Criminal Investigation in Germany into Culpability of U.S. Officials in Abu Ghraib - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Pacifier · 12-03-2004, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Center For Constitutional Rights Seeks Criminal Investigation in Germany into Culpability of U.S. Officials in Abu Ghraib Torture
German Prosecutor Asked to Meet Obligations under Law Requiring Investigation into Torture and War Crimes. Doctrine of Universal Jurisdiction Permits Prosecution of Suspected War Criminals Wherever They May Be Found

Synopsis

In a historic effort to hold high-ranking U.S. officials accountable for brutal acts of torture including the widely publicized abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib, on Tuesday November 30, 2004, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and four Iraqi citizens filed a criminal complaint with the German Federal Prosecutor’s Office at the Karlsruhe Court, Karlsruhe, Germany. Under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, suspected war criminals may be prosecuted irrespective of where they are located.

The four Iraqis were victims of gruesome crimes including severe beatings, sleep and food deprivation, hooding and sexual abuse. (Further details of the treatment of the complainants are attached.)

CCR President Michael Ratner, who traveled to Berlin to file the complaint, said “From Donald Rumsfeld on down, the political and military leaders in charge of Iraq policy must be investigated and held accountable. It is shameful that the United States of America, a nation that purports to set moral and legal standards for world, refuses to seriously investigate the role of those at the top of the chain of command in these horrible crimes.” “Indeed,” Ratner added “the existence of ‘torture memos’ drafted by administration officials and the authorization of techniques that violated humanitarian law by Secretary Rumsfeld, Lt. General Sanchez and others make clear that responsibility for Abu Ghraib and other violations of law reaches all the way to the top.”

The U.S. officials charged include Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Former CIA Director George Tenet, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Dr. Stephen Cambone, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, Major General Walter Wojdakowski, Major General Geoffrey Miller, Brigadier General Janis L. Karpinski, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry L. Phillabaum, Colonel Thomas Pappas, and Lieutenant Colonel Stephen L. Jordan.

The criminal complaint was brought under the German Code of Crimes against International Law (CCIL) and seeks an investigation into war crimes allegedly carried out by high ranking United States civilian and military officials, including the incidents which occurred in Iraq.

CCR is represented in Germany by Wolfgang Kaleck, a Berlin-based lawyer who has been involved in similar efforts on behalf of victims of the Argentine “dirty war.”

The charges include violations of the German Code, “War Crimes against Persons,” which outlaws killing, torture, cruel and inhumane treatment, sexual coercion and forcible transfers. The Code makes criminally responsible those who carry out the above acts as well as those who induce, condone or order the acts. It also makes commanders liable, whether civilian or military, who fail to prevent their subordinates from committing such acts.

The German Code of Crimes against International Law grants German Courts what is called Universal Jurisdiction for the above-described crimes. Article 1, Part 1, Section 1 states: "This Act shall apply to all criminal offenses against international law designated under this Act, to serious criminal offences designated therein even when the offence was committed abroad and bears no relation to Germany.” This means that those who commit such crimes can be prosecuted wherever found: they, like pirates of old, are considered enemies of all humankind.

The German CCIL places a prosecuting duty on the German prosecutor for all crimes that constitute violations of the CCIL, irrespective of the location of the person, the crime, or the nationality of the persons involved. Complaints can be filed with the German prosecutor to seek an investigation of specific crimes, as was done here. While outside parties can bring complaints to the attention of a prosecutor in the U.S., there is no duty to prosecute such complaints and they do not become part of an official court procedure. In Germany, the prosecutor is under a duty to determine if an investigation and indictments are warranted; if he fails to do so, the complainants can appeal to the court.

According to CCR lawyers, in this case there are particularly compelling reasons the prosecutor should exercise his duty. Three of the defendants are present in Germany: Lt. General Sanchez and Major General Wodjakoski are stationed in Heidelberg, and Colonel Pappas is in Wiesbaden. Others, such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, often travel to Germany. In addition, the military units that engaged in the illegal conduct are stationed in Germany. Although such links to Germany are unnecessary for the prosecutor to fulfill his duty, when the alleged perpetrators are actually on German soil the duty to investigate is even stronger. Their presence in Germany gives the prosecutor an important avenue to investigate these cases. Last, since the complainants are also victims, this places an additional duty on the prosecutor to investigate.

“We view Germany as a court of last resort,” said CCR Vice President Peter Weiss, “We file these cases here because there is simply no other place to go. It is clear that the U.S. government is not willing to open an investigation into these allegations against these officials.” Weiss also pointed out that Congress has failed to seriously investigate the abuses and none of the various commissions appointed by the military and the Bush administration has been willing to look unflinchingly up the chain of command to consider what criminal responsibility lies with the military and political leadership. Instead, they asserted that the abuses and torture were the exclusive responsibility of rogue lower-level military personnel.

There are no international courts or courts in Iraq that can carry out investigations and prosecutions of the U.S. role, either: the United States has refused to join the International Criminal Court, thereby foreclosing the option of pursuing a prosecution in international courts; Iraq has no authority to prosecute; and the U.S. gave immunity to all its personnel in Iraq from Iraqi prosecution. Says Weiss, “We are doing what is necessary and expected when other systems of justice have failed: we are asking the German prosecutors, who have available one of the most advanced universal jurisdiction laws in the world, to begin an investigation that is required under its law.”

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/rep...Sb&Content=471

Not sure what to think about this.
on the one hand it is necessary to investigate these events and possible violations of human rights (like in Guantanamo Bay), and a german court is somewhat beyons possible political influence by the US-Administration.
On the other hand this will further damadge the german-US relations and there will be an immense pressure on the court. I think the US will not be happy about this.

And what will we do if we find Rumsfeld guilty? arrest him as soon as he visits germany again?

roachboy · 12-03-2004, 07:52 AM

interesting...first that the suit was not filed in the international war crimes tribunal, the authority of which the americans do not recognize--because the administration imagines that any prosecution of americans for war crimes would necessarily be "unfair"....second in that it poses the problem of national sovereingty with reference to bodies of international law that the neocons hoped to short circuit by the entire iraq adventure.

the enforcement measure would also be interesting, if the case comes to that--it would require a bit of research for me to have a coherent opinion on the matter.

i imagine you will see folk from the right shrieking about this, once it makes its way into the right media apparatus and thereby provides them with a pre-structured starting point for "thinking"....

Locobot · 12-03-2004, 08:25 AM

I'm glad to see someone seeking accountability for Abu Ghraib other than president Bush's appraisal that they were doing a "superb job." If this court is able to issue arrest warrants for top U.S. officials-thereby making it impossible for them to enter Germany-it could have major implications for our relations.

On the other hand I'm not comfortable with court trials where the defendants are not present and are not able to defend themselves.

Ustwo · 12-03-2004, 08:53 AM

Sorry, nothing to see here but laughable grandstanding by the left.

If they had any credibility in the least they would have done the same to Saddam Hussien rather then make contracts with him.

Pathetic how irrelevant they have become.

And isn't today's news ironic?

Quote:

German army abuse alleged
Up to 40 trainers of conscripts under investigation, defense chief says

By RICHARD BERNSTEIN
THE NEW YORK TIMES

BERLIN -- Germany's defense minister has taken steps to contain a widening scandal involving accusations of abuse of conscripts in the German army, but he acknowledged that some trainers are under investigation.

"We have 12,000 trainers in the army, and at the moment, 30 or 40 are being investigated," the minister, Peter Struck, told a meeting of the Defense Committee in the German Parliament on Wednesday, the German Press Agency reported.

Struck was speaking a week after accusations began appearing in the German media that conscripts have been physically abused by trainers at four army bases in Germany, with more than 20 officers and non-commissioned officers at one such base already under investigation.

The accusations involve stories of trainers dressed in Arab costumes beating recruits, giving them electrical shocks and dousing them with cold water.

Pacifier · 12-03-2004, 09:05 AM

LOL i knew you would bringt that up.

STOP thread hijacking! If you want to discuss the shit that happened in the german army open up a NEW thread! Dont hijack this to distract from this topic!

Quote:

If they had any credibility in the least they would have done the same to Saddam Hussien rather then make contracts with him.

Complete BS!
The CCR never made contracts with Saddam, the german companys, who may have made contracts, have nothing to do with the goverment or this lawsuit!
Stop distracting!

Lebell · 12-03-2004, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

Complete BS!
The CCR never made contracts with Saddam, the german companys, who may have made contracts, have nothing to do with the goverment or this lawsuit!
Stop distracting!

ENTIRELY relevant.

If this were serious, these groups would have pursued such charges against Hussein among others.

That they have not says that this is purely political grandstanding.

roachboy · 12-03-2004, 10:56 AM

it is relevant only if--and only if--you prefer for aesthetic or political reasons to indulge the disengenous pattern of relativization particular to american conservative "thinking"---when something makes them uncomfortable, then the response is inevitably to create some fake equivalent situation and try to balance one off the other.

but say you want to play that game: given there is is hardly a nationalist tyrant on earth the americans have not eagerly sold weapon systems to (applying the same logic as above, that the actions of private corporations can be associated with those of states), on what possible basis can the americans say or do anything, at any point, about anything carried out by these tyrants? and why is any attempt to criticize these states not just hypocritical grandstanding by the americans?

you would also have to apply the same "logic" to the myriad american corporations who sold hussein arms under the reagan administration, including the technology to produce the gas that killed the kurds....since the americans were so willing to arm hussein to the teeth when it was convenient, and to pretend otherwise when it was convenient, how is bushwar not simple grandstanding by the right?

well it is...stupid question...sorry about that.

the real question here is more about legal accountability for war crimes.
the americans have tried to exempt themselves from it.
that is wrong.

i do not know if this case will work itself out----but if americans are found guilty of crimes against humanity as a result of this case, on what basis can you defend not respecting the judgement?

why should americans not be held accountable for war crimes, if they are found guilty of them?

on what basis is it the prerogative of a given nation-state to prosecute its citizens for crimes against humanity?
what about the american case, which is characterized by an obvious unwillingness to do it? asif there was something about the simple fact of being american that makes such actions impossible...as if that argument was not wholly absurd.

how did it get to be understood that war crimes are only carried out by citizens of nations that loose wars?

how is this not the basis for the american refusal to submit to war crimes judgements: since for the right it is unthinkable that the americans actually loose wars (witness the revisionist crap about vietnam so dear to them), it follows that war crimes are therefore impossible on the part of american troops?

Pacifier · 12-03-2004, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

ENTIRELY relevant.

If this were serious, these groups would have pursued such charges against Hussein among others.

no, the ccr is an american group dealing with american violantions of human rights.

ObieX · 12-03-2004, 11:30 AM

Someone does need to look into war crime allegation. It has become quite apparent that the American leaders wont try to go after themselves. What sense would that make? (in their eyes, atleast) As long as they have the power to keep people out of their business and the power to push the blame on to someone else they will use it. This goes for any leader of any country or organization. There is evidence of involvement of higher officials, yet as long as they can blame someone else they'll do it until someone steps up and says "this shit is wrong, we're going to do something about it."

What is happening in the german army is a different matter completely. And this German matter, unlike the American one, is actually in the process of being resolved, not swept under the rug to be forgotten about and later referred to as a conspiracy theory.

Ustwo · 12-03-2004, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

Someone does need to look into war crime allegation. It has become quite apparent that the American leaders wont try to go after themselves

You are assuming that the 'American leaders' were telling people to make naked piles out of Iraqi POW's?

ObieX · 12-03-2004, 11:57 AM

I'm saying they are condoning it, authorizing it, and encouraging it, yes.

Kadath · 12-03-2004, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

ENTIRELY relevant.

If this were serious, these groups would have pursued such charges against Hussein among others.

That they have not says that this is purely political grandstanding.

Hooray! Mod endorsement of threadjacking!

Ustwo · 12-03-2004, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

I'm saying they are condoning it, authorizing it, and encouraging it, yes.

Why would they?

ObieX · 12-03-2004, 01:01 PM

I'm sure their answer would be to try to save american lives by getting information by any means. But torture is torture. There wa a lot of info on this a few months ago. How the government was trying to justify how they torture people. Like its ok to force people to stand for days at a time, or to hold their hands out to their sides for days at a time, or wear hoods and stand on boxes telling them the floor is electrified and if they step off the box they'll die, or put them in rooms with men with dogs held inches from their face that are trying to bite their face off but being held back, or sleep depreivation for days or weeks. This is what was and may still be happening, all with approval. (well atleast until they're caught.. then the stories change)

roachboy · 12-03-2004, 01:04 PM

ustwo:

say the members of the bush administration were found to be guilty by an international court of fostering an environment that effectively sanctioned/normalized the commission of war crimes--and thereby was responsible for those war crimes--i dont suppose that you would either recognize the ruling or support its enforcement, would you?

i assume you would not----but maybe i am wrong-----could you actually answer the question please?

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-03-2004, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

I'm sure their answer would be to try to save american lives by getting information by any means. But torture is torture. There wa a lot of info on this a few months ago. How the government was trying to justify how they torture people. Like its ok to force people to stand for days at a time, or to hold their hands out to their sides for days at a time, or wear hoods and stand on boxes telling them the floor is electrified and if they step off the box they'll die, or put them in rooms with men with dogs held inches from their face that are trying to bite their face off but being held back, or sleep depreivation for days or weeks. This is what was and may still be happening, all with approval. (well atleast until they're caught.. then the stories change)

Dispite the unpleasantness of all of that, I believe that most of that is largely legal as for what is held by international.

At any rate they aren't beating them or executing them, that shows a lot of restraint considering the stakes.

ObieX · 12-03-2004, 01:17 PM

Well thats what the government has been doing. But the government was also hiring "torture contractors" and claiming that they werent bound by the same rules. Why have these rules in the first place if you can just hire an outside contractor to do it all anyway?

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-03-2004, 01:42 PM

When it comes to matters of national security or personal security the army should and could do whatever deemed necessary to acquire information.

If that means shipping those fuckers to gitmo or Jordan or < insert country that tortures people > so be it.

Ustwo · 12-03-2004, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

Well thats what the government has been doing. But the government was also hiring "torture contractors" and claiming that they werent bound by the same rules. Why have these rules in the first place if you can just hire an outside contractor to do it all anyway?

Agreed, I think we should legalize torture on terrorists

The idea that the 'torture' of the prison was for information is somewhat laughable. 'Hey guys lets humiliate some people and take pictures, that will get the information out of them!' Sorry don't see that happening. Were this an offical policy, only select people would have been so tortured, and you would know nothing about it. This was just a couple of asshats acting like people in war have always acted, and they are currently paying the price as we prosecute our soldiers who do wrong.

ObieX · 12-03-2004, 01:48 PM

You guys just kinda forfeited your right to complain about the "terrorists" and "insurgents" taking captives, torturing them, and beheading them. If its ok for us to do it as a means to protect our land/peoples/way of life, its just as ok for them to do it to protect their lands/peoples/ways of life.

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-03-2004, 02:13 PM

It's disturbing that you would actually compare the kidnapping and torture of innocent civilians, to military and intelligence and their operations with illegal combatants and terrorist sympathizers/enablers.

There is no way to win the war on terror just by virtue that people in America actually have the mentality that we are not acting justly, or that we are not in the right (at least as it relates to this).

Manx · 12-03-2004, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

When it comes to matters of national security or personal security the army should and could do whatever deemed necessary to acquire information.

If that means shipping those fuckers to gitmo or Jordan or < insert country that tortures people > so be it.

If this is acceptable behavior of the government, then there's no point in protecting the country - it's already gone.

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-03-2004, 02:51 PM

How do you figure?

Ex Parte Quirin:

Quote:

PER CURIAM.

In these causes motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were presented to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which entered orders denying the motions. Motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were then presented to this Court, and the merits of the applications were fully argued at the Special Term of Court convened on July 29, 1942....

The Court holds:

(1) That the charges preferred against petitioners on which they are being tried by military commission appointed by the order of the President of July 2, 1942, allege an offense or offenses which the President is authorized to order tried before a military commission. (2) That the military commission was lawfully constituted. (3) That petitioners are held in lawful custody, for trial before the military commission, and have not shown cause for being discharged by writ of habeas corpus. The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied.... T

Mr. Justice MURPHY took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

Mr. Chief Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases are brought here by petitioners' several applications for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court...The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners by respondent for trial by Military Commission, appointed by Order of the President of July 2, 1942, on charges preferred against them purporting to set out their violations of the law of war and of the Articles of War, is in conformity to the laws and Constitution of the United States.

In view of the public importance of the questions raised by their petitions and of the duty which rests on the courts, in time of war as well as in time of peace, to preserve unimpaired the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty, and because in our opinion the public interest required that we consider and decide those questions without any avoidable delay, we directed that petitioners' applications be set down for full oral argument at a special term of this Court, convened on July 29, 1942. The applications for leave to file the petitions were presented in open court on that day and were heard on the petitions, the answers to them of respondent, a stipulation of facts by counsel, and the record of the testimony given before the Commission....

The following facts appear from the petitions or are stipulated. Except as noted they are undisputed.

All the petitioners were born in Germany; all have lived in the United States. All returned to Germany between 1933 and 1941. All except petitioner Haupt are admittedly citizens of the German Reich, with which the United States is at war. Haupt came to this country with his parents when he was five years old; it is contended that he became a citizen of the United States by virtue of the naturalization of his parents during his minority and that he has not since lost his citizenship. The Government, however, takes the position that on attaining his majority he elected to maintain German allegiance and citizenship or in any case that he has by his conduct renounced or abandoned his United States citizenship. For reasons presently to be stated we do not find it necessary to resolve these contentions. After the declaration of war between the United States and the German Reich, petitioners received training at a sabotage school near Berlin, Germany, where they were instructed in the use of explosives and in methods of secret writing. Thereafter petitioners, with a German citizen, Dasch, proceeded from Germany to a seaport in Occupied France, where petitioners Burger, Heinck and Quirin, together with Dasch, boarded a German submarine which proceeded across the Atlantic to Amagansett Beach on Long Island, New York. The four were there landed from the submarine in the hours of darkness, on or about June 13, 1942, carrying with them a supply of explosives, fuses and incendiary and timing devices. While landing they wore German Marine Infantry uniforms or parts of uniforms. Immediately after landing they buried their uniforms and the other articles mentioned and proceeded in civilian dress to New York City.

The remaining four petitioners at the same French port boarded another German submarine, which carried them across the Atlantic to Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. On or about June 17, 1942, they came ashore during the hours of darkness wearing caps of the German Marine Infantry and carrying with them a supply of explosives, fuses, and incendiary and timing devices. They immediately buried their caps and the other articles mentioned and proceeded in civilian dress to Jacksonville, Florida, and thence to various points in the United States. All were taken into custody in New York or Chicago by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. All had received instructions in Germany from an officer of the German High Command to destroy war industries and war facilities in the United States, for which they or their relatives in Germany were to receive salary payments from the German Government. They also had been paid by the German Government during their course of training at the sabotage school and had received substantial sums in United States currency, which were in their possession when arrested. The currency had been handed to them by an officer of the German High Command, who had instructed them to wear their German uniforms while landing in the United States.

The President, as President and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, by Order of July 2, 1942, appointed a Military Commission and directed it to try petitioners for offenses against the law of war and the Articles of War, and prescribed regulations for the procedure on the trial and for review of the record of the trial and of any judgment or sentence of the Commission. On the same day, by Proclamation, the President declared that 'all persons who are subjects, citizens or residents of any nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation, and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States ... through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war, shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals'.

The Proclamation also stated in terms that all such persons were denied access to the courts.

Pursuant to direction of the Attorney General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation surrendered custody of petitioners to respondent, Provost Marshal of the Military District of Washington, who was directed by the Secretary of War to receive and keep them in custody, and who thereafter held petitioners for trial before the Commission.

On July 3, 1942, the Judge Advocate General's Department of the Army prepared and lodged with the Commission the following charges against petitioners, supported by specifications:

1. Violation of the law of war.

2. Violation of Article 81 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of relieving or attempting to relieve, or corresponding with or giving intelligence to, the enemy.

3. Violation of Article 82, defining the offense of spying.

4. Conspiracy to commit the offenses alleged in charges 1, 2 and 3.

The Commission met on July 8, 1942, and proceeded with the trial, which continued in progress while the causes were pending in this Court. On July 27th, before petitioners' applications to the District Court, all the evidence for the prosecution and the defense had been taken by the Commission and the case had been closed except for arguments of counsel. It is conceded that ever since petitioners' arrest the state and federal courts in Florida, New York, and the District of Columbia, and in the states in which each of the petitioners was arrested or detained, have been open and functioning normally....

Petitioners' main contention is that the President is without any statutory or constitutional authority to order the petitioners to be tried by military tribunal for offenses with which they are charged; that in consequence they are entitled to be tried in the civil courts with the safeguards, including trial by jury, which the Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee to all persons charged in such courts with criminal offenses. In any case it is urged that the President's Order, in prescribing the procedure of the Commission and the method for review of its findings and sentence, and the proceedings of the Commission under the Order, conflict with Articles of War adopted by Congress-particularly Articles 38, 43, 46, 50 1/2 and 70-and are illegal and void.
The Government challenges each of these propositions. But regardless of their merits, it also insists that petitioners must be denied access to the courts, both because they are enemy aliens or have entered our territory as enemy belligerents, and because the President's Proclamation undertakes in terms to deny such access to the class of persons defined by the Proclamation, which aptly describes the character and conduct of petitioners. It is urged that if they are enemy aliens or if the Proclamation has force no court may afford the petitioners a hearing. But there is certainly nothing in the Proclamation to preclude access to the courts for determining its applicability to the particular case. And neither the Proclamation nor the fact that they are enemy aliens forecloses consideration by the courts of petitioners' contentions that the Constitution and laws of the United States constitutionally enacted forbid their trial by military commission. As announced in our per curiam opinion we have resolved those questions by our conclusion that the Commission has jurisdiction to try the charge preferred against petitioners. There is therefore no occasion to decide contentions of the parties unrelated to this issue. We pass at once to the consideration of the basis of the Commission's authority.

We are not here concerned with any question of the guilt or innocence of petitioners. Constitutional safeguards for the protection of all who are charged with offenses are not to be disregarded in order to inflict merited punishment on some who are guilty. But the detention and trial of petitioners-ordered by the President in the declared exercise of his powers as Commander in Chief of the Army in time of war and of grave public danger-are not to be set aside by the courts without the clear conviction that they are in conflict with the Constitution or laws of Congress constitutionally enacted.

Congress and the President, like the courts, possess no power not derived from the Constitution. But one of the objects of the Constitution, as declared by its preamble, is to 'provide for the common defence'. As a means to that end the Constitution gives to Congress the power to 'provide for the common Defence', Art. I, 8, cl. 1; 'To raise and support Armies', 'To provide and maintain a Navy', Art. I, 8, cls. 12, 13; and 'To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces', Art. I, 8, cl. 14. Congress is given authority 'To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water', Art. I, 8, cl. 11; and 'To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations', Art. I, 8, cl. 10. And finally the Constitution authorizes Congress 'To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.' Art. I, 8, cl. 18.

The Constitution confers on the President the 'executive Power', Art II, 1, cl. 1, and imposes on him the duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed'. Art. II, 3. It makes him the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Art. II, 2, cl. 1, and empowers him to appoint and commission officers of the United States. Art. II, 3, cl. 1.

The Constitution thus invests the President as Commander in Chief with the power to wage war which Congress has declared, and to carry into effect all laws passed by Congress for the conduct of war and for the government and regulation of the Armed Forces, and all laws defining and punishing offences against the law of nations, including those which pertain to the conduct of war.
By the Articles of War, Congress has provided rules for the government of the Army. It has provided for the trial and punishment, by courts martial, of violations of the Articles by members of the armed forces and by specified classes of persons associated or serving with the Army. But the Articles also recognize the 'military commission' appointed by military command as an appropriate tribunal for the trial and punishment of offenses against the law of war not ordinarily tried by court martial. Articles 38 and 46 authorize the President, with certain limitations, to prescribe the procedure for military commissions. Articles 81 and 82 authorize trial, either by court martial or military commission, of those charged with relieving, harboring or corresponding with the enemy and those charged with spying. And Article 15 declares that 'the provisions of these articles conferring jurisdiction upon courts-martial shall not be construed as depriving military commissions ... or other military tribunals of concurrent jurisdiction in respect of offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be triable by such military commissions ... or other military tribunals'. Article 2 includes among those persons subject to military law the personnel of our own military establishment. But this, as Article 12 provides, does not exclude from that class 'any other person who by the law of war is subject to trial by military tribunals' and who under Article 12 may be tried by court martial or under Article 15 by military commission....
From the very beginning of its history this Court has recognized and applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribes, for the conduct of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as of enemy individuals. By the Articles of War, and especially Article 15, Congress has explicitly provided, so far as it may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals shall have jurisdiction to try offenders or offenses against the law of war in appropriate cases. Congress, in addition to making rules for the government of our Armed Forces, has thus exercised its authority to define and punish offenses against the law of nations by sanctioning, within constitutional limitations, the jurisdiction of military commissions to try persons for offenses which, according to the rules and precepts of the law of nations, and more particularly the law of war, are cognizable by such tribunals. And the President, as Commander in Chief, by his Proclamation in time of war his invoked that law. By his Order creating the present Commission he has undertaken to exercise the authority conferred upon him by Congress, and also such authority as the Constitution itself gives the Commander in Chief, to direct the performance of those functions which may constitutionally be performed by the military arm of the nation in time of war.

An important incident to the conduct of war is the adoption of measures by the military command not only to repel and defeat the enemy, but to seize and subject to disciplinary measures those enemies who in their attempt to thwart or impede our military effort have violated the law of war. It is unnecessary for present purposes to determine to what extent the President as Commander in Chief has constitutional power to create military commissions without the support of Congressional legislation. For here Congress has authorized trial of offenses against the law of war before such commissions. We are concerned only with the question whether it is within the constitutional power of the national government to place petitioners upon trial before a military commission for the offenses with which they are charged. We must therefore first inquire whether any of the acts charged is an offense against the law of war cognizable before a military tribunal, and if so whether the Constitution prohibits the trial. We may assume that there are acts regarded in other countries, or by some writers on international law, as offenses against the law of war which would not be triable by military tribunal here, either because they are not recognized by our courts as violations of the law of war or because they are of that class of offenses constitutionally triable only by a jury. It was upon such grounds that the Court denied the right to proceed by military tribunal in Ex parte Milligan, supra. But as we shall show, these petitioners were charged with an offense against the law of war which the Constitution does not require to be tried by jury.

It is no objection that Congress in providing for the trial of such offenses has not itself undertaken to codify that branch of international law or to mark its precise boundaries, or to enumerate or define by statute all the acts which that law condemns....Congress had the choice of crystallizing in permanent form and in minute detail every offense against the law of war, or of adopting the system of common law applied by military tribunals so far as it should be recognized and deemed applicable by the courts. It chose the latter course.

By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

Such was the practice of our own military authorities before the adoption of the Constitution, and during the Mexican and Civil Wars....

By a long course of practical administrative construction by its military authorities, our Government has recognized that those who during time of war pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, have the status of unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission. This precept of the law of war has been so recognized in practice both here and abroad, and has so generally been accepted as valid by authorities on international law that we think it must be regarded as a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War.

Specification 1 of the First charge is sufficient to charge all the petitioners with the offense of unlawful belligerency, trial of which is within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and the admitted facts affirmatively show that the charge is not merely colorable or without foundation.

Specification 1 states that petitioners 'being enemies of the United States and acting for ... the German Reich, a belligerent enemy nation, secretly and covertly passed, in civilian dress, contrary to the law of war, through the military and naval lines and defenses of the United States ... and went behind such lines, contrary to the law of war, in civilian dress ... for the purpose of committing ... hostile acts, and, in particular, to destroy certain war industries, war utilities and war materials within the United States'.

This specification so plainly alleges violation of the law of war as to require but brief discussion of petitioners' contentions. As we have seen, entry upon our territory in time of war by enemy belligerents, including those acting under the direction of the armed forces of the enemy, for the purpose of destroying property used or useful in prosecuting the war, is a hostile and war-like act. It subjects those who participate in it without uniform to the punishment prescribed by the law of war for unlawful belligerents. It is without significance that petitioners were not alleged to have borne conventional weapons or that their proposed hostile acts did not necessarily contemplate collision with the Armed Forces of the United States.... The law of war cannot rightly treat those agents of enemy armies who enter our territory, armed with explosives intended for the destruction of war industries and supplies, as any the less belligerent enemies than are agent similarly entering for the purpose of destroying fortified places or our Armed Forces. By passing our boundaries for such purposes without uniform or other emblem signifying their belligerent status, or by discarding that means of identification after entry, such enemies become unlawful belligerents subject to trial and punishment.
Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. It is as an enemy belligerent that petitioner Haupt is charged with entering the United States, and unlawful belligerency is the gravamen of the offense of which he is accused.

Nor are petitioners any the less belligerents if, as they argue, they have not actually committed or attempted to commit any act of depredation or entered the theatre or zone of active military operations. The argument leaves out of account the nature of the offense which the Government charges and which the Act of Congress, by incorporating the law of war, punishes. It is that each petitioner, in circumstances which gave him the status of an enemy belligerent, passed our military and naval lines and defenses or went behind those lines, in civilian dress and with hostile purpose. The offense was complete when with that purpose they entered-or, having so entered, they remained upon-our territory in time of war without uniform or other appropriate means of identification. For that reason, even when committed by a citizen, the offense is distinct from the crime of treason defined in Article III, 3 of the Constitution, since the absence of uniform essential to one is irrelevant to the other.

But petitioners insist that even if the offenses with which they are charged are offenses against the law of war, their trial is subject to the requirement of the Fifth Amendment that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, and that such trials must be by jury in a civil court...In the light of this long-continued and consistent interpretation we must conclude that Section 2 of Article III and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments cannot be taken to have extended the right to demand a jury to trials by military commission, or to have required that offenses against the law of war not triable by jury at common law be tried only in the civil courts....We conclude that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments did not restrict whatever authority was conferred by the Constitution to try offenses against the law of war by military commission, and that petitioners, charged with such an offense not required to be tried by jury at common law, were lawfully placed on trial by the Commission without a jury.

Petitioners, and especially petitioner Haupt, stress the pronouncement of this Court in the Milligan case that the law of war 'can never be applied to citizens in states which have upheld the authority of the government, and where the courts are open and their process unobstructed'. Elsewhere in its opinion, the Court was at pains to point out that Milligan, a citizen twenty years resident in Indiana, who had never been a resident of any of the states in rebellion, was not an enemy belligerent either entitled to the status of a prisoner of war or subject to the penalties imposed upon unlawful belligerents. We construe the Court's statement as to the inapplicability of the law of war to Milligan's case as having particular reference to the facts before it. From them the Court concluded that Milligan, not being a part of or associated with the armed forces of the enemy, was a non-belligerent, not subject to the law of war save as-in circumstances found not there to be present and not involved here-martial law might be constitutionally established.

The Court's opinion is inapplicable to the case presented by the present record. We have no occasion now to define with meticulous care the ultimate boundaries of the jurisdiction of military tribunals to try persons according to the law of war. It is enough that petitioners here, upon the conceded facts, were plainly within those boundaries, and were held in good faith for trial by military commission, charged with being enemies who, with the purpose of destroying war materials and utilities, entered or after entry remained in our territory without uniform-an offense against the law of war. We hold only that those particular acts constitute an offense against the law of war which the Constitution authorizes to be tried by military commission....

Many here on this board would be wise to read this. If you don't read all of it, at least read what is in bold, you could learn something about law and policy.

Manx · 12-03-2004, 03:30 PM

I skimmed it.

Please point out the section that says the U.S. can torture people it deems as enemies or hold people indefinitely with out any rights what-so-ever. And also if you could point me to the portion that states that the U.S. can hold U.S. citizens indefinitely and without rights and that when the Supreme Court rebukes them, the U.S. can strip the citizenship of the prisoner and force that person out of the country.

'Cause naturally, that is exactly what the U.S. has done - so it must certainly be "legal".

That it is in direct opposition to the principles of this country is why I state that if they are acceptable to protect the country, they are unecessary because the country is already destroyed from within.

Seaver · 12-03-2004, 04:05 PM

What I always thought was interesting... what took place in Abu Garaib is the BEST that American PoWs can hope for if captured by the enemies.

Why is it only Americans that ever are accountable for these things? Where were these lawyers when Saddam "lost" an American pilot? We found his uniform in the PoW camp, well, parts of it but he was "never there". Being stripped naked isnt all that horrible considering the alternative of severe beatings, electrocution (instead of just wiring it up as a threat), and obvious torture to death in this case.

Where were these lawyers after Korea when dozens if not hundreds of Americans were put to death? Where were they when in Vietnam our pilots were hung from their arms until they became so disfigured that they could never fly again? Where were they when the Vietnamese used the bamboo torture? water torture? or simple public execution?

Hold us accountable? Fine, but dont make it a one way street. Say what you want about the moral high ground, but to leave our own soldiers out to hang by a foreign country after we (yes the majority of the country) supported their being called to do horrible things. Now you can say you never supported it but that's irrelivant now isnt it?

Anyways these people are not soldiers under the LAW. They are not uniformed, they are not distinguishable between the civilians. Under the law they are treasonous. They are the same as the Werewolves of Germany in WWII (do some history searching). We executed them on sight and guess what? It was legal.

ObieX · 12-03-2004, 09:53 PM

There is a difference between execution and torture. There is a difference between finding someone, in plain clothes, lets say.. setting a bomb, and shooting them on the spot, than from taking that person in to torture them for no apparent reason other than to torture them. Because as Ustwo said, what information could we possibly get from them that is useful? If we're not torturing them for information, why are we doing it? Just for kicks? Just for amusement?

And also, i don't think anyone said that it was ok for Saddam or the Vietnamese or the North Koreans to torture, string up, or otherwise disfigure anyone. If "these lawyers" had the chance I'm damn sure they would throw those who committed these acts into prison, or have them put to death.

Dyze · 08-10-2005, 02:02 AM

Actually, I wanted to start a new thread, but then I found this one.
I would just like to know what happened to this case, maybe someone knows. I could not find too much on the internet, but to my knowledge, Bush and Rumsfeld were charged at the German Federal Court in Karlsruhe.
Does anyone know if the case is closed, still being investigated or what?
Well, let me know what you know...

OPgary · 08-10-2005, 04:29 AM

[B]Germany is the last one who should worry about prison camps and torture. Abu Gharib prisoners were not tortured. They were humiliated and harassed. They were most unhappy with having an American woman yank their dicks. Screw their culture. Nothing would have happened had the detainees answered questions truthfully. In a combat situation things are not always rosy.

Jinn · 08-10-2005, 07:23 AM

I'm just going to ignore OPgary.. but as for updates, I couldn't find any. I did all sorts of google searches with Michael Ratner and CCP and Germany Abu Gharib.. didn't get much other than this article by MR himself:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...04&ItemID=7503

Not a bad read.

Pacifier · 08-10-2005, 08:33 AM

German Attorney General Kay Nehm said there will be no charges against Rumsfeld.
Since there were US inquiries about the torture no german inquiries were needed

sprocket · 08-10-2005, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

I'm sure their answer would be to try to save american lives by getting information by any means. But torture is torture. There wa a lot of info on this a few months ago. How the government was trying to justify how they torture people. Like its ok to force people to stand for days at a time, or to hold their hands out to their sides for days at a time, or wear hoods and stand on boxes telling them the floor is electrified and if they step off the box they'll die, or put them in rooms with men with dogs held inches from their face that are trying to bite their face off but being held back, or sleep depreivation for days or weeks. This is what was and may still be happening, all with approval. (well atleast until they're caught.. then the stories change)

quite frankly im alright with all of that. this is bubblegum mickey mouse crap compared to the kind of pain and permanant damage that could be inflicted on someone being tortured. these guys wont even have any scars.

Pacifier · 08-10-2005, 10:05 AM

Another "dogma", repeat unti you belive:

thats no real torture, raping boys and woman are just college pranks
http://www.democraticwings.com/democ...ism/001963.php

Bodyhammer86 · 08-10-2005, 10:15 AM

If Dick Durban and these lawyers want an example of true torture and crimes against humanity, they should look no further than their beloved Iraqi "insurgents":

Quote:

Iraqis Found in Torture House Tell of Brutality of Insurgents

By SABRINA TAVERNISE
Published: June 19, 2005
KARABILA, Iraq, Sunday, June 19 - Marines on an operation to eliminate insurgents that began Friday broke through the outside wall of a building in this small rural village to find a torture center equipped with electric wires, a noose, handcuffs, a 574-page jihad manual - and four beaten and shackled Iraqis.

Johan Spanner/Polaris, for The New York Times
A marine outside room in a house where Iraqi hostages were held and tortured by insurgents in Karabila.

Forum: The Transition in Iraq

Enlarge This Image

Johan Spanner/Polaris, for The New York Times
The remains of a car lay in front of a house used as bomb factory, next to a house where insurgents tortured hostages in Karabila, in western Iraq.
The American military has found torture houses after invading towns heavily populated by insurgents - like Falluja, where the anti-insurgent assault last fall uncovered almost 20 such sites. But rarely have they come across victims who have lived to tell the tale.

The men said they told the marines, from Company K, Third Marines, Second Division, that they had been tortured with shocks and flogged with a strip of rubber for more than two weeks, unseen behind the windows of black glass. One of them, Ahmed Isa Fathil, 19, a former member of the new Iraqi Army, said he had been held and tortured there for 22 days. All the while, he said, his face was almost entirely taped over and his hands were cuffed.

In an interview with an embedded reporter just hours after he was freed, he said he had never seen the faces of his captors, who occasionally whispered at him, "We will kill you." He said they did not question him, and he did not know what they wanted. Nor did he ever expect to be released.

"They kill somebody every day," said Mr. Fathil, whose hands were so swollen he could not open a can of Coke offered to him by a marine. "They've killed a lot of people."

From the house on Saturday, there could be heard sounds of fighting from the large-scale offensive to eliminate strongholds of insurgents, many of whom stream across Iraq's porous border with Syria. [Page 10.]

As the marines walked through the house - a squat one-story building of sand-colored brick - the broken black window glass crunched under their boots. Light poured in, revealing walls and ceiling shredded by shrapnel from the blast they had set off to break in through a wall. Latex gloves were strewn on the floor. A kerosene lantern lay on its side, shattered.

The manual recovered - a fat, well-thumbed Arabic paperback - listed itself as the 2005 First Edition of "The Principles of Jihadist Philosophy," by Abdel Rahman al-Ali. Its chapters included "How to Select the Best Hostage," and "The Legitimacy of Cutting the Infidels' Heads."

Also recovered were several fake passports, a black hood, the painkiller Percoset, handcuffs and an explosives how-to-guide. Three cars loaded with explosives were parked in a garage outside the house. The marines blew them up.

This is Mr. Fathil's account of his ordeal.

He was having a lunch of lettuce and cucumbers in the kitchen of his home in the small desert village of Rabot with his mother and brother. An Opel sedan pulled up. Two men in masks carrying machine guns got out, seized him, and, leaving his mother sobbing, put him in the trunk of their car.

The drove to the house here. They taped his face, put cotton in his ears, and began to beat him.

The only possible explanation for the seizure he could think of was his time in the new Iraqi Army. Unemployed and illiterate, Mr. Fathil signed up after the American occupation began.

But nine months ago, when continuing working meant risking the wrath of the Jihadists, he quit. In all, 10 friends from his unit have been killed, he said. So have his uncle and his uncle's son, though neither ever worked as soldiers.

The men tended to talk in whispers, he said, telling him five times a day, in low voices in his ear, to pray, and offering him sand, instead of water, to wash himself. Just once, he asked if he could see his mother, and one of them said to him, "You won't leave until you are dead."

Mr. Fathil did not know there were other hostages. He found out only after the captors left and he was able to remove the tape from his eyes.

The routine in the house was regular. Because of the windows, it was always dark inside. Mr. Fathil said he was fed once a day, and allowed to use a bathroom as necessary in the back of the house.

When marines burst in, one of the captives was lying under a stairwell, badly beaten. At first, they thought he was dead.

The others were emaciated and battered. Mr. Fathil had fared the best. The other three were taken by medical helicopter to Balad, a base near Baghdad with a hospital.

But he still had been hurt badly. Marks from beatings criss-crossed his back, and deep pocks, apparently from electric shock burns, were gouged in his skin.

The shocks, he said, felt "like my soul is being ripped out of my body." But when he would start to scream, and his body would pull up from the shock, they would begin to beat him, he said.

Mr. Fathil has been at the Marine base south of Qaim since his release, on Saturday around noon. His mother still does not know he is alive.

When she was mentioned, he bowed and lowered his head, and began to cry softly, wiping his face with the jumpsuit given him by the marines.

He asked a reporter for help to move to another town, because it was too dangerous for his family to remain in their house. He begged not to have a photograph taken, even of the scars on his back. The captors took pictures of that, he said.

His town has always been a good place, he said, but the militants have made it hell.

"These few are destroying it," he said, his face streaked with tears. "Everybody they take, they kill. It's on a daily basis pretty much."

Link
Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

Seaver · 08-10-2005, 10:34 AM

Quote:

German Attorney General Kay Nehm said there will be no charges against Rumsfeld.
Since there were US inquiries about the torture no german inquiries were needed

How quaint... a man who has absolutely no juristiction or power to charge anyone in the US saying he wont do it. Wow he almost sounds moderate!

And about the above post, thank you. My friend from HS told me about that, he was in the second round (medic) that went in and treated those wounded. From what he said they used some of the exact same methods Saddam used, and compared Abu Garaib as a Continental Resort in comparison.

Pacifier · 08-10-2005, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

How quaint... a man who has absolutely no juristiction or power to charge anyone in the US saying he wont do it. Wow he almost sounds moderate!

they quaint tone might be my translation.
We here have a law that allowes it to charge anyone regardless of nationality with crime againt humanity etc.
But I think you've read all this in my first post...

And I won't reply to bodyhammers obvious trolling ...

alansmithee · 08-10-2005, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

You guys just kinda forfeited your right to complain about the "terrorists" and "insurgents" taking captives, torturing them, and beheading them. If its ok for us to do it as a means to protect our land/peoples/way of life, its just as ok for them to do it to protect their lands/peoples/ways of life.

I will agree with this, if you can show an instance where Americans kidnapped someone totally uninvolved with terrorism and cut their head off. Unless you somehow think that taking naked pictures of people is the same as filmed decapitation.

Bodyhammer86 · 08-10-2005, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

And I won't reply to bodyhammers obvious trolling ...

I'M trolling? Are you fucking kidding me? I'm simply stating that what went on at Abu Grahib doesn't hold a candle to what the so called "insurgents" do and what Saddam's government used to do to their prisoners or hostages. While forcing prisoners to pose naked for pictures is humilating and cruel, it doesn't compare to being flogged with a strip of rubber, shocked with electric wires, and ultimately, having your head sawed off. And oddly enough, I don't see anyone on the left condemning the insurgents for how they treat their hostages.

Ustwo · 08-10-2005, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

I'M trolling? Are you fucking kidding me?

Me predicting that GWB would win the election, and that the democrats wouldn't understand why they lost (as proven true) was called trolling too

You kinda get used to it after a while.

Pacifier · 08-10-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

I'M trolling? Are you fucking kidding me? I'm simply stating that what went on at Abu Grahib doesn't hold a candle to what the so called "insurgents" do and what Saddam's government used to do to their prisoners or hostages.

So what? one atrocity doesn't justify another.
If an insurgent beheads a hostage you don't have one torture "for free"
Be doing so you have zero chance to win the war on terror.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

And oddly enough, I don't see anyone on the left condemning the insurgents for how they treat their hostages.

So you're saying the US are morally egal to the insurgents and their actions should be judged accordingly?
Those insurgents are terrorists, ruthless assholes. I think the US Army should not behave in a similar way thats why I critizise the US if they do. I still want to believe, contrary to all evidence, that US has higher morallity and ethics than the insurgents, you seem to believe that the US should sink on their level as quick as possible.

Bodyhammer86 · 08-10-2005, 12:21 PM

Quote:

I still want to believe, contrary to all evidence, that US has higher morallity and ethics than the insurgents, you seem to believe that the US should sink on their level as quick as possible.

Bullshit, I never implied that our military should sink to their level. Incidents like Abu Grahib are few and far between, and are not representative of the US Army's actions as a whole, unlike the terrorists who have over 20 torture centers (in their former headquarters of fellujah and probably many more in hidden locations). As for this,

Quote:

So what? one atrocity doesn't justify another.

posing naked for pictures, while humiliating, is hardly an "atrocity" unlike shocking a hostage with electrical wires, sawing off limbs, and so on.

12-03-2004, 07:52 AM	#2 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	interesting...first that the suit was not filed in the international war crimes tribunal, the authority of which the americans do not recognize--because the administration imagines that any prosecution of americans for war crimes would necessarily be "unfair"....second in that it poses the problem of national sovereingty with reference to bodies of international law that the neocons hoped to short circuit by the entire iraq adventure. the enforcement measure would also be interesting, if the case comes to that--it would require a bit of research for me to have a coherent opinion on the matter. i imagine you will see folk from the right shrieking about this, once it makes its way into the right media apparatus and thereby provides them with a pre-structured starting point for "thinking".... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-03-2004, 10:56 AM	#7 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it is relevant only if--and only if--you prefer for aesthetic or political reasons to indulge the disengenous pattern of relativization particular to american conservative "thinking"---when something makes them uncomfortable, then the response is inevitably to create some fake equivalent situation and try to balance one off the other. but say you want to play that game: given there is is hardly a nationalist tyrant on earth the americans have not eagerly sold weapon systems to (applying the same logic as above, that the actions of private corporations can be associated with those of states), on what possible basis can the americans say or do anything, at any point, about anything carried out by these tyrants? and why is any attempt to criticize these states not just hypocritical grandstanding by the americans? you would also have to apply the same "logic" to the myriad american corporations who sold hussein arms under the reagan administration, including the technology to produce the gas that killed the kurds....since the americans were so willing to arm hussein to the teeth when it was convenient, and to pretend otherwise when it was convenient, how is bushwar not simple grandstanding by the right? well it is...stupid question...sorry about that. the real question here is more about legal accountability for war crimes. the americans have tried to exempt themselves from it. that is wrong. i do not know if this case will work itself out----but if americans are found guilty of crimes against humanity as a result of this case, on what basis can you defend not respecting the judgement? why should americans not be held accountable for war crimes, if they are found guilty of them? on what basis is it the prerogative of a given nation-state to prosecute its citizens for crimes against humanity? what about the american case, which is characterized by an obvious unwillingness to do it? asif there was something about the simple fact of being american that makes such actions impossible...as if that argument was not wholly absurd. how did it get to be understood that war crimes are only carried out by citizens of nations that loose wars? how is this not the basis for the american refusal to submit to war crimes judgements: since for the right it is unthinkable that the americans actually loose wars (witness the revisionist crap about vietnam so dear to them), it follows that war crimes are therefore impossible on the part of american troops? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-03-2004 at 11:01 AM..

12-03-2004, 11:30 AM	#9 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Someone does need to look into war crime allegation. It has become quite apparent that the American leaders wont try to go after themselves. What sense would that make? (in their eyes, atleast) As long as they have the power to keep people out of their business and the power to push the blame on to someone else they will use it. This goes for any leader of any country or organization. There is evidence of involvement of higher officials, yet as long as they can blame someone else they'll do it until someone steps up and says "this shit is wrong, we're going to do something about it." What is happening in the german army is a different matter completely. And this German matter, unlike the American one, is actually in the process of being resolved, not swept under the rug to be forgotten about and later referred to as a conspiracy theory. __________________ We Must Dissent.

12-03-2004, 11:57 AM	#11 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	I'm saying they are condoning it, authorizing it, and encouraging it, yes. __________________ We Must Dissent.

12-03-2004, 01:01 PM	#14 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	I'm sure their answer would be to try to save american lives by getting information by any means. But torture is torture. There wa a lot of info on this a few months ago. How the government was trying to justify how they torture people. Like its ok to force people to stand for days at a time, or to hold their hands out to their sides for days at a time, or wear hoods and stand on boxes telling them the floor is electrified and if they step off the box they'll die, or put them in rooms with men with dogs held inches from their face that are trying to bite their face off but being held back, or sleep depreivation for days or weeks. This is what was and may still be happening, all with approval. (well atleast until they're caught.. then the stories change) __________________ We Must Dissent.

12-03-2004, 08:25 AM	#3 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	I'm glad to see someone seeking accountability for Abu Ghraib other than president Bush's appraisal that they were doing a "superb job." If this court is able to issue arrest warrants for top U.S. officials-thereby making it impossible for them to enter Germany-it could have major implications for our relations. On the other hand I'm not comfortable with court trials where the defendants are not present and are not able to defend themselves.

12-03-2004, 01:04 PM	#15 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ustwo: say the members of the bush administration were found to be guilty by an international court of fostering an environment that effectively sanctioned/normalized the commission of war crimes--and thereby was responsible for those war crimes--i dont suppose that you would either recognize the ruling or support its enforcement, would you? i assume you would not----but maybe i am wrong-----could you actually answer the question please? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-03-2004, 01:17 PM	#17 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Well thats what the government has been doing. But the government was also hiring "torture contractors" and claiming that they werent bound by the same rules. Why have these rules in the first place if you can just hire an outside contractor to do it all anyway? __________________ We Must Dissent.

12-03-2004, 01:42 PM	#18 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	When it comes to matters of national security or personal security the army should and could do whatever deemed necessary to acquire information. If that means shipping those fuckers to gitmo or Jordan or < insert country that tortures people > so be it. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

12-03-2004, 01:48 PM	#20 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	You guys just kinda forfeited your right to complain about the "terrorists" and "insurgents" taking captives, torturing them, and beheading them. If its ok for us to do it as a means to protect our land/peoples/way of life, its just as ok for them to do it to protect their lands/peoples/ways of life. __________________ We Must Dissent.

12-03-2004, 02:13 PM	#21 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	It's disturbing that you would actually compare the kidnapping and torture of innocent civilians, to military and intelligence and their operations with illegal combatants and terrorist sympathizers/enablers. There is no way to win the war on terror just by virtue that people in America actually have the mentality that we are not acting justly, or that we are not in the right (at least as it relates to this). __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

12-03-2004, 03:30 PM	#24 (permalink)
Manx Loser	I skimmed it. Please point out the section that says the U.S. can torture people it deems as enemies or hold people indefinitely with out any rights what-so-ever. And also if you could point me to the portion that states that the U.S. can hold U.S. citizens indefinitely and without rights and that when the Supreme Court rebukes them, the U.S. can strip the citizenship of the prisoner and force that person out of the country. 'Cause naturally, that is exactly what the U.S. has done - so it must certainly be "legal". That it is in direct opposition to the principles of this country is why I state that if they are acceptable to protect the country, they are unecessary because the country is already destroyed from within.

12-03-2004, 04:05 PM	#25 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	What I always thought was interesting... what took place in Abu Garaib is the BEST that American PoWs can hope for if captured by the enemies. Why is it only Americans that ever are accountable for these things? Where were these lawyers when Saddam "lost" an American pilot? We found his uniform in the PoW camp, well, parts of it but he was "never there". Being stripped naked isnt all that horrible considering the alternative of severe beatings, electrocution (instead of just wiring it up as a threat), and obvious torture to death in this case. Where were these lawyers after Korea when dozens if not hundreds of Americans were put to death? Where were they when in Vietnam our pilots were hung from their arms until they became so disfigured that they could never fly again? Where were they when the Vietnamese used the bamboo torture? water torture? or simple public execution? Hold us accountable? Fine, but dont make it a one way street. Say what you want about the moral high ground, but to leave our own soldiers out to hang by a foreign country after we (yes the majority of the country) supported their being called to do horrible things. Now you can say you never supported it but that's irrelivant now isnt it? Anyways these people are not soldiers under the LAW. They are not uniformed, they are not distinguishable between the civilians. Under the law they are treasonous. They are the same as the Werewolves of Germany in WWII (do some history searching). We executed them on sight and guess what? It was legal.

12-03-2004, 09:53 PM	#26 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	There is a difference between execution and torture. There is a difference between finding someone, in plain clothes, lets say.. setting a bomb, and shooting them on the spot, than from taking that person in to torture them for no apparent reason other than to torture them. Because as Ustwo said, what information could we possibly get from them that is useful? If we're not torturing them for information, why are we doing it? Just for kicks? Just for amusement? And also, i don't think anyone said that it was ok for Saddam or the Vietnamese or the North Koreans to torture, string up, or otherwise disfigure anyone. If "these lawyers" had the chance I'm damn sure they would throw those who committed these acts into prison, or have them put to death. __________________ We Must Dissent.

08-10-2005, 02:02 AM	#27 (permalink)
Dyze Crazy	Actually, I wanted to start a new thread, but then I found this one. I would just like to know what happened to this case, maybe someone knows. I could not find too much on the internet, but to my knowledge, Bush and Rumsfeld were charged at the German Federal Court in Karlsruhe. Does anyone know if the case is closed, still being investigated or what? Well, let me know what you know... __________________ Knowing is not enough, we must apply. Willing is not enough, we must do.

08-10-2005, 04:29 AM	#28 (permalink)
OPgary Tilted	[B]Germany is the last one who should worry about prison camps and torture. Abu Gharib prisoners were not tortured. They were humiliated and harassed. They were most unhappy with having an American woman yank their dicks. Screw their culture. Nothing would have happened had the detainees answered questions truthfully. In a combat situation things are not always rosy.

08-10-2005, 07:23 AM	#29 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	I'm just going to ignore OPgary.. but as for updates, I couldn't find any. I did all sorts of google searches with Michael Ratner and CCP and Germany Abu Gharib.. didn't get much other than this article by MR himself: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...04&ItemID=7503 Not a bad read. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

08-10-2005, 08:33 AM	#30 (permalink)
Pacifier undead Location: Duisburg, Germany	German Attorney General Kay Nehm said there will be no charges against Rumsfeld. Since there were US inquiries about the torture no german inquiries were needed __________________ "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death — Albert Einstein

08-10-2005, 10:05 AM	#32 (permalink)
Pacifier undead Location: Duisburg, Germany	Another "dogma", repeat unti you belive: thats no real torture, raping boys and woman are just college pranks http://www.democraticwings.com/democ...ism/001963.php __________________ "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death — Albert Einstein