Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse
A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the former 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, former 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.
--------------------------------

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

Who do the Germans think they are? Nuremburg Trials?!? Bah!

What bullshit.

This from a country that refused to provide support against someone like Saddam who was responsible for torturing and murdering thousands and thousands of people. They've got to be kidding me with this.






Don Cardi

Germany? They've been irrelevant longer than Rutgers!

Now that the Dems have taken majority in the House and Senate I think we should all prepare ourselves for the fact that a majority of the Bush Adm is going tooooooo......

J

A

I

L

I can see where this thread will lead to....

Yeah right here Deniro.

Should just close this now

Its become political warfare on these boards over past 2-3 weeks,is there nothing else to talk about

Ice -

I am not looking to argue, fight or get into a pissing contest. And I am not trying to put your post down or ridicule you for it's content.

I would like to keep the discussion in this thread at a respectful and somewhat intelligent level.

So please, before making impulsive responses, think about what you are going to post. Now there really is nothing wrong in itself with what you said above, and surely you are entitled to feel that way. However, and I am not saying that this is your intention as it really may be unintentional on your part, but your comment above comes off as one that is being made with the hope of pissing some people off in here. In all honesty it really does not address the topic itself. What do the Democrats, the liberals or even the Republicans have to do with another country wanting to charge a former United States Secretary Of Defense with war crimes? Do you see my point?

Had you said something like "I hope he goes to jail for this," or "I hope he is found guilty of these charges," then that would create some debate and discussion because it would address the issue itself instead of generalizing it to a point where it really does not address what is being discussed.

So I hope that we can ALL try to have a respectful, insightful and intellectual debate. I am asking you, as a fellow board member, to please try and respond to the topic itself and to refrain from making impulsive responses that really have nothing to do with what is being discussed.

Let's ALL try and keep this topic on the right track instead of making it turn into a mudslinging /who can piss the farthest contest. Let's not degenerate this topic to the point where it has to be closed and members have to be banned.


Don Cardi

I know your intentions are good buddy, but you're wrong if you think that I am 'trying to piss SOME people off.' Unfortunately we will always have some folks on the BB who will use the disagreement to divert attention from the issue to themselves. Whether I post or not, they will show up either way. But I said to myself...This.... is the business.... we've chosen.....I DID'NT ASK....!!!

I expressed what I wanted to say the way I wanted to say it. I was not trying to pesture anyone, not at all.

Its no secret after these elections that 'a majority of the Bush Adm. is going to jail.' Granted, more than half might be wishful thinking on my part, but someone WILL take the fall. War crimes/Crimes against humanity ain't no speeding ticket.

As I originally said.....




Now let me ask you, why do you feel that Germany is right in bringing these charges against Rumsfeld?



Don Cardi

BACK ON TOPIC FOLKS....

You know, Germany can issue as many charges as they want, but the U.S. Government will never allow it. Trust me, they won't.

We are on topic Ronnie.

Why has the U.S sent it's detainees to places like East Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Italy, etc etc for questioning/interrogation? They send them to places outside U.S soil(Guantanamo) b/c the tactics that are used there are NOT used in the U.S. Now we can't YET say for certainty that these tactics are illegal, but if they are legal why would the US outsource much of its interrogations? These old Soviet ex-KGB and ex-German Stasi sites(Eastern Europe) may not be the torture haven that they were in the old days, but they use tactics that are a little more 'abrasive' then what the US uses. Its this outsourcing of interrogation that we are talking about here.

So Ronnie you say the "US will never allow it(charges against Rumsfeld)". But its not just the US that the Germans are bringing these charges against. They are also bringing charges against the German element who actually carried out the torture/interrogation. Someone in Germany blew the whistle, and soon these US detainee spots like Italy and Spain(as the article says) will do the same.

"But hey we are talking about cold blooded killers who brutally massacred 3,000 ppl on 911. F* the terrorists, we use whatever tactics necessary inside which ever countries that will allow it, so we can prevent 911."----Thats understood, but now you open the Pandora's Box. If the US says LEGALLY that it can "torture", and the US says LEGALLY that it can invade Iraq, then country X can LEGALLY use torture on terrorists Y, and country X can LEGALLY invade country Y. (SLIPPERY SLOPE)

Probably right, but look at poor Duane "Dog the Bounty Hunter" Chapman, who went down to Mexico and caught the Max Factor heir who was a serial rapist, and the Mexicans are trying to extradite him to serve time. And the US government is being quite shitty.

Proxy wars are great.

DJ, there is a difference between a TV reality star, and a governmental official.

Anyway Ice, it won't happen because of legal issues. It won't happen because America has never willingly sent any of its own to would-be war crimes/human rights trials overseas, especially to the International Courts. Besides, Americans committing such acts usually were charged on American soil, in American courts, under American law.

Its a principle of the government. Maybe its wrong, but thats the principle, and the United States government will NOT extradite a now-former executive department secretary over there.

Put it another way Ice. Would UK willingly extradite a member of the Prime Minister's cabinet over to Mexico over something that happened in Iraq?

Sorry. I can't see Gitmo being anywhere near as bad as cooking some Jews. Germany should pull its head out of its ass.

Germany wants to charge Donald Rumsfeld with prison abuse, right?
But yet last year, a German court ruled that it would be illegal to extradite Mamoun Darkazanli, who Spain wanted to bring to trial so for the 2003 Madrid bombings, because Germany's constitution bars Germans from being extradited against their will.

So they are willing to protect a terrorist, but at the same time want to bring an American Governmental Leader to trial for possibly condoning the abuse of illegal enemy combatant terrorists.


Oil for food scandal anyone?



Don Cardi

I'm not sure where the story started, but Germany has absolutely no jurisdiction to try an American citizen for anything that happened in Iraq.

Nothing can compel Rumsfeld's presence in a foreign court. I'm no fan of Rumsfeld's, but I'd be damned if a foreign tribunal even thinks it has the audacity to charge an American official.

Rummy's not losing sleep.

Who is Rutgers?

I believe, if my reading of the piece is correct, that it is not the German nation, government or Germany as a country that is bringing this case...it is simply being heard in Germany. The plaintiffs are 11 former inmates in Abu Ghraib and one former inmate of Guantanamo Bay. Also the case has not been filed yet so no decision can be made by German authorities as to whether it has any legal merit or not.

I know it's Remembrance time but in this case I feel the knee-jerk anti-German sentiment may be uncalled for.

The World 'Court filing' to be more precise. U.S is even less fond of the World Court than it is the United Nations.

Lets not get ahead of ourselves here. These are individual plaintiffs who brought a lawsuit in Germany because they think thats the best possible venue for them. The courts have made no rilings, and no evidence has yet been provided. Let's not get our panties in a wad because eleven plaintiffs in Germany sued Rummy and want him declared to be a war criminal.

People ask me all the time whether or not they "can sue" for this or that, and I always tell them anyone can pay a filing fee and sue anyone for anything. Whether or not they win the case is something altogether different.

For example anyone who was affected by alleged violations of the Geneva could plop down $200 or whatever it is and file a case against Bush or Rummy for a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
My guess is the case would get tossed out, but the matter could be filed.

This is an ill informed news story designed to grab people's attention, and create some of the extreme reactions already posted.

Lets be civil people. Lets see what the evidence is, and once we see the evidence then we can discuss whether or not these people have a case.

Whadda you some big shot laywer? Another Pezzanovante? Oh, I forgot. You only handle certain areas of the family business. My bad.





Don Cardi