Rumsfeld charged with Torture in France

Forums: Politics, Torture, Human Rights
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

DONALD RUMSFELD CHARGED WITH TORTURE DURING TRIP TO FRANCE

Complaint Filed Against Former Defense Secretary for Torture, Abuse at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib

CONTACT: Jen Nessel, 917.442.0112, [email protected]

October 26, 2007, Paris, France - Today, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) along with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), and the French League for Human Rights filed a complaint with the Paris Prosecutor before the "Court of First Instance" (Tribunal de Grande Instance) charging former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with ordering and authorizing torture. Rumsfeld was in Paris for a talk sponsored by Foreign Policy magazine, and left through a door connecting to the U.S. embassy to avoid journalists and human rights attorneys outside.

"The filing of this French case against Rumsfeld demonstrates that we will not rest until those U.S. officials involved in the torture program are brought to justice. Rumsfeld must understand that he has no place to hide. A torturer is an enemy of all humankind," said CCR President Michael Ratner.

France is under the obligation to investigate and prosecute Rumsfeld's accountability for crimes of torture in Guantanamo and Iraq. France has no choice but to open an investigation if an alleged torturer is on its territory. I hope that the fight against impunity will not be sacrificed in the name of politics. We call on France to refuse to be a safe haven for criminals." said FIDH President Souhayr Belhassen.

We want to combat impunity and therefore demand a judicial investigation and a criminal prosecution wherever there is jurisdiction over the torture incidents," said ECCHR General Secretary Wolfgang Kaleck.

The criminal complaint states that because of the failure of authorities in the United States and Iraq to launch any independent investigation into the responsibility of Rumsfeld and other high-level U.S. officials for torture despite a documented paper trail and government memos implicating them in direct as well as command responsibility for torture - and because the U.S. has refused to join the International Criminal Court - it is the legal obligation of states such as France to take up the case.

In this case, charges are brought under the 1984 Convention against Torture, ratified by both the United States and France, which has been used in France in previous torture cases.

French courts therefore have an obligation under the Convention against Torture to prosecute individuals responsible for acts of torture if they are present on French territory. This will be the only case filed while he is in the country, which makes the obligations to investigate and prosecute under international law extremely strong.

Rumsfeld's presence on French territory gives French courts jurisdiction to prosecute him for having ordered and authorized torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

In addition, having resigned from his position of U.S. Secretary of Defense a year ago, Rumsfeld can no longer try to claim immunity as a head of state or government official. Nor can he claim immunity as former state official, as international law does not recognize such immunity in the case of international crimes including the crime of torture.

Former U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, former commander of Abu Ghraib and other U.S.-run prisons in Iraq, submitted written testimony to the Paris Prosecutor for the plaintiffs' case on Rumsfeld's responsibility for the abuse of detainees.

This is the fifth time Rumsfeld has been charged with direct involvement in torture stemming from his role in the Bush administration's program of torture post-9/11.

Two previous criminal complaints were filed in Germany under its universal jurisdiction statute, which allows Germany to prosecute serious international crimes regardless of where they occurred or the nationality of the perpetrators or victims. One case was filed in fall 2004 by CCR, FIDH, and Berlin attorney Wolfgang Kaleck; that case was dismissed in February 2005 in response to official pressure from the U.S., in particular from the Pentagon.

The second case was filed in fall 2006 by the same groups as well as dozens of national and international human rights groups, Nobel Peace Prize winners and the United Nations former Special Rapporteur on Torture. The 2006 complaint was presented on behalf of 12 Iraqi citizens who had been held and abused in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and one Saudi citizen still held at Guantánamo. This case was dismissed in April 2007, and an appeal will be filed against this decision next week.

Two other cases were filed against Rumsfeld in Argentina in 2005 and in Sweden in 2007.

http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/donald-rumsfeld-charged-torture-during-trip-france

It's getting to the point where the Bushies just aren't going to be able to take international vacations much longer.

I know that there will be a hue and cry by Conservatives as to the illegality of such a move, but hell - someone needs to have done this, and if your own government is too pussy to do it, why not someone else?

Cycloptichorn

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 5,172 • Replies: 81

No top replies

if they could detain him, that would be splendid.

it's odd though, i assumed that in a couple decades, france would be the one place he *could* go to be left alone.

0 Replies

does this mean I have to go back to eating freedom fries?

0 Replies

Sour grapes because France isn't invited to help rebuild Iraq.

Tough.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Sour grapes because France isn't invited to help rebuild Iraq.

Tough.

what are you, four?

0 Replies

Since Iraq was not a party to the "agreement", pursuant to article 21, France can take this case and shove it.

"Article 21

1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. Such communications may be received and considered according to the procedures laid down in this article only if submitted by a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee. No communication shall be dealt with by the Committee under this article if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. Communications received under this article shall be dealt with in accordance with the following procedure;"

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Since Iraq was not a party to the "agreement", pursuant to article 21, France can take this case and shove it.

"Article 21

1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. Such communications may be received and considered according to the procedures laid down in this article only if submitted by a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee. No communication shall be dealt with by the Committee under this article if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. Communications received under this article shall be dealt with in accordance with the following procedure;"

Iraq doesn't have to be a party to the agreement; as long as France is, they can prosecute anyone who is on their soil.

Personally I'd like to see the entire EU closed off to Bushco. torturers. It's a definite step towards bringing the bastards to justice.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

go scalp 'em big chief... :wink:

0 Replies

What part of this do you not understand?

"No communication shall be dealt with by the Committee under this article if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. "

Iraq is not a party to the agreement. Iraq has not made a complaint.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

What part of this do you not understand?

"No communication shall be dealt with by the Committee under this article if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. "

Iraq is not a party to the agreement. Iraq has not made a complaint.

I don't understand the part in which you believe that France can't prosecute someone for crimes who is on their own soil.

Look at it this way - if we know someone is a terrorist, and they are in America, we have the right to arrest them for their crimes even if the crimes weren't carried out here in America. Same thing.

Are you arguing that Rummy shouldn't be held responsible for his actions, or just being pissy about France, woiyo?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Looks to me like he is quoting the part of the article addressing the grounds for which charges were leveled.

Were if French, or other signatory, people that Rummy was being accused of "torturing", then they would have a case.

You do see that right?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Looks to me like he is quoting the part of the article addressing the grounds for which charges were leveled.

Were if French, or other signatory, people that Rummy was being accused of "torturing", then they would have a case.

You do see that right?

No; would we have a case for prosecuting terrorists who didn't attack any Americans at all? Of course we would. Same thing.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

woiyo wrote:
What part of this do you not understand?

"No communication shall be dealt with by the Committee under this article if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. "

Iraq is not a party to the agreement. Iraq has not made a complaint.

I don't understand the part in which you believe that France can't prosecute someone for crimes who is on their own soil.

Look at it this way - if we know someone is a terrorist, and they are in America, we have the right to arrest them for their crimes even if the crimes weren't carried out here in America. Same thing.

Are you arguing that Rummy shouldn't be held responsible for his actions, or just being pissy about France, woiyo?

Cycloptichorn

woiyo? pissy? you're kidding right? Laughing

look we all know this is merely symbolic... so enjoy the symbolism and enjoy the fact that even if there's no real consequences for Rummy, Cheney, bush et al.... they will be hounded and reminded almost daily for years and years to come about what despised, disrespected and denounced shitheads they are and maybe that will make the rest of their lives a misery.

Settle for what you can get.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Looks to me like he is quoting the part of the article addressing the grounds for which charges were leveled.

Were if French, or other signatory, people that Rummy was being accused of "torturing", then they would have a case.

You do see that right?

No; would we have a case for prosecuting terrorists who didn't attack any Americans at all? Of course we would. Same thing.

Cycloptichorn

We are not prosecuting terrorists under the Convention against Torture. Not the same thing at all.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

woiyo wrote:
What part of this do you not understand?

"No communication shall be dealt with by the Committee under this article if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. "

Iraq is not a party to the agreement. Iraq has not made a complaint.

I don't understand the part in which you believe that France can't prosecute someone for crimes who is on their own soil.

Look at it this way - if we know someone is a terrorist, and they are in America, we have the right to arrest them for their crimes even if the crimes weren't carried out here in America. Same thing.

Are you arguing that Rummy shouldn't be held responsible for his actions, or just being pissy about France, woiyo?

Cycloptichorn

Let's discuss facts and not your childish emotions.

France has already broken their own "reservation" to this agreement by filing this so called suit.

"France

23 June 1988

The Government of France declares [. . .] that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.

The Government of France declares [. . .] that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention."

This so called torture was not, to my knowledge, taken against citizens under Frances jurisdiction.

Add this to the above facts. This is just more grandstanding by the anti Bush crowd looking for a headline.

Your so called "BUSCO" have many other issues to answer for. This is NOT one of them.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

go scalp 'em big chief... :wink:

2) Use respectful language. You agree not to use language that abuses or discriminates on the basis of race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual preference, age, region, disability, etc. Hate speech of any kind is grounds for immediate and permanent removal from the service.

This isn't the first time you have used a racist slur against Woiyo. While he may not care, I do. I am sure your liberal friends will support your use of racist language, but do it again and it gets reported.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
What part of this do you not understand?

"No communication shall be dealt with by the Committee under this article if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. "

Iraq is not a party to the agreement. Iraq has not made a complaint.

I don't understand the part in which you believe that France can't prosecute someone for crimes who is on their own soil.

Look at it this way - if we know someone is a terrorist, and they are in America, we have the right to arrest them for their crimes even if the crimes weren't carried out here in America. Same thing.

Are you arguing that Rummy shouldn't be held responsible for his actions, or just being pissy about France, woiyo?

Cycloptichorn

Let's discuss facts and not your childish emotions.

France has already broken their own "reservation" to this agreement by filing this so called suit.

"France

23 June 1988

The Government of France declares [. . .] that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention.

The Government of France declares [. . .] that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention."

This so called torture was not, to my knowledge, taken against citizens under Frances jurisdiction.

Add this to the above facts. This is just more grandstanding by the anti Bush crowd looking for a headline.

Your so called "BUSCO" have many other issues to answer for. This is NOT one of them.

The US, however, is a signatory to this document - and Guantanamo bay is under our jurisdiction, so the whole Iraq angle means nothing. An argument could be made anyways that the old Iraq doesn't exist any longer, and under our occupation we and the country are bound by our treaty obligations.

The actual torture - there's nothing so-called about the documented things we have done, and you know it - took place on US soil (Gitmo) and was done by US soldiers under the direction of US leaders. As we are a signatory to the convention against torture, and we refuse to prosecute ourselves, they have a moral right to do so - and a legal right, if our people are on their soil.

I support the right of whatever country who wishes to take action against torturers, even if they are Americans. It is the equivalent of taking action against terrorists.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Since Iraq was not a party to the "agreement", pursuant to article 21, France can take this case and shove it.

"Article 21

1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. Such communications may be received and considered according to the procedures laid down in this article only if submitted by a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee. No communication shall be dealt with by the Committee under this article if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. Communications received under this article shall be dealt with in accordance with the following procedure;"

I see nothing in there about Iraq..
A state party (in this case France) can declare ...blah blah... that another state party (in this case the US) is not fulfilling it's duty. Both France and the US are parties to the convention. Your argument about Iraq is pointless since Iraq is not a party to the convention and is not making any charges under the convention.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
go scalp 'em big chief... :wink:

2) Use respectful language. You agree not to use language that abuses or discriminates on the basis of race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual preference, age, region, disability, etc. Hate speech of any kind is grounds for immediate and permanent removal from the service.

This isn't the first time you have used a racist slur against Woiyo. While he may not care, I do. I am sure your liberal friends will support your use of racist language, but do it again and it gets reported.

Matthew 7: 1-5 :wink:

0 Replies

meanwhile I'll admit my remark was probably over the line. We all slip up occasionally.

0 Replies

Rumsfeld charged with Torture in France

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know