Something similar was reported in 2005
Quote:International lawyers file suit against Rumsfeld in Germany
An international grouping of lawyers has filed a lawsuit calling on German prosecutors to investigate outgoing US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for allegedly sanctioning torture.
The 220-page suit is being brought on behalf of 11 former Iraqi detainees of the notorious Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad and one Saudi currently being held at the US prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The suit was filed to Germany's federal prosecutor Monika Harms at her offices in the western city of Karlsruhe, said Hannes Honecker, the secretary-general of the Germany-based Republican Attorneys' Association Tuesday.
German law allows the pursuit of warcrimes cases regardless of where they originate in the world.
A similar attempt to prosecute Rumsfeld in Germany was rejected two years ago, but the German lawyer representing the detainees, Wolfgang Kaleck, told a press conference in Berlin he was confident the complaint would be followed through on this occasion.
"We failed two years ago because there was an ongoing investigation in the United States, but it is now clear that there is no chance of prosecuting high-ranking officials in the US," Kaleck told a press conference in Berlin called to present the complaint.
"We are not expecting that Rumsfeld will appear in a court, but we are hoping investigators will begin looking into the case," he said.
"If we fail here, we will try in France, or in Spain. We want to show that there will be no safe haven anywhere in the world for him."
The lawyer for the Guantanamo detainee, Mohammed al-Qahtani, claims Rumsfeld approved special "tactics" when he failed to break under interrogation.
The measures included sleep deprivation and a ban on praying, lawyer Gitanjali Gutierrez said.
"This is not just allegations, it is supported by government documentation," she said.
The complaint asks Harms to open an investigation and, ultimately, a criminal prosecution that will look into the responsibility of high-ranking US officials for allegedly authorising war crimes in the context of the war on terror, according to the lawyers.
Rumsfeld resigned last week after Republicans lost control of the US Congress to the opposition Democrats in mid-term elections seen as a referendum on the war in Iraq.
The groups have former US Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who commanded 17 US-run jails in Iraq including Abu Ghraib, as a witness on their behalf.
Karpinski told the press conference: "What I see as my obligation is to provide the truth about what I saw and what I experienced in Iraq.
"When I was getting too close to what was happening they took me out of the equation -- they removed Abu Ghraib from my control.
"Hopefully my testimony will stop this sort of thing ever happening again. I feel we have an obligation to the rest of the world because if the US does something it gives permission to the rest of the world, but it doesn't mean it is right."
Former White House counsel and current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency George Tenet, and other high-ranking US officials are also charged in the complaint.
Other groups involved in the suit include the US-based Center for Constitutional Rights and the Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights.
The Abu Ghraib scandal erupted in 2004 after photographs were leaked to the press showing US guards mistreating and sexually humiliating prisoners. Some pictures showed naked inmates cowering in front of unmuzzled dogs.
Some critics of the US administration and the Pentagon have complained that no senior officers have been prosecuted over Abu Ghraib.
Antoine Bernard, the executive director of the International Federation for Human Rights, said: "We have seen that until now the sanctions have stopped at the rank of staff sergeant.
"What interests us are the top members of the chain of command."
Article 21 seems to be the remedy section. I do not see how a State can prosecute an individual under this Agreement, even if I agreed your argument Cyclo.
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;
(a) If a State Party considers that another State Party is not giving effect to the provisions ofthis Convention, it may, by written communication, bring the matter to the attention of that State Party. Within three months afler the receipt of the communication the receiving State shall afford the State which sent the communication an explanation or any other statement in writing clarifying the matter, which should include, to the extent possible and pertinent, reference to domestic procedures and remedies taken, pending or available in the matter;
(b) If the matter is not adjusted to the satisfaction of both States Parties concerned within six months after the receipt by the receiving State of the initial communication, either State shall have the right to refer the matter to the Committee, by notice given to the Committee and to the other State;
(c) The Committee shall deal with a matter referred to it under this article only after it has ascertained that all domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted in the matter, in conformity with the generally recognized principles of international law. This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention;
(d) The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article;
(e) Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (c), the Committee shall make available its good offices to the States Parties concerned with a view to a friendly solution of the matter on the basis of respect for the obligations provided for in this Convention. For this purpose, the Committee may, when appropriate, set up an ad hoc conciliation commission;
(f) In any matter referred to it under this article, the Committee may call upon the States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), to supply any relevant information;
(g) The States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), shall have the right to be represented when the matter is being considered by the Committee and to make submissions orally and/or in writing;
(h) The Committee shall, within twelve months after the date of receipt of notice under subparagraph (b), submit a report:
(i) If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached;
(ii) If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is not reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts; the written submissions and record of the oral submissions made by the States Parties concerned shall be attached to the report.
In every matter, the report shall be communicated to the States Parties concerned.
2. The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by any State Party shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary-General, unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration.
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.
There is no requirement that they be under French jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is under the Committee of Torture as I read it. A victim of torture by a State that has signed the torture agreement would be subject to the committee's jurisdiction since the
Quote:
Add this to the above facts. This is just more grandstanding by the anti Bush crowd looking for a headline.
Add what? Your misreading of the meaning?
"...If it concerns a state party that has not made such a declaration" means the committee won't respond if you complain about torture by a state that has not signed the declaration. Your reading of the meaning woiyo would mean that a country that has signed the declaration against torture could invade any non signatory country and torture all they wanted to. Effectively it would make the declaration against torture meaningless.
woiyo wrote: I do not see how a State can prosecute an individual under this Agreement, even if I agreed your argument Cyclo.
Article 21
Did you even read the article?
"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."
All Articles are void.
Zippo wrote:woiyo wrote: I do not see how a State can prosecute an individual under this Agreement, even if I agreed your argument Cyclo.
Article 21
Did you even read the article?
"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."
All Articles are void.
I am the one who posted Article 21 of the 1984 Agreement. Where in that agreement does it provide that power to prosecute an individual. Maybe I missed it.
zippo, you're amazing sometimes. in more ways than one of course, heh.
i hate to say i think woiyo might be right about this, i would love to see rumsfeld brought to justice. on the other hand, i'm not so quick to think that treaties should be bent just to catch people we don't like.
the problem with that is that if we abuse them that way, others will too- and worse (since we know they will anyway) that we won't have a leg to stand on when we accuse them for it. this all assumes that woiyo has interpreted the agreement correctly, i can't tell. but he has a point. i don't have to like it, but he might be right about this all the same. prosecuting people under bent legal pretenses is a habit i'd rather see behind us, and at least not contributed to.
tinygiraffe wrote:cjhsa wrote:Sour grapes because France isn't invited to help rebuild Iraq.
Tough.
what are you, four?
Four -ty - something and once again, I'm right. You lefties are all the same. You aren't worth the pixels you type on the screen.
Does no one else notice that we are arguing with the enemy?
tinygiraffe,
This case was filed by the "International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) along with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR)"
They filed it in France, because Rumsfied just happened to be there. The above International group does not solely speak on behalf of France. So, does 'Article 21' posted by woiyo still apply?
So should Japanese tourists be arrested when they visit Australia because they enjoy minke whale at their home sushi bar?
Very curious as to the response.
cjhsa wrote:So should Japanese tourists be arrested when they visit Australia because they enjoy minke whale at their home sushi bar?
Very curious as to the response.
Eating minke whale sushi = human torture ?
Additionally, it would be very hard for the Australian government to prove that a certain Japanese tourist had eaten minki sushi. They couldn't arrest 'em even if they wanted to.
cjhsa wrote:So should Japanese tourists be arrested when they visit Australia because they enjoy minke whale at their home sushi bar?
Very curious as to the response.
I personally am against all forms of whaling. But I don't think it equates to human torture.
Cycloptichorn
zippo, i know i said "i hate to think that woiyo may be right about this" but i already tried to be clear that i'm not sure either way. there's a big "if" involved, i tried to be straightforward about that too.
i'm not yet familiar enough with any of these treaties or organizations- sadly. i only wanted to say that if we have to bend the rules to get him, then i agree we shouldn't- if you can show woiyo is mistaken about the detail he presented, great! i'd rather see rumsfeld convicted of war crimes. other than that, i'd have to lie and say i follow the rest of the current story- and i don't.
Zippo wrote:tinygiraffe,
This case was filed by the "International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) along with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR)"
They filed it in France, because Rumsfied just happened to be there. The above International group does not solely speak on behalf of France. So, does 'Article 21' posted by woiyo still apply?
I do not believe under Article 21, these independant organizations can file suit against an individual. Article 21 provides for a State to make allegations against another State. I do not see where an individual can be presecuted under this treaty.
I know you would love to see it happen!
woiyo wrote:Since Iraq was not a party to the "agreement", pursuant to article 21, France can take this case and shove it.
You're looking at the wrong article of
the convention. Try Article 7:
Article 7
1. The State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.
As I read it (taking into account Articles 4, 5, and 6 as well), a state has the minimum obligation to make torture illegal in its own territories and among its own citizens. In addition, if an alleged torturer from another signatory country (which has similar domestic laws outlawing torture) is found within the jurisdiction of the state, then that state is obliged to detain that person and either extradite him/her to his/her home country, or else prosecute that person in its own courts.
I'm not quite sure if, in this case, the French courts would prosecute Rumsfeld under French law or under the American law that outlaws torture. It's possible that the French law establishes universal jurisdiction over torture cases (as is the case with
the US statute against torture), in which case he would be prosecuted under French law. But it's quite clear that a signatory country is bound by the convention to apprehend and detain torturers, whatever their nationality.
Cycloptichorn wrote:cjhsa wrote:So should Japanese tourists be arrested when they visit Australia because they enjoy minke whale at their home sushi bar?
Very curious as to the response.
I personally am against all forms of whaling. But I don't think it equates to human torture.
Cycloptichorn
Of course it doesn't but that's not the point!!!
cjhsa wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:cjhsa wrote:So should Japanese tourists be arrested when they visit Australia because they enjoy minke whale at their home sushi bar?
Very curious as to the response.
I personally am against all forms of whaling. But I don't think it equates to human torture.
Cycloptichorn
Of course it doesn't but that's not the point!!!
Might I inquire what the point, is, then?
Cycloptichorn
woiyo wrote:Zippo wrote:tinygiraffe,
This case was filed by the "International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) along with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR)"
They filed it in France, because Rumsfied just happened to be there. The above International group does not solely speak on behalf of France. So, does 'Article 21' posted by woiyo still apply?
I do not believe under Article 21, these independant organizations can file suit against an individual. Article 21 provides for a State to make allegations against another State. I do not see where an individual can be presecuted under this treaty.
I know you would love to see it happen!
They're filing it under the 'Convention Against Torture ratified by the United Nations in 1984.' (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture )
We're signatories to the Convention. "To date, 142 nations are parties to it"
Quote:U.S. signs UN convention against torture - Ronald Reagan address and test of convention - transcript
US Department of State Bulletin, August, 1988
Following are the President's message to the Senate and the text of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment signed on behalf of the United States by Deputy Secretary of State John C. Whitehead on April 18, 1988, at the United Nations. The United States became the 63d nation to sign the convention, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1984 and entered into force on June 26, 198 7, after it was ratified by 20 nations...
source
If you don't get it, then what point are you trying to make?
The world seems to have lost its collective mind over how to treat these islamofacist terrorists. ****, kill them all. Get info out of the ones still alive by any means possible. They are barely human. Maybe you want to go live 1000 years in the past, but I for one do not.
cjhsa wrote:If you don't get it, then what point are you trying to make?
The world seems to have lost its collective mind over how to treat these islamofacist terrorists. ****, kill them all. Get info out of the ones still alive by any means possible. They are barely human. Maybe you want to go live 1000 years in the past, but I for one do not.
I hope al-qaeda does not capture and torture you. They'd be justified by pointing at Bush & Co, since you're defending them.
(note: keyboard commandos are hardest to capture) - You're safe!
