Germany wants to charge Rumsfield for prison abuse

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
HERE

Your link doesn't seem to be working, anyhow, I've been able to find what I was looking for myself.

The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) announced Thursday that a coalition of US and international human rights groups plan to file a war crimes lawsuit against outgoing US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld after his resignation Wednesday. Rumsfeld enjoys statutory immunity in the United States and so CCR, the National Lawyers Guild, the International Federation of Human Rights [advocacy websites] and others will file the complaint in Germany under that country's universal jurisdiction law. CCR hailed Rumsfeld's resignation as "a first step toward accountability," saying that "under Donald Rumsfeld's direction - often under his direct orders - the Department of Defense adopted the practices of torture and indefinite detention that CCR is currently challenging in many court cases." The advocacy group, which represents many detainees at Guantanamo, called on Rumsfeld's successor to close down Guantanamo Bay and "put an end to the unlawful torture and detention of thousands in the so-called war on terror."

CCR and four Iraqi citizens initially filed a war crimes complaint in Germany against Rumsfeld and seven other high-ranking US officials in October 2004, seeking to hold them accountable for acts of torture allegedly carried out at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The complaint was rejected by a German prosecutor in February 2005, but in the interim Rumsfeld cancelled a planned trip to Germany to attend a security conference. A German court later upheld the prosecutor's dismissal of the complaint.

JURIST

It was about time for someone to stand up and defend the democratic values most of us Westerners share. Humanity rights should be taken very serious and not to be violated and ashamed by some people down there in Washington DC.

Originally posted by nowthenlookhere
I doubt anyone, even Rumsfeld, would be too important to throw to the wolves if it came to it.

Agree with you, but what would have been the reason to approve such a law?






[edit on 11-11-2006 by Mdv2]

Originally posted by Mdv2

Originally posted by nowthenlookhere
I doubt anyone, even Rumsfeld, would be too important to throw to the wolves if it came to it.

Agree with you, but what would have been the reason to approve such a law?

Speculating, I can think of two(edit: THREE).

1. It would re-assure those in the government who would otherwise think "hang on, I could get in to trouble for this". This would make it that bit easier for Bush/Neocons/NWO/Illuminati or whoever are the power brokers to persuade them to to their bidding.

2. It creates another layer of legal sludge to bog down any extradition attempt,to the point of making it un-enforceable by anything other than military action... which the Europeans aren't going to do, for the same reasons as a gave above. The US would consider it an act of war, expel diplomats, block European military bases...etc etc..

edit : 3. It's a sort of veiled threat to the Europeans... basically saying "we have the power and don't you forget it" type thing. Political posturing of a kind.

My gut feeling though, is that (1) is actually the primary reason.



[edit on 11-11-2006 by nowthenlookhere]

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Maybe thats why they are going to do the trial in Germany? Its not the Hague.

If it really comes to a trial, it would be self-evident to take place in The Hague, as Rumsfeld will probably be charged with crimes against humanity.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 2002 as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, crime of aggression, and war crimes, as defined by several international agreements, most prominently the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The ICC is designed to complement existing national judicial systems: the Court can only exercise its jurisdiction when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes, thus being a "court of last resort". Primary responsibility to exercise jurisdiction over alleged criminals is therefore left to individual states. The court can only prosecute crimes that were committed on or after 1 July 2002, the date its founding statute entered into force.

Source