarity with peoples fighting to be free from U.S. hegemony. Many of us had on our walls the poster of Che with his famous quote: “Let me say, at the risk of appearing ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love.” It was a sentiment that combined what many of us in the 1960s were feeling: the need for revolutionary change with the need for compassion. Che has remained my hero ever since."

WHAT AN ASS!
 
Heist,
It is a quote, probably fake, bandied about by people with a leftist, anti-war agenda to try to draw comparisons between the conduct of the American soldier and the nazis at Auschwitz.

I'll pass on your cookies.:barf:
 
You don't?
No, I do not. I was in MI for the first gulf war and I can tell you that these guys are mostly farmers and villagers that were brought in by bounty hunters that were paid a per head cash reward for each person they turned into the camps. The vast majority of them are only guilty of being the wrong color skin and the wrong religion.
 
Not to mention the guys who got turned in by Joe Mohammed because their great grand father stole a camel from Joe Mohammed's great great grand father.

I sure as hell wouldn't be very friendly if I were thrown into a prison camp over a vendetta or some modern day hessian trash's paycheck and stacked in naked-man pyramids and had my manly bits threatened with big, nasty dogs.
 
PlayboyPenguin:

Sounds like you have way more knowledge of the situation then I do.

As for an eye for an eye, your mistake in logic is trying to take a statement applied to many, and applying it to a single instance. Doesn't work that way.

War is a battle of numbers, and, I think Al Queda is ahead of us, in that battle.

S
 
As long as we continue to play by outdated rules intended for warfare with civilized nations, we will continue to "lose."

I support the war. I think we are there for the right reasons. Honestly, I think most of the problems are perspectival. If we were not conditioned to over-react to (honestly minor) casualties we would not have encouraged our enemies. Sadly, we have now allowed a hysterical anti-American media to convince us that all is lost.

What change would I like? Unleash our military. Stop prosecuting our men and women. We yearn for the clarity of WWII. Guess what? In WWII we firebombed cities until we invented atomic bombs. Then we nuked them.

Innocent civilians will be killed? Talk to the innocent citizens of Tokyo and Dresden. The civilian population must understand the consequences. Militiamen also need to understand that we will not be "fair." If a city rebels, annihilate it. When a militiaman knows that his actions will lead to the incineration of his grandmother, even the strongest man thinks again.
 
What change would I like? Unleash our military. Stop prosecuting our men and women. We yearn for the clarity of WWII. Guess what? In WWII we firebombed cities until we invented atomic bombs. Then we nuked them.
As long as we continue to play by outdated rules intended for warfare with civilized nations, we will continue to "lose."
Believe me, I am not a fan of playing footsie with any enemy. I believe in doing what it takes to make a battle short and sweet, but the one thing most people are missing here is we are fighting the wrong people.

We allowed an administration with alterior motives to distract us from the real enemy and go fight their personal war of oil, power, and middle east diplomacy. Going into Iraq was not a blunder. It was a favor to the Saudis, a favor to the oil companies, and a favor to Haliburton.

So now instead of fighting terrorist cells, we are fighting citizens of iraq that have taken up arms and been recruited into a life of warefare that they would have never experienced if not for the Bush aministration and their lapdog behavior towards big business and the Saudi govt.

Instead of morgues full of dead terrorist and extremists we have prison camps full of farmers, sheep herders, fathers, and sons.
 
So now instead of fighting terrorist cells, we are fighting citizens of iraq that have taken up arms and been recruited into a life of warefare that they would have never experienced if not for the Bush aministration and their lapdog behavior towards big business and the Saudi govt.

Do you have any proof of this? I day that because most people who say this are just regurgitating slogans and platitudes picked up from Michael Moore movies. Your posts seem thoughtful, so I presume you have more than that.
 
Back
Top