home

Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 12:47:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Rumsfeld catches a break in the war-crimes lawsuit filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of those abused at Abu Ghraib. It had named Rumsfeld as a defendant and sought to have the German prosecutor file criminal charges against him. Focus English News reports:

Karsruhe. Germany's federal prosecutor will not pursue a criminal complaint accusing US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld of war crimes in Iraq., reported Deutsche Welle.

Even though a German law requires German prosecutors to investigate allegations of war crimes even if they are not committed by Germans or in Germans, German Federal Prosecutor Kay Nehm said US authorities bore the initial responsibility to do so.

He added that his office could only act if US officials failed to do so, but said this was not the case. A US organization called Center for Constitutional Rights had filed the complained against Rumsfeld and other high-ranking officials in Germany for the role they played in torture and abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

CCR says the decision is "politically motivated, timed For Rumsfeld's visit and only a temporary setback. You can read the text of the decision here. (pdf). The story of Rumsfeld and his trip to Germany is here.

That hasn't stopped the vigilant and determined CCR from proceeding on other fronts. Yesterday they filed a habeas corpus claim in federal court in DC on behalf of 70 Guantanamo detainees.

The suit, spearheaded by lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), is captioned “John Does Nos. 1-570 v. Bush” because the Bush Administration has continued to withhold the identities of the detainees it keeps in indefinite detention. Until now, without the names of the detainees and without physical access to them, lawyers have been unable to help those who wish to seek their day in court under the Supreme Court’s decision last June in Rasul v. Bush. In that case, also brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Supreme Court held that each detainee has the right to challenge his detention in federal court. Seven months later, the Bush administration continues to disregard the Supreme Court’s decision by blocking the detainees from meaningful access to attorneys or the courts.

If you know someone anywhere in the world who thinks they may have a loved one at Guantánamo, they should contact the Center for Constitutional Rights at 212.614.6439 or bjo@ccr-ny.org"

< Howard Dean Elected to Chair DNC | Report on Biased Ward Churchill Coverage >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld | 25 comments (25 topical)
    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 02:02:55 PM EST
    It would be more accurate to say that Germany avoided the embarrassment of being exposed as utterly powerless and impotent. Had an indictment been issued, do you honestly think that the United States Army would ever have let some two-bit German prosecutor take Rumsfeld into custody? Do you think Rumsfeld would ever have responded to the charges in court? He would have just ignored it and come and gone as he pleased. What would the Germans have done about it? The answer is obviously nothing. I'm sure Schroeder and his compadres are high-fiving right now, having avoided that disaster.

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#2)
    by marty on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 02:36:25 PM EST
    What does this do for his sense of responsibility though?

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 02:40:23 PM EST
    Completely inaccurate and incorrect, DBL. This decision by a single federal prosecutor is not final; what he said is that US legal actions have not been exhausted. That's nonsense, but it's also not final; the case automatically goes to a court panel for further review. The purpose of this action is not that Germany will arrest the unelected executive of the United States for war crimes and illegal invasion. The purpose is to produce a legal affidavit from an inquest, detailing the violations of international (and US law) by the Bush junta in Iraq. The four Iraqis who are named in the complaint were tortured at Abu Ghraib. That really has nothing to do with Shroeder or politics. The war crimes law in Germany was written under the purview of some cat named Eisenhower; the law is quite specific, and upholds OUR values. The Bush junta's behavior does not. We look forward to action from the German court of review. Justice may be delayed, but justice we shall have. Rumsfeld is personally responsible for the deaths of a lot of innocent people, including at least (by the Pentagon's own admission) 400 GIs (who were underequipped). His "on the cheap" invasion plan handed out to hostiles: • 280 tons of high-explosives • 650,000 lbs. of ammunition • 4,000 shoulder-fired missiles • unknown amounts of cesium and strontium For that criminal negligence alone he should be impeached and prosecuted in the US. But the torture policy of the Bush junta is itself a grave warcrime, and it may be that Germany is the only international player that can hold an inquest into those behaviors. Thirty-seven detainees are known to have died in custody. Murder and torture of detainees is not legal under international or US law. Smirking about politics in the face of real crimes against our values and humanity is exactly the kind of heartless, demented, unamerican attitude we have seen repeatedly from ugly american partisans of the Bush junta as they have carried out these predations. It isn't going to weigh in your favor when you cross over.

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 03:08:30 PM EST
    So then - given that the Balkans action by the US in the 90's was not countenanced by the UN, does that make Clinton and his defense secretary (Cohen at the time, iirc) criminals as well? Why or why not? Whether you like it or not, neither Germany nor the UN has control over US actions. In order to send troops into battle, all that's needed is Congressional approval. Clinton got that vis-a-vis the Balkans, and Bush got it vis-a-vis Afghanistan and Iraq. That makes all three conficts legal. Pretending otherwise shows a complete misunderstanding of US law. You are free to disagree with those engagements, to protest them, whatever - but you are wrong on the facts to call them illegal.

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#5)
    by marty on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 03:26:53 PM EST
    Pretending otherwise shows a complete misunderstanding of US law. You are free to disagree with those engagements, to protest them, whatever - but you are wrong on the facts to call them illegal. Torture is illegal. Where is the documented torture in the balkans?

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 03:41:09 PM EST
    Posted by James Robertson: "So then - given that the Balkans action by the US in the 90's was not countenanced by the UN," That's not the standard. Acting without UNSC approval is a violation of the UN charter. It is not in itself a war crime. "Whether you like it or not, neither Germany nor the UN has control over US actions." Also not the point. US law itself has been violated, but in our system of laws, prosecution is supposed to be based on violation. Politics is not supposed to enter in. Since the SCOTUS is complicit in installing the Bush junta, can't expect action from them. And the Justice Dept. refused to investigate either case of vote fraud, for obvious partisan reasons. It's a collapse of American jurisprudence, but such are coups. And you're defending that? " In order to send troops into battle, all that's needed is Congressional approval." Bush did NOT have Congressional approval to invade Iraq. He had approval to use the threat of military force to get the inspectors into the palaces; which threat worked immediately. The inspectors found NOTHING. Guess why? " Clinton got that vis-a-vis the Balkans, and Bush got it vis-a-vis Afghanistan and Iraq. That makes all three conficts legal." Contrary to the facts. "Pretending otherwise shows a complete misunderstanding of US law. You are free to disagree with those engagements, to protest them, whatever - but you are wrong on the facts to call them illegal." Apparently you don't know what a war crime is. The illegal invasion was a crime under international law (UNSC rules); but the actions against detainees was a crime under the Geneva conventions, which we signed onto to PROTECT OUR TROOPS from abuses. Violating that standard is of far-graver import. The Bush junta also violated GC rules controlling the duties of an occupying force, across the board. Those are also warcrimes, and need prosecuting. These are certainly warcrimes under German law, and the inquest into those crimes will probably come. And that legal record will hound Rumsfeld and the rest of the eventual defendents, for the rest of their lives. If you had a case against Clinton, it was up to you to press it at the time. S. Power says that that bombing campaign saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Certainly many on the left considered the action a warcrime. But there is no comparison to Bush junta actions, which have received the most widespread condemnation of any action since the Vietnam war.

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 03:58:00 PM EST
    It'd be a shame to have to kick Germany's *ss again. But at least this time it would take a lot fewer troops. Perhaps the Boulder police department could handle it for us? -C

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#8)
    by chris on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 04:14:29 PM EST
    I join with those of you that await the full German panel and were nonplused at Kay Nehm's cynical dismissal of the complaint. I did want to point out that international laws governing torture are many, and hardly confined to the Genevs Conventions. (Peter Weiss, one of the attorneys who ushered CCR into the international-law world, told me he wants to write an article called "Geneva, Schmeneva!" to emphasize this point). Between the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and the Convention Against Torture (which the U.S. finallly ratified in 1996 (!), thus passing the Torture Victims Protection Act at the same juncture), there's little that's more illegal under interrnational and U.S. law than torture and its cousin, inhumane and degrading treatment. Of course, our new Attorney General appeared, at his confirmation hearings, not to remember that -- which is why a German judgment could be key.

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 04:31:17 PM EST
    It's all about the money!!! Just like Belgium, we threaten to take away our monetary support and the Germans fold like a cheap suit. Figures!!!

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 04:57:19 PM EST
    Cliff - Not so fast with the Boulder police. If I remember correctly, when Jon Benet Ramsey was killed, the Chief was in Africa on a mission about providing housing in third world countries. In any event, I'm pleased to see that there are a few Germans left with a we bit of common sense. Paul In LA - Tell me. Are you actually so confused that you think any government would charge Rumsfeld, or any other high US offical, much less actually try to arrest them?

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 05:28:32 PM EST
    PPJ - The Boulder police thing was a joke. I think my son's cub scout troop could take them with single-shot .22's. When I lived there they had a rare officer shooting death. The woman couldn't clear a stovepipe jam from her service pistol (the excerable 9mm). It turns out she hadn't been to the range in several training cycles and her gun was filthy and clogged with lubricant. Poor girl. -C

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:44:19 PM EST
    The supporters of the reich of the new american century will be surprised when the economic war against the american economy proves brutally effective. We are attacking the world driving humvees that depend on oil we don't have. Germany made the same mistake in the 40's. If your economy is dependent on your trading partners to a large extent, unilateral aggression will result in the shaky feeling you get when your trading partners starting pulling up the rug you are standing on. As Chief Sealth put, the world doesn't belong to us, we belong to the world.

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 07:08:54 PM EST
    Cliff - Well.... My comment was a joke about your joke... Rochester! Coming boss! CA - After a long day of overseeing the winter weather damage done to the palatial retirement compound, catfish pond and BBQ stand, I can only say. The heck with it. Let's nuke'em.

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 07:28:59 PM EST
    PPS - Sorry, someone opened the closet and I had to clean up all the junk that fell out. It was 63 degrees and sunny today - I went to the Wildlife Club and shot some skeet and my new 9mm FN - it came with five liberal scaring hi-cap 14 round mags! You gotta get out of that blue state and come down where it's warm, red, and it's always golf and huntin season! -C

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 07:32:21 PM EST
    "Posted by Kyle: "It's all about the money!!! Just like Belgium, we threaten to take away our monetary support and the Germans fold like a cheap suit. Figures!!!" You are tarring all Germans for the action of a SINGLE federal prosecutor. Even his action was tentative. I'm sure he got death-threats and political pressure, but there isn't much of a leg to stand on in this 'folding' over on this side of the Atlantic. Have a bit of patience with our allies, whydoncha? It's not easy to oppose the actions of dictators. The issue is the law. Quite a few people on this LAW site don't seem to understand that, and turn everything into a political issue. I give you, as the perennial example, Posted by Jim " Tell me. Are you actually so confused that you think any government would charge Rumsfeld, or any other high US offical, much less actually try to arrest them?" I know, Jim, that you are incapable of reading coherently, so I'll repeat from above: "The purpose of this action is not that Germany will arrest the unelected executive of the United States for war crimes and illegal invasion. The purpose is to produce a legal affidavit from an inquest, detailing the violations of international (and US law) by the Bush junta in Iraq." And, yeah, that's the legal duty under German law, a law which this cat Eisenhower, and some of our best legal minds, helped draft, because it represents OUR values. Thanks, Chris, for the legal expansion on my comments. I didn't mean to imply that the GC were the only issue, but that the warcrimes are a separate issue from violations of the UNSC treaty. Clearly the Bush junta has tried to reverse the longstanding trend of American law and culture. They seem to think that the world changed in 2001, when all the rest of us in the world know that it changed, forever, in 1945, and NEVER AGAIN.

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:12:44 AM EST
    Paul In LA - When you write about law, all I can remember is how the Soviets always appointed a lawyer for the dissidents. As someone pointed out (actually several times), our actions in Iraq were approved by Congress. Now I know that didn't meet your approval, dear boy, but that's how things work in a constitutional republic. BTW - That makes it legal. Of course anyone in any country at anytime can waste their time coming up with a list of things they think are illegal. As for "dictators," since when do dictators serve for eight years max, undergo tough elections and have their vetos overcome by a two thirds vote? Oh well, at least you are off the "Bush stole the election" and "everyone who disagrees with me is a racist" blather.

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimcee on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 02:12:30 PM EST
    PPJ, I'll bet you that Paul in LA isn't done with that meme, say, I'll send you some nice Italian hot sausage (great in the smoker by the way) if you win and if I win you send me some of that "yellow" BBQ you Carolina guys do so well. Paul it's in your field....

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 03:55:14 PM EST
    jimcee - That's a no brainer. You'll have to talk to Cliff for some of that chopped pork, soaked with vinegar and cayenne pepper those un-civilized people in NC dare to call BBQ. BBQ, my good sir, is slow cooked over a smokey hickory fire and basted in a tomato based sauce with black peppers and just a hint of red peppers. It is then pulled from the bone, and never, never, never, chopped.

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:08:45 PM EST
    Re this: "Bush did NOT have Congressional approval to invade Iraq. He had approval to use the threat of military force to get the inspectors into the palaces; which threat worked immediately. The inspectors found NOTHING. Guess why?" You might try actually reading the resolution, which may be found here. The relevant sections: --------- SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. (c) War Powers Resolution Requirements- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. -------- So in fact, force was authorized, so long as the President promptly notified the Congress. Kerry's later mumblings about it being a threat only - it shows only that he can't read either. As well, if you actually read through the justifications given in that act of Congress, you'll see that the threat of WMD was only one of the rationales given. I realize that you would like to pretend it's the only one - but that doesn't make you correct. Again, you can dislike this all you like, but it was legal.

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 08:10:37 PM EST
    jimcee/PPJ - Now, don't get me in the middle of that BBQ argument. Everyone knows, excptin ya'll northern southerners, that BBQ is chicken, for laws sake. Shameless plug for a friend: Carolina Sauce Company. - Try the Happy or Hot and Bothered sauce on your steak or venison. This is my hunting buddy's home bidness. Back to our regularly scheduled blather. -C

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 12:21:04 AM EST
    Bush lied the country into this war, and you know it. That resolution is unconstitutional. It still has nothing to do with warcrimes, and the evil acts in USPNAC's "Hate America and How!" program to destroy our national security so he and his pals can make MONEY. Cliff again shows his inability to take anything seriously.

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 05:23:01 AM EST
    Paul In LA - Could we send you some BBQ? A good meal sometimes settles the nerves amd calms the stomach. I mean, you are reduced to just saying, "I'm right! I'm right!"

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 11:07:05 AM EST
    ddd

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 12:09:58 PM EST
    Whew, that was a close one. I'll bet Donny was sweating bullets.

    Re: Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 14, 2005 at 02:07:46 PM EST
    Paul, You might try reading the entire resolution again. Notice how it uses multiple justifications - not just presumption of WMD? As well, on what basis do you claim that the act is "unconstitutional"? Please point me to specific clauses in the Constitution that are violated.

    Germany Refuses to Prosecute Rumsfeld | 25 comments (25 topical)