Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse (BARF)

A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the former Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo

Just days after his resignation, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called "20th hijacker" and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a "special interrogation plan," personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski — who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case — has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: "It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ."

A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.

Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.

Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides "universal jurisdiction" allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a "a big, big problem." U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.

In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case — that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue — has been proven wrong.

"The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer," says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments underlying the German prosecutor's previous inaction no longer hold up.

Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is the latest example of efforts in Western Europe by critics of U.S. tactics in the war on terror to call those involved to account in court. In Germany, investigations are under way in parliament concerning cooperation between the CIA and German intelligence on rendition — the kidnapping of suspected terrorists and their removal to third countries for interrogation. Other legal inquiries involving rendition are under way in both Italy and Spain.

U.S. officials have long feared that legal proceedings against "war criminals" could be used to settle political scores. In 1998, for example, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet — whose military coup was supported by the Nixon administration — was arrested in the U.K. and held for 16 months in an extradition battle led by a Spanish magistrate seeking to charge him with war crimes. He was ultimately released and returned to Chile. More recently, a Belgian court tried to bring charges against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged crimes against Palestinians.

For its part, the Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.

Michael Ratner Who never met a Communist dictator he didn't like.
He defends many murderous, torturing dictators
such as Saddam Hussein but wants to prosecute Mr. Rumsfield.

Of course we all know he doesn't give a hoot about anyone
being tortured, just bringing America under Communist rule

"The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take
any action to investigate high-level involvement in the
torture program could not be clearer," says Michael
Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights,
a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action
in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions
Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year,
effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those
involved in detention and interrogation abuses of
foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back
to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal
arguments underlying the German prosecutor's previous
inaction no longer hold up."

Michael Ratner
President of the Center for Constitutional Rights
Former president of the National Lawyers Guild
Open Borders advocate
Leftist critic of U.S. and supporter of Communist adversaries of U.S.
Agitates for the expansion of rights for suspected terrorists

Michael Ratner is the president of the Center for
Constitutional Rights (CCR), which was co-founded in
November 1966 by longtime members of the Communist and
radical left. Today the CCR characterizes itself as an
organization that "uses litigation proactively to advance
the law in a positive direction, to guarantee the rights
of those with the fewest protections and least access to
legal resources." Among those whom the CCR counts as
largely "unprotected" are terrorist organizations and
illegal immigrants. The CCR is a core activist
organization in the Open Borders Lobby, which seeks to
eliminate all restrictions on immigration across U.S.
borders. In the wake of 9/11, the CCR has focused its
efforts heavily on reining in the U.S. government's newly
implemented anti-terrorism measures, which the CCR depicts
as having "seriously undermined civil liberties, the
checks and balances that are essential to the structure of
our democratic government, and indeed, democracy itself."

In March 2002, Ratner explained his views on the origins
of anti-American terrorism. "If the U.S. government truly
wants its people to be safer and wants terrorist threats
to diminish," he said, "it must make fundamental changes
in its foreign policies . . . particularly its unqualified
support for Israel, and its embargo of Iraq, its bombing
of Afghanistan, and its actions in Saudi Arabia. [These]
continue to anger people throughout the region, and to
fertilize the ground where terrorists of the future will
take root." He further condemned America's post-9/11
attack on Afghanistan - stating that thousands of refugees
were being forced to flee, and citing a UN prediction that
some 100,000 Afghan children would die as a result of
U.S. "aggression." He suggested that, as an alternative to
war, the U.S. ought to "treat the attacks on September 11
as a crime against humanity, establish a UN tribunal,
extradite the suspects, or if that fails, capture them
with a UN force, and try them."

Prior to serving as president of the CCR, Ratner was
president of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG). The NLG,
which originated as a Communist front, and remains, an
organization that supports the Communist regimes in North
Korea and Cuba, and agendas indistinguishable from
Communism domestically, is today one of the chief groups
championing the "rights" of illegal immigrants and
terrorists, and works in close association with the ACLU
and the Center for Constitutional Rights on these issues.
Also in the vanguard of those fighting to weaken America's
intelligence-gathering agencies, the NLG has launched a
campaign to repeal the Patriot Act, claiming that it
tramples on people's civil liberties. In addition, the NLG
opposes the Domestic Security Enhancement Act and the use
of military tribunals for captured combatants in the War
on Terror.

According to Ratner, Attorney General John
Ashcroft "crystallizes for me what this administration
does wrong. What Ashcroft has done is essentially take the
courts out of our system of government, in not having
reviews of immigration cases, not having reviews of people
that are jailed . . . and . . . allowing Americans to be
surveilled by the FBI and to have our privacy really
invaded in terms of our political speech, our religious
affiliation, and he's done that without any criminal
predicate."
Ratner recently served as co-counsel in the Supreme Court
case of Rasul v. Bush, where he sought to prevent the Bush
Administration and the U.S. military from detaining
captured Taliban and al Qaeda fighters at Guantanamo Bay
while the war on terror continues. Ratner has
said, "Guantanamo represents everything that is wrong with
the U.S. war on terrorism. The Bush administration reacted
to 9/11 with regressive and draconian measures worthy of a
dictatorship, not a democracy." In his lectures to law
students around the country, Ratner dons a baseball cap
that reads, "Guantanamo Bay Bar Association."

Ratner's opposition to American policies is longstanding
and cuts across Party lines. He sued President George Bush
Sr.'s Administration - to stop the Gulf War in 1991, and
the Clinton administration - to end the U.S. bombing of Kosovo.

Ratner's support of expanded terrorist rights and his pro-
Communist worldview are made apparent in the books he has
authored, which include: (1) Che Guervara and the FBI: The
U.S. Political Police Dossier on the Latin American
Revolutionary; (2) Against War with Iraq: An Anti-War
Primer; and (3) Guantanamo: What the World Should Know.

Regarding the capture and eventual prosecution of Saddam
Hussein, Ratner says, "If you're going to have any kind of
criminal trial here, if you want any sense of legitimacy
or fairness, you cannot go after Saddam Hussein. After
all, the U.S., as is well known, has a war of aggression
that they just fought against Iraq, a violation of any
international law."

Elizabeth Holtzman, former Congresswoman from NY who was one of the noisier members of the House Judiciary Committee when it went after Nixon in 1973-74 and is now one of the leading advocates of impeaching President Bush, had a column yesterday entitled "Breathing the 'I' word" in which she spelled out what she thinks are Bush's impeachable offenses:

(1) directing illegal domestic wiretapping and surveillance,
(2) detainee abuse and torture,
(3) indifference to human life in responding to Hurricane Katrina,
(4) ill-equipping U.S. soldiers and failing to plan for the Iraq occupation,
(5) deceiving Congress and Americans about reasons for the war in Iraq and possibly seeking to cover up those deceptions by leaking misleading classified information.

All garbage...but the media has been hammering away at those themes for so long that a large part of the public believes them to be true.

Bush's failure in Katrina was his failure to realize the extent of the incompetence of the local and state authorities, and a failure to handle the public relations side of it. If Clinton had been President, the response from the federal government might have been even slower, but Clinton's approval ratings would have gone up from his handling of photo ops.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.