home

Rumsfeld Avoids Visiting Germany Due to Lawsuit Naming Him

The Center for Constitutional Rights filed a war-crimes lawsuit on behalf of detainees at Guantanamo naming Rumsfeld as a defendant. Rumsfeld isn't taking any chances--he'll skip an important conference to avoid the chance something wierd will happen.

In recent days, the Center added Alberto Gonzales as a defendant to the suit. According to this letter (pdf),

Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee confirms his role as complicit in the torture and abuse of detainees in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq.

< Prisons in the News | Thrown Away: Juvenile Lifers >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    You're preaching to a dwindling choir. Going w-a-y over the top all the time might make the DU fringe shout ever louder (and that's intoxicating, just ask Howard Dean), and bring a short rush of power to the belly, but it accomplishes nothing. Mind you, given your agenda, I shouldn't complain.

    Re: Rumsfeld Avoids Visiting Germany Due to Lawsui (none / 0) (#2)
    by bad Jim on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 01:19:11 AM EST
    We seem to be running short of accountability these days. Bush is the perfect apostle of bankruptcy: what Geneva Conventions? Obsolete! Social Security Trust Fund?

    Rumsfeld should make the trip, and if bothered by any German police/court, we should break off relations with Germany and see if they are willing to go to war over a nutty lawsuit filed by a left wing organization headquarterd in the US. Of course prior to breaking off relations we should remove all US military and station them in Poland. That should aid Poland's economy. Bottom line. We can't let nonsense like this bother us. Germany is walking a fine line that can lead to big trouble. I hope SecState Rice is telling them that.

    Reason #677 in a series on why the ICC is a baaaaad idea. -C

    Re: Rumsfeld Avoids Visiting Germany Due to Lawsui (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:45:51 AM EST
    Rumsfeld...guilty conscience? If he was so sure he hasn't broken international law, he would travel freely with his head held high. Seems he won't.

    Is "lawsuit" the right word? It's a criminal complaint to the German Federal Prosecutor that that office must investigate and decide how to proceed on, right? "Lawsuit" -- which may be technically accurate, I don't know -- gives a rather different impression to people familiar mostly with the US system.

    Rummy knows he's a war criminal and that if he's brought to trial by an independent court he'll be convicted of, at the very least, "waging aggressive war", the major crime for which the Nazis were hanged at Nuremberg. The only reason a German criminal court wouldn't issue an indictment against Rummy based on the information the Center for Constitutional Rights has presented them is if the German executive branch forces the court to quash it. If this happens, it would be the equivalent of Bush ordering a U.S. federal district judge to cancel a criminal trial of a crooked politician because Bush wouldn't like the political consequences of a conviction. The result of such an action -- here or in Germany -- would be a full-blown Constitutional crisis that would put the whole notion of Constitutional separation of powers on the line. I think the Germans would prefer to keep their Constitutional system rather than toss it aside to accomodate the wargasm fantasies of the Rummynauts. I think Rummy and his fellow conspirators should take the prudent step of avoiding Germany, a country that -- after its experience with Hitler and untrammelled executive power -- takes the independence of its courts seriously. There's a good chance he'll be arrested if he steps foot into the country. It will be interesting to see if the U.S. sends in the 101st Airborne to spring him. Besides, if the charges against him are as frivolous as the Bush gang thinks, what does Rummy have to worry about? The German courts are well-known for their scrupulous fairness and their determination to protect the rights of any accused person. If Rummy's convinced he hasn't done anything illegal, here's his chance to prove it.

    Rummy is not going to Germany solely to spare the German government the embarassment that would surely follow if any German prosecutor or policeman tried to arrest him. Does anyone seriously think that the Marines or Airborne would let any German official take Rummy into custody? It's not in the United States' interest to expose Germany as utterly impotent, so we're not going to do that.

    Americans are prosecuted and tried all the time in Germany for various crimes, and the marines are most certainly *not* doing anything about it. I would actually be quite interesting to see if the Bush administration really thinks Rumsfield is valuable enough to start a war against Germany for (not the cakewalk people like DBL et al seem to think).

    Re: Rumsfeld Avoids Visiting Germany Due to Lawsui (none / 0) (#11)
    by Andreas on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 12:21:11 PM EST
    DBL wrote: "Does anyone seriously think that the Marines or Airborne would let any German official take Rummy into custody?" An attempt by the US military to free an arrested war criminal in Germany could very quickly lead to war between Europe and the US - in fact it would be an act of war by itself. But you are correct: the German government (Socialdemocrats and Greens) is impotent. It is not prepared to counter US imperialism. See: US group files war crimes complaint in Germany against Rumsfeld US defence secretary may skip Munich conference By Justus Leicht, 29 January 2005

    Are you sure it was for Rummy? I thought it might have been the Polish Fashion police after Chenney for wearing a ski parka to a formal memorial service.

    German warcrimes laws were written by our fathers, in blood. And they're quite specific. It is not a lawsuit, as someone pointed out, but a complaint, which triggers the law, which if the prosecutor decides to implement, leads to an inquest. That inquest is VERY important. It will put into legal record the events as they can be documented, something quite a bit more than a few photos and the slanted press we get. CCR is a good group, but this is on behalf of four Iraqis, innocent of any crime, bereft of 'useful intel,' who were tortured at Abu Ghraib prison. In other words, they have standing. The duty of the prosecutor is to hold the inquest. IF no evidence exists linking Rumsfeld -- then what's there to worry about? The German prosecutor will document the 'few bad apples' crimes, and close the case. But, no, Kaiser Bush will have to invade Germany! What a bunch of rightwing loons you lot are.

    Rummy is not going to Germany solely to spare the German government the embarassment that would surely follow if any German prosecutor or policeman tried to arrest him. Does anyone seriously think that the Marines or Airborne would let any German official take Rummy into custody?
    Germany wouldn't try to arrest him anyway; Germany takes international law seriously, and the inviolability of the persons of government ministers on official missions -- absent charges from an international tribunal with recognized jurisdiction -- is a rather well-established principle of international law. The worst they might do is declare him persona non grata and expelled or denied entry. The only time he would be in danger of arrest is if he entered Germany in a private capacity, or after leaving office.

    mar - Rumsfeld is not, just another American. He is a member of the President's staff, one of the highest positions in the executive branch of our government. Paul In LA - I doubt you understand this. But it is the precedent that is important. If we ever let a fordeign country act on a complaint such as this, there will be no end of such nonsense.

    Glad that the Germans added Don and Al to the list of war criminals. They, if anyone, should know Nazis when they see them. When will the Chimp be added to the list?

    "The worst they might do is declare him persona non grata and expelled or denied entry. The only time he would be in danger of arrest is if he entered Germany in a private capacity, or after leaving office." I don't believe that ministerial rights and treaties cover war criminals under the German law, but I'm not a lawyer. This kind of inquest is not about Rumsfeld spending time in prison (fat chance). It's about DOCUMENTING, in a legal venue, the acts and actions that took place, for all the world to see, and for any court or country anywhere to refer to. Also, look at the complaint. It names several military officials who are stationed in Germany. This action could very well damage their careers, which would be at least some justice. "Paul In LA - If we ever let a fordeign country act on a complaint such as this, there will be no end of such nonsense." If he DID IT, it's not nonsense.

    Kissinger still can't travel freely on the Continent without facing the same kind of legal entanglements. It hasn't caused him any great distress that I can tell, but it doesn't change the fact that he won't risk the possibility of having to defend his actions and make the argument that he is not a war criminal. Same thing now for Rummy and Alberto for the rest of their lives. It's not justice, but it suggests the possibility.

    PPJ: If we ever let a fordeign country act on a complaint such as this, there will be no end of such nonsense. I see; you feel that making criminals accountable for their crimes is "nonsense".

    "Foreign countries acting on complaints such as this" was exactly the rationale for the Nuremberg trials. There, Chief Justice Robert Jackson said: "The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which leave no home in the world untouched" I fail to see how this should apply to Germans but not Americans. Rumsfeld has a case to answer, if not for explicitly allowing torture himself, then under the principle of command responsibility for failing to prevent it. His subordinates - not the mooks at the bottom like Graner, but Generals like Sanchez - established policies permitting prisoners to be tortured and abused. As their political superior, Rumsfeld is also responsible for their actions. The US practically invented this idea. They can hardly complain when people take them seriously.