Rumsfeld to face possible charges

[Huntster]

.....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.

I suppose some here will call that "torture." Now, the international criminal terrorist and attempted mass murderer (actually, his culturally ballsy lawyer) is actually filing criminal charges against our former Secretary of Defense and current Attorney General for the above "heinous" crimes?

Yet:

.....One of the organizers of the September 11 attacks, Mustafa al-Hawsawi, referred to al-Kahtani in intercepted telephone calls as "the last one" to "complete the group".....

....On August 4, 2001, al-Kahtani flew into Orlando, Florida from Dubai. Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker and pilot, drove to the Orlando International Airport to allegedly meet him, but al-Kahtani was being held by immigration officials. The officials were suspicious because al-Kahtani had little money, could speak no English, and used a one-way ticket. He frequently changed his story and could not adequately explain why he was visiting the United States. Thinking he was likely to become an illegal immigrant, al-Kahtani was sent back to Dubai. With the help of Hawsawi, he then travelled to Pakistan......

.....After the attacks, al-Kahtani was rounded up with many foreigners in Afghanistan and was sent to the United States Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. After ten months, U.S. authorities discovered that he was an attempted hijacker, and he was interrogated.[2] After details of his status were leaked, the US Department of Defense issued a press release stating that Kahtani had admitted:
• He had been sent to the U.S. by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the lead architect of the 9/11 attack;
• That he had met Osama Bin Laden on several occasions;
• That he had received terrorist training at two al-Qaeda camps;
• That he had been in contact with many senior al-Qaeda leaders.....

And the poor bastard had his clothes taken off! Humiliated?

Frankly, he's a lucky son-of-a-bitch. I'd shoot his sorry ass like the mangy, loose dog he was.

Nearly 3,000 dead souls as a result of his and other's actions, and people are worried about his "humiliation"?

There's our problem. Not so much the criminals, but the apologists who protect their sorry asses.

 

[WildCat]

Now, who controlled the situation? Who was in charge of making guidelines for the soldiers behavior?

Why don't you enlighten us?

 

[WildCat]

It's also nice to see that German courts apparently feel it is just fine to prosecute an attorney for giving legal advice with which they disagree. Now that just screams "justice"!

 

[DanishDynamite]

From the link in the OP:

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.

How exactly can a single country, with any validity, decide that its courts have "universal jurisdiction"?

I suspect the prosecutors will have a very hard time getting any other country to extradite their own citizens to such a trial.

 

[Unabogie]

I suppose some here will call that "torture." Now, the international criminal terrorist and attempted mass murderer (actually, his culturally ballsy lawyer) is actually filing criminal charges against our former Secretary of Defense and current Attorney General for the above "heinous" crimes?

Yet:



And the poor bastard had his clothes taken off! Humiliated?

Frankly, he's a lucky son-of-a-bitch. I'd shoot his sorry ass like the mangy, loose dog he was.

Nearly 3,000 dead souls as a result of his and other's actions, and people are worried about his "humiliation"?

There's our problem. Not so much the criminals, but the apologists who protect their sorry asses.

I'm actually pleased you've taken this position, because it underscores why it's so important that the Republicans lost both houses. The tactic of the Administration has been to obfuscate the "program" so that people can make claims about its nature that attempt to mitigate what's been happening.

The evidence appears to suggest that the techniques include:

1. Waterboarding.
2. Sleep deprivation.
3. Beatings.
4. Extreme cold

There are convictions of soldiers in Afghanistan for beating one prisoner, who was deemed innocent of anything, in the legs so badly that they turned to pulp and he died.

But since we've had no public inquiry into just who's doing what under whose orders, people can wiggle out and claim it's all just "harsh" but not torture. And it's obvious that this is by design.

The mere fact that Bush rammed through the last minute law to protect himself is strong evidence that HE knows what he's been up to, but thankfully, we can now, hopefully, at least all operate from the same set of facts.

 

[qayak]

From the link in the OP:

How exactly can a single country, with any validity, decide that its courts have "universal jurisdiction"?

I suspect the prosecutors will have a very hard time getting any other country to extradite their own citizens to such a trial.

They just wait for the accused to travel to a country they have an extradition agreement with, have him arrested and shipped to them. For Germany, that would probably be any European country and most other countries in the world.

 

[Polaris]

How do you know that a particular prisoner is Taliban or Al Qaida? Without presentation of evidence and deliberation, how do you know?
They look guilty?
Smell funny?
Talk using funny sounding words?

I don't much care for your own standards.

I already said, if they are non-Afghan (meaning Arab, Chechen, Indonesian, Pakistani, or northern Californian) and cannot give a viable reason to their being there ("viable" meaning there to support the US effort or to rebuild a non-theocratic Afghanistan) then they are al-Qaida. If they held any office in Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001 then they are Taliban. It's a process of elimination.

It takes money and connections to get into Afghanistan. It's not as simple as hopping the border from New York to Canada. You have to make an effort to go there, and you need motivation to make that effort. I can't think of any reason to go to Afganistan if not to either help the rebuilding effort, or to kill Westerners. The former should be easy to prove, as there's no reason to hide your intentions, and there should be a paper trail showing the transfer of money and the contacting of the connections.

 

[Polaris]

I'm having a hard time accepting your position. I can only assume that you are unaware of the number and magnitude of the mistakes made in imprisoning people at Abu Ghraib.

You state that you are galled that Taliban and al-Queda members are allowed to live at all. Are you not also galled that innocent people have been imprisoned, have been abused, and have died?

I never said a word about Abu Ghraib. I was talking about the prisoners from Afghanistan.

Of course I'm galled when innocent people are harmed. However I'm not that sure that anybody who was in the prisons from Afghanistan is innocent.

 

[Unabogie]

I never said a word about Abu Ghraib. I was talking about the prisoners from Afghanistan.

Of course I'm galled when innocent people are harmed. However I'm not that sure that anybody who was in the prisons from Afghanistan is innocent.

It's a fact that people from Afghanistan who were in prison were innocent.

Quoted from the New York Times:

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/11242

" At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.

"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time. "

 

[Unabogie]

More from that New York Times article, when discussing whether this is "torture" or not.

" Like a narrative counterpart to the digital images from Abu Ghraib, the Bagram file depicts young, poorly trained soldiers in repeated incidents of abuse. The harsh treatment, which has resulted in criminal charges against seven soldiers, went well beyond the two deaths.

In some instances, testimony shows, it was directed or carried out by interrogators to extract information. In others, it was punishment meted out by military police guards. Sometimes, the torment seems to have been driven by little more than boredom or cruelty, or both.

In sworn statements to Army investigators, soldiers describe one female interrogator with a taste for humiliation stepping on the neck of one prostrate detainee and kicking another in the genitals. They tell of a shackled prisoner being forced to roll back and forth on the floor of a cell, kissing the boots of his two interrogators as he went. Yet another prisoner is made to pick plastic bottle caps out of a drum mixed with excrement and water as part of a strategy to soften him up for questioning. "

 

[Polaris]

I think Polaris's post just reveals that he hates Muslims because (he thinks) they are all jihadists. That's ok, though, because all christians are Crusaders too. We should start imprisoning them as well.

I hate Islam, and I won't deny that. And I do hate fundamentalist Muslims. I won't deny that either. Anybody who supports the foundation of shariah law or wears Islamic dress by choice is a fundamentalist. And I think most Muslims clearly don't mind when violence is done in the name of their cult, due to the thunderous silence when it occurs (which is major and often).

When Christians start committing unprovoked or unjustified violence in the name of God or supporting those who commit that violence then yes, they should be imprisoned as well. With evidence, of course. After that, I have no problem with anything bad that happens to them. My tolerance for religiously motivated violence is zero.

 

[fuelair]

I shouldn't have to explain this, but the people being tortured by our government are not Taliban or al-Qaida. They are people suspected of being such, but have not been afforded any due process to contest that finding. So you are advocating torturing people on the say-so of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld.

There are numerous instances of innocent people being tortured and released from this system. There are children being held in those prisons. Until a person is found to be guilty in a fair trial, anyone who supports torturing them and then excusing that torture as simply "rough treatment" is either amoral or dishonest.

I'd argue vehemently against torturing people found guilty, but torturing a person who's had no chance to prove his innocence is pure evil, and we've been saying so as a nation for the last 50 years.

Most people who notice my posts are in no doubt that I loathe (minimum statement) Bush and Rumsfeld. That said, Germany or any other country, the UN and the Hague court can urinate in a hurricane before they should be able to play that silly game with any US politician, government official, military member, etc. We can/should handle it, but..... As a side note, I doubt seriously that any case could be made/proved that either had direct knowledge of any of the specific activities going on. Unlike, oh say many WWII German military personnell (notice, I did not use the N word in a comparison since it offends some on the site when used that way!! ).

 

[Polaris]

It's a fact that people from Afghanistan who were in prison were innocent.

Quoted from the New York Times:

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/11242

" At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.

"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time. "

I have no problem with the methods in general. If Diwali was innocent then manslaughter charges should be brought. But they should be brought against the local guerrilla commander who was the real instigator for all this (and yes, he should receive similar treatment). I am saddened to know that this event will probably result in better treatment for people who ought to be tortured on principle, for intelligence gathering or not (guys like KSM, Hambali, and Ramzi bin-Alshibh). The pre-screening should be improved but the methods are just fine with me. Stripping naked in front of women is not torture.

However, that Habibullah guy deserved everything that he got and I am appalled that any US soldier would be even considered a criminal for killing a Taliban. The second he got combative they should have turned him into a cyclops. His death is a good thing for humanity.

 

[Unabogie]

I have no problem with the methods in general. If Diwali was innocent then manslaughter charges should be brought..

That's your idea of a system of justice? Torture everyone, then bring manslaughter charges against the interrogators when someone is later found to be innocent? You honestly can't think of a better way THAN THAT?

Are you sure that's your contention? Because you still have a chance to rethink that concept.

 

[qayak]

However I'm not that sure that anybody who was in the prisons from Afghanistan is innocent.

And you will never know because they never got a trial. Isn't that what a trial is for, to decide their guilt or innocence?

And don't forget, this same thing was done to many US citizens in the US. They were held for months and years without charges, legal councel, access to family members, or trial.

Once you suspend one right, you have pretty much suspended them all.

 

[skeptifem]

That's your idea of a system of justice? Torture everyone, then bring manslaughter charges against the interrogators when someone is later found to be innocent? You honestly can't think of a better way THAN THAT?

Are you sure that's your contention? Because you still have a chance to rethink that concept.

theresa relevant movie quote somewhere... something about torture and finding out who set the chicago fire?

 

[Unabogie]

theresa relevant movie quote somewhere... something about torture and finding out who set the chicago fire?

That crazy Mr. Blonde...

Mr. Blonde: Are you gonna bark all day, little doggy, or are you gonna bite?
Mr. White: What was that? I'm sorry, I didn't catch it. Would you repeat it?
Mr. Blonde: Are you gonna bark all day, little doggy, or are you gonna bite?

Mr. Blonde: Boy that was really exciting. I bet you're a big Lee Marvin fan aren't ya?

Marvin Nash: I already told you I don't know anything about any ****ing setup - you can torture me all you want.
Mr. Blonde: Torture you? That's a good idea. I like that.

Nice Guy Eddie: If you ****ing beat this prick long enough, he'll tell you he started the goddamn Chicago fire, now that don't necessarily make it ****ing so!

Nice Guy Eddie: Larry stop pointing that ****ing gun at my dad!

 

[ZeeGerman]

Yeah, I'm sure that those people filed suit all on their own accord, and weren't aided at all by someone w/ an anti-US agenda.

Yes, those damn Americans with their anti-US agenda ...

"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.

You can argue against universal jurisdiction all you want, the fact that it is apparently impossible to bring charges against certain people in the US would - if I were an US citizen - concern me much more.

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.

Zee

 

[geni]

Yeah, I'm sure that those people filed suit all on their own accord, and weren't aided at all by someone w/ an anti-US agenda.

Hans: Look Franz, there is an ongoing genocide in Darfur, we should try to do something about it!
Franz: Never mind that, the evil fascist Bush regime is making naked pyramids in Abu Ghraib!
Hans: Mein Gott, we must put an end to this madness!

That would be the false dilemma logical fallacy.

Still lets compare the two:

Darfur: actions carried out by a non goverment mititia and you can be finding any links will be hard.

Iraq: actions carried out by goverment troops

Darfur: People in charge don't give a damn about Germany

Iraq:There is the posibilty do care to some degree

Darfur: same people are still in charge

Iraq:differn't people now in charge (surely the US understands he principle of victors justice)

Darfur:no one will care about a court case and Germany can't legaly send troops there

Iraq:US might just care (certianly travel restictions might cause problems)

 

[geni]

I can't believe this isn't a joke. Universal jurisdiction? Ummm...no.

Ah it's a side effect of people beliveing the stuff said by the allies at nuremberg although there are other courts that claim it (judgeing by lewis Vs king english and welsh courts could be addded to that list.)