Marie Tessier / The Woman’s Media Center – A military judge in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, yesterday sentenced U.S. Army Spec. James P. Barker to life in prison with the possibility of parole. Barker had pled guilty to 16 crimes related to the gang rape and premeditated murder of 14-year-old Abeer Al-Janabi and her family in Mahmoudiya, Iraq, earlier this year.

“Spec. Barker is deeply remorseful about what happened,” said David Sheldon, Barker’s Washington-based civilian defense attorney, before the sentence was delivered, adding that Barker would “apologize to his command, to the Al-Janabi family, and to Iraq for his actions.”

With his plea, Barker avoided a possible death penalty had the case gone to court-martial. The sentence also included a dishonorable discharge.

Barker is the first of five men involved in the March 2006 attack to plead guilty, and his attorneys say he will cooperate with the prosecution. Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman and Pfc. Bryan L. Howard are charged with rape and murder and await court-martial. In an unusual arrangement, none entered a plea at the time of their arraignments in recent weeks, according to Fort Campbell officials. Read more @ The Woman’s Media Center

Soldier Pleads Guilty – First Sentencing Expected
See also: Rape, Murder, and the American GI
This article was first published @ womensmediacenter
Action for Abeer

Harald Haack – Auf Donald Rumsfeld haben es viele abgesehen: Rumsfeld, der „Kriegsverbrecher“, der „Massenmörder“, der „Foltertyrann“. Viele schlimme Attribute für einen Kaltschnäuzigen. Ja, sogar: Rumsfeld, das „kriegslüsterne Monster der USA“. US-Anwälte wollen ihn zur Rechenschaft ziehen und wollten ihn in Deutschland wegen seiner Missetaten als Chef des Pentagons anzeigen. Anderswo existieren fadenscheinige Gründe, die ihn schützen. In Deutschland aber nicht.

Doch nun, nachdem Iraks Ex-Diktator Saddam Hussein zum Tode verurteilt wurde und das offenbart wurde, was längst die ganze Welt wusste – demnach es keinen triftigen Grund für den Krieg der USA gegen den Irak gab, dort, wo nun deshalb das Chaos herrscht und alles hoffnungslos scheint -, und etliche einflussreiche Personen in den USA befürchten müssen, Donald Rumsfeld werde ebenfalls zum Tode verurteilt (nicht alle Amerikaner sind gebildet und darüber informiert, dass die Todesstrafe in Deutschland längst abgeschafft ist) scheint es eine Rettung für ihn, für diesen Rumsfeld zu geben: Jonathan Chait, Kolumnist der angesehenen „Los Angeles Times“, fordert keck den zum Tode verurteilten Diktator Saddam Hussein im Irak wieder an die Macht zu setzen. Selbstverständlich hält er jenen für einen „blutigen Tyrann“ und einen „psychotischen Massenmörder“, doch er denkt, dies sei für die beste Option, um den Irak zu befrieden. Was er in seinem schockierenden Kommentar verschweigt: Genau diese Attribute sind es auch mit denen Donald Rumsfeld in den USA und auch international beschimpft wird. Folglich muss es wohl logisch sein: Wer es schafft den irakischen Diktator vor der Todesstrafe zu retten, wird auch ihn, den Rumsfeld, retten. Wohlmöglich wird er mit einem Mal sogar der nächste US-Präsident sein. Glauben wir an Wunder? Die US-Amerikaner taten es und ließen Bush und Rumsfeld gewähren.

Rettung nun also für Rumsfeld? Doch zuvor müsste Saddam Hussein gerettet werden. Angeblich könnte dies nicht einmal der gegenwärtige irakische Staatspräsident. Auch nicht die USA, die doch bislang seinen Tod forderten. Aber um ihn, Saddam Hussein, zu retten, könnten die USA schließlich noch einmal Krieg gegen die von ihnen geschaffene „demokratische Regierung“ führen und ihn befreien.

Der Zeitpunkt dazu wäre jetzt gerade günstig, denn immerhin hat die heimtückische Propaganda der G-8-Staaten erreicht, dass deren Wahlvolk die Demokratie längst nicht mehr als ideale Staatsform versteht und einen „starken Mann“ fordert, der sie wieder führt. Das ist angeblich in Deutschland so, das soll es auch in anderen Ländern geben. Und auf dem konservativen Sender „Fox News“ durfte „ein ehemaliger Pentagon-Mitarbeiter“ schon sein Rezept für den Irak verkünden. Nötig sei „ein starker Mann“, die Demokratie sei gescheitert. Angeblich herrscht in den US-Medien jetzt die Überzeugung, die „Demokratie“ könne man nicht von den USA in andere Länder exportieren.

„Amerika kann keiner Nation Demokratie verordnen““, resümiert der republikanische Senator Chuck Hagel. „Das ist die bittere Lektion“.

Wie sollte es anders auch möglich sein, wenn gewisse Personen wie Donald Rumsfeld für die Verwandlung der US-Demokratie in ein neo-faschistisches Gebilde längst gesorgt haben? Faschismus hinterlässt – gemessen am Schicksal von Italien, Spanien und besonders Deutschland nur Chaos, verursacht viel Leid und Tote. In diesen Ländern ist man mittlerweile vielfach schlauer, obwohl es natürlich auch dort noch viele Betonköpfe gibt. Die wird es wohl immer geben. Faschismus ist aber destruktiv. Hat dies jemals einer dem George W. Bush klar gemacht?

Mehr Artikel über Donald Rumsfeld

The Honorable Alberto Gonzales Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Gonzales:

Recent press accounts indicate that, after years of denials, the Central Intelligence Agency has acknowledged the existence of additional documents detailing the Bush Administration’s interrogation and detention policy for terrorism suspects.

According to press reports, the CIA recently disclosed the existence of two interrogation-related documents – a presidential directive regarding the CIA’s interrogation methods and detention facilities located outside of the United States, and an August 2002 Department of Justice Memorandum to the CIA General Counsel regarding CIA interrogation methods (the “2nd Bybee memo”) – in connection with an ongoing FOIA lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

As you know, for more than two years, I have repeatedly sought answers from the Department of Justice, the FBI, the CIA, and the Department of Defense regarding reported and, in some instances, documented cases of the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody. The photographs and reports of prisoner abuse in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere that have emerged during the past two years depict an interrogation and detention system operating contrary to U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions.

Prisoner abuse is one aspect of a broader problem, which includes the use of so-called “extraordinary renditions” to send people to other countries where they will be subject to torture. We diminish our own values as a Nation – and lose credibility as an advocate of human rights around the world – by engaging in, or outsourcing, torture.

The American people deserve to have detailed and accurate information about the role of the Bush Administration in developing the interrogation policies and practices that have engendered such deep criticism and concern at home and around the world. I ask that you promptly respond to the following questions and document requests.

1.Please produce any and all directives, memoranda, and/or orders, including any and all attachments to such documents, regarding CIA interrogation methods or policies for the treatment of detainees, including but not limited to the directive signed by President Bush governing CIA interrogation methods, or allowing the CIA to set up detention centers located outside of the United States.

2.Please produce any and all Department of Justice directives, memoranda, and/or guidance, including any and all attachments to such documents, regarding CIA detention and/or interrogation methods, including but not limited to the August 2002 Memorandum from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel to the CIA General Counsel regarding CIA interrogation methods (the “2nd Bybee memo”).

3.Please produce any and all documents in the custody of the Department of Justice regarding the legality of specific interrogation tactics and/or federal criminal prohibitions on torture and abuse that were used in the preparation of the 2nd Bybee memo referenced above.

4.Please state whether the 2nd Bybee memo was withdrawn, replaced, or modified after the Administration withdrew the Office of Legal Counsel’s memorandum regarding U.S. obligations under anti-torture law, dated August 2002 (the “1st Bybee Memo”) in December 2004. If so, please produce any and all revisions, or modifications of the 2nd Bybee memo.

5.Please produce any and all Department of Justice documents that interpret, or advise on, the scope of interrogation practices permitted and prohibited by the Detainee Treatment Act or the Military Commissions Act.

6.Please produce an index of any and all documents relating to investigations and/or reviews conducted by the Department of Justice into detainee abuse by U.S. military or civilian personnel in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib prison, or elsewhere.

I look forward to comprehensive responses to the above questions and document requests.

Sincerely,

PATRICK LEAHY United States Senator

cc: General Michael V. Hayden, USAF Director Central Intelligence Agency Room Number 7D56 OHB Washington, D.C. 20505

Source
August 2002 memorandum which redefined torture and broadened the range of interrogation tactics permitted in the field.
US-Vize Cheney hält Folter für „selbstverständlich“
The Interrogation Documents:
Rumsfeld: Kriegsverbrechen auf höchster Ebene
Endlich: Rumsfeld in Berlin angezeigt
Vielen Dank Herr Rumsfeld – gehen Sie nun ins Gefängnis?
Background Brief on the case against Rumsfeld, Gonzales and others. Filed in Germany on November 14, 2006
US Army Report on Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners
The CIA’s Pain Project
The Birth of Soft Torture
Klageschrift gegen US-Verteidigungsminister Donald Rumsfeld, den ehemaligen CIA-Direktor George Tenet und andere US-Führungskräfte
US-Militärzeitungen wollen Rumsfelds Rücktritt
650 000 Iraker durch Kriegsfolgen gestorben
It’s worth it Baby!
The Lancet

SDA – Im Zusammenhang mit der Misshandlung von Häftlingen im Irak hat die frühere Kommandantin des Gefängnisses Abu Ghraib schwere Vorwürfe gegen den ehemaligen amerikanischen Verteidigungsminister Donald Rumsfeld erhoben.

In einem Interview mit der spanischen Tageszeitung «El País» hat die frühere Leiterin des Gefängnisses Abu Ghraib schwere Vorwürfe an die Adresse des ehemaligen amerikanischen Verteidigungsministers Donald Rumsfeld erhoben.

Dieser soll die Foltermethoden an Gefangenen genehmigt haben, sagte die frühere amerikanische Brigadegenerälin Janis Karpinski. «Ich habe ein von Rumsfeld unterschriebenes Memorandum zur Anwendung solcher Verhörmethoden gesehen», erklärte Karpinski.

Die von Rumsfeld in dem Dokument genehmigten Techniken hätten darin bestanden, den Schlaf der Häftlinge und deren Essenszeiten zu stören, laute Musik abzuspielen oder die Gefangenen zu zwingen, lange zu stehen.
Methoden wie in Guantánamo

Rumsfeld und andere ihrer damaligen Vorgesetzten bezeichnete Karpinski als «Feiglinge», weil sie sich ihrer Verantwortung entzogen hätten. Sie selbst sei für die Verhöre von Terrorverdächtigen nicht zuständig gewesen.

Die Methoden in Abu Ghraib seien vom amerikanischen Gefangenenlager Guantánamo auf Kuba übernommen worden. Der dortige Kommandant, General Geoffrey Miller, sei dazu im September 2003 vom Pentagon in den Irak geschickt worden.
Wegen Folterskandal degradiert

Karpinski, die wegen des Folterskandals degradiert worden war, unterstützt eine Klage gegen Rumsfeld, die vor knapp zwei Wochen bei der deutschen Bundesanwaltschaft eingereicht worden war.

Darin werfen ehemalige Gefangene der amerikanischen Streitkräfte ihm sowie hochrangigen Militärs Kriegsverbrechen und Menschenrechtsverletzungen in Abu Ghraib und Guantánamo Bay vor.

Weitere Artikel zum Thema Rumsfeld

Norman Solomon– Saddam Hussein ist zum Tode verurteilt. Er wurde verurteilt für Verbrechen, die er mehr als ein Jahr vor Donald Rumsfelds Bagdader Händedruck mit ihm begangen hatte. Ein historischer Rückblick zeigt uns die Fakten:

Donald Rumsfeld: Ehemaliger Verteidigungsminister und Kriegsverbrecher

Am 20. Dezember 1983 berichtet die Washington Post: Rumsfeld „besucht den Irak, US-Offizielle sprechen von dem Versuch, die bereits gebesserten Beziehungen zu dem Land weiter zu stärken“.

Zwei Tage später zitiert die New York Times „einen hochrangigen amerikanischen Offiziellen“ mit den Worten, „die Vereinigten Staaten sind weiter bereit, volle diplomatische Beziehungen zum Irak einzugehen, es hängt von den Irakern ab“.

Am 29. März 1984 berichtet die New York Times: „Amerikanische Diplomaten zeigen sich befriedigt über die Beziehungen zwischen dem Irak und den Vereinigten Staaten. Die normalen diplomatischen Bindungen seien praktisch wiederhergestellt – außer nominell“. Im selben Artikel ist von Goodies für das Saddam-Regime die Rede – einschließlich „Krediten für Landwirtschaftsgüter im Gesamtwert von $840 Millionen“. Laut desselben Artikels in der Times waren beim (oben erwähnten) Rumsfeld-Besuch in Bagdad drei Monate zuvor „nach den Gesprächen keine Resultate verkündet worden“. Diesmal, so der Artikel, „gehen westeuropäische Diplomaten davon aus, dass die Vereinigten Staaten mit dem Irak einiges an Geheimdienstinformation über den Iran austauschen“.

Ein paar Monate später, am 17. Juli 1984, verleiht ein anderer Artikel der New York Times – ein Bericht aus Bagdad – der Skizze etwas mehr Kontur: Die US-Regierung „hat dem Irak über die letzten beiden Jahre Warenkredite im Wert von rund $2 Milliarden Dollar zum Kauf von Nahrungsmitteln eingeräumt.“ Der „ehemalige Nahost-Sondergesandte Donald Rumsfeld“, so der Bericht aus Bagdad weiter, „hielt hier auch zwei private Treffen mit dem irakischen Präsidenten (Hussein) ab“. Beiläufig erwähnt derselbe Artikel, dass „die Menschenrechtsberichte des (amerikanischen) Außenministeriums einhellig kritisch über den irakischen Präsidenten urteilen, dieser führe einen Polizeistaat, ist man sich einig“.

11 Monate nach Rumsfelds Besuch bei Saddam im Dezember 1983 wurden die vollen diplomatischen Beziehungen zwischen Bagdad und Washington wiederhergestellt. Saddam hat auch in den späten 80gern weiter Giftgas eingesetzt – Aktionen, die seinen Beziehungen zur Reagan-Administration aber kaum geschadet haben.

Rumsfeld war damals (1983) der höchste amerikanische Offizielle, der den Irak – nach sechs Jahren – besuchte. Er war Reagans Mann fürs Grobe und sollte die Beziehungen zu Saddam wieder aufwärmen. 1984 managte die Reagan-Regierung den Verkauf von 45 angeblich zivil nutzbaren Hubschraubern vom Typ Bell 214ST. Saddams Militär fand die Helikopter auch sehr nützlich – um kurdische Zivilisten mit Giftgas anzugreifen. Das war 1988 (laut US-Geheimdienstquellen). Der Journalist Jeremy Scahill betont: „Als Reaktion auf das Gas beschloss der US-Senat einhellig weitreichende Sanktionen gegen den Irak. Diese (Sanktionen) hätten dem Irak den Zugang zu amerikanischer Technologie weitgehend verwehrt. Die Maßnahme wurde durch das Weiße Haus zunichte gemacht“.

Dies sind die Fakten, die die Bevölkerung über diesen US-Verteidigungsminister wissen sollte.

Weitere Artikel zu Donald Rumsfeld

US-Vize Cheney hält Folter für „selbstverständlich“
The Interrogation Documents:
Rumsfeld: Kriegsverbrechen auf höchster Ebene
Endlich: Rumsfeld in Berlin angezeigt
Vielen Dank Herr Rumsfeld – gehen Sie nun ins Gefängnis?
Background Brief on the case against Rumsfeld, Gonzales and others. Filed in Germany on November 14, 2006
US Army Report on Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners
The CIA’s Pain Project
The Birth of Soft Torture
Klageschrift gegen US-Verteidigungsminister Donald Rumsfeld, den ehemaligen CIA-Direktor George Tenet und andere US-Führungskräfte
US-Militärzeitungen wollen Rumsfelds Rücktritt
650 000 Iraker durch Kriegsfolgen gestorben
It’s worth it Baby!
The Lancet

Dieser Artikel erschien in der deutschen Übersetzung von Andrea Noll erstmalig bei Zmag.de

Norman Solomons aktuelles Buch ‚War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death‘

Papers Called Too Sensitive for Release

Dan Eggen / Washington Post Staff Writer – After years of denials, the CIA has formally acknowledged the existence of two classified documents governing aggressive interrogation and detention policies for terrorism suspects, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

But CIA lawyers say the documents — memos from President Bush and the Justice Department — are still so sensitive that no portion can be released to the public.

The disclosures by the CIA general counsel’s office came in a letter Friday to attorneys for the ACLU. The group had filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in New York two years ago under the Freedom of Information Act, seeking records related to U.S. interrogation and detention policies.

The lawsuit has resulted in the release of more than 100,000 pages of documents, including some that revealed internal debates over the policies governing prisoners held at the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Many other records have not been released and, in some cases, their existence has been revealed only in media reports. Read more @ Washington Post

US-Vize Cheney hält Folter für „selbstverständlich“
The Interrogation Documents:
Rumsfeld: Kriegsverbrechen auf höchster Ebene
Endlich: Rumsfeld in Berlin angezeigt
Vielen Dank Herr Rumsfeld – gehen Sie nun ins Gefängnis?
Background Brief on the case against Rumsfeld, Gonzales and others. Filed in Germany on November 14, 2006
US Army Report on Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners
The CIA’s Pain Project
The Birth of Soft Torture
Klageschrift gegen US-Verteidigungsminister Donald Rumsfeld, den ehemaligen CIA-Direktor George Tenet und andere US-Führungskräfte
US-Militärzeitungen wollen Rumsfelds Rücktritt
650 000 Iraker durch Kriegsfolgen gestorben
It’s worth it Baby!
The Lancet

Stephan Fuchs – Vizepräsident Dick Cheney hat mit einem Interview zu Foltertechniken für Empörung gesorgt. Der konservative Radiomoderator Scott Hennen hatte Cheney gefragt, ob für ihn „das Untertauchen unter Wasser eine Selbstverständlichkeit“ sei, wenn ein Verhörter dadurch Informationen über Anschläge preisgebe und somit Leben gerettet werden könne. Der Vize-Staatschef antwortete: „Das ist eine Selbstverständlichkeit für mich.“

Foltern soll selbstverständlich sein

Beim so genannten „water boarding“ werden Gefangene so lange unter Wasser getaucht, bis sie das Gefühl haben zu ertrinken. In den USA wurde diese Foltertechnik vor einigen Monaten offiziell verboten und trotzdem äusserte sich Cheney positiv zu der zu der Foltermethode. Menschenrechtsgruppen reagierten empört auf die Äusserungen. Der Geschäftsführer von Amnesty International USA, Larry Cox, sagte, die aktuelle US-Regierung breche „radikal mit der Tradition der Verteidigung der Menschenrechte, die der Stolz dieses Landes gewesen ist“. Ist es bei diesen Meinungen ranghöchster Vertreter einer Regierung verwunderlich, was auf dem Feld passiert? Ist die amerikanische Regierung komplett zu einer Diktatur einer Bananenrepublik verkommen?

Interview of the vice president by Scott Hennen, wday at radio day at the white house

Q: Thank you for having us, sir.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, it’s good to see you again, Scott.

Q: Good to catch up. As I reflect on our previous conversations, much of the focus has been on the enemies we face in this war on terror. And in the five years since 9/11, I’d like you to reflect for a moment and rate the performance of the administration.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the basic proposition is, of course, that we’ve gone more than five years now without another attack inside the homeland. On the day after that attack back in ’01, if somebody had put that proposition to you, I don’t think anybody would have been willing to bet we could go five years without an attack.

Cheney: We don’t torture. That’s not what we’re involved in.

There have been attacks around the world since then from Madrid to Jakarta, in Indonesia. There have been several attempts, obviously, to try and launch attacks here in the United States. The ones launched against us have all been intercepted, disrupted. They’ve all failed. And that’s not an accident. It’s because the President made some sound decisions, and we put in place some very important programs that let us collect intelligence against the enemy, to find out what they’re up to, and then use that intelligence to defend the nation, so it has been — I think that piece of it has been a great success.

Q: So with those accomplishments, why is there a debate as we head two weeks into an election about whether or not we’re safer?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the — a lot of folks, obviously, don’t want to focus on the threat. To spend all your days worrying about that next attack is something that’s difficult for people to adjust to. And I think there are some folks out there who say, well, it was just a one-off affair. It will never happen again.

Those of us who bear some responsibility for the security of the nation, on the other hand, look at it and say, next time, they could, in fact, have far deadlier weapons that they did last time, that the ultimate threat is a group of terrorists in one of our cities with a nuclear weapon, and that would cause more casualties that we lost in all the wars we’ve fought in the 230-year history of the Republic. So it is a huge problem, and periodically, I think people are reminded of it.

But as long as things are going along swimmingly, and there hasn’t been another attack, it’s hard, I suppose, for us to get credit for what hasn’t happened in a sense.

Q: Are the terrorists trying to influence our election in your view?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think they’re very much aware of our political calendar here, I really do. And when you see the kinds of things that happened this year, for example, when the Democratic Party in Connecticut purged Joe Lieberman, in effect, drummed him out of the party on the grounds that he had supported the President in the global war on terror, that sends a message to the terrorists overseas that their basic strategy of trying to break the will of the American people may, in fact, work.

Osama bin Laden has talked about it. He believes firmly that we don’t have the stomach for the fight long-term, that if you kill enough Americans you can change American policy. And he cites what happened in Beirut in 1983, when we lost 241 Marines, and within months, we’d withdrawn from Lebanon; or Mogadishu in 1993, when we lost people in the battle in Mogadishu, and within weeks had pulled our troops out of Somalia. So I think they are very conscious of the electoral timetable in the United States.

I can’t say that they make a specific decision for a particular act, but there’s no doubt in my mind that it’s a factor that enters into their thinking.

Q: I have a Pentagon source that tells me there are websites out there that they’ve just recently translated that actually refer to the election and ask for an up-tick in violence to try and influence the election, is that accurate?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I wouldn’t be surprised. It sounds right to me.

Q: I’ve heard from a lot of listeners — that’s what we do for a living, talk to good folks in the Heartland every day — and I’ve talked to as many who want an increased military presence in IraQ: as want us out, which seems to be the larger debate, at least coming from the left — cut and run, get out of there. One fax said, when you talk to the Vice President, ask him when shock and awe is coming back to Iraq. Let’s finish the job once and for all.

And terrorist interrogations and that debate is another example. And I’ve had people call and say, please, let the Vice President know that if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we’re all for it, if it saves American lives. Again, this debate seems a little silly given the threat we face, would you agree?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do agree. And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that’s been a very important tool that we’ve had to be able to secure the nation.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided us with enormously valuable information about how many there are, about how they plan, what their training processes are and so forth, we’ve learned a lot. We need to be able to continue that.

The Congress recently voted on this Q:uestion of military commissions and our authority to continue the interrogation program. It passed both Houses, fortunately. The President signed it into law, but the fact is 177 Democrats in the House — or excuse me, 162 Democrats in the House voted against it, and 32 out of 44 senators — Democratic senators voted against it. We wouldn’t have that authority today if they were in charge. That’s a very important issue in this campaign.

Are we going to allow the executive branch to have the authority granted and authorized by the Congress to be able to continue to collect the intelligence we need to defend the nation.

Q: Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It’s a no-brainer for me, but for a while there, I was criticized as being the Vice President „for torture.“ We don’t torture. That’s not what we’re involved in. We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we’re party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that.

And thanks to the leadership of the President now, and the action of the Congress, we have that authority, and we are able to continue to program.

Q: There’s a firestorm going on right now in the media. Our callers today are very upset about it. CNN elected to air a video they received from an insurgent group in Iraq, and it is essentially a propaganda piece where they have followed around a sniper who ultimately ends up killing a member of our U.S. armed forces. Should CNN have aired that video?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don’t think so. I think all it does is encourage them to do more. The media has an obligation I think to conduct themselves in a way that doesn’t make the situation worse, obviously. Now, we have a free press, and that’s an important value in our society, and we care very deeply about it. And I don’t want to suggest anything other than a free press. But there’s a Q:uestion of responsibility, too, if in fact, they allow themselves to be manipulated, as I think in this particular case, it would look as though a terrorist organization did, in fact, try to manipulate CNN.

Q: I wanted to ask you a little bit about the election coming up. And Minnesota is an example. We got a great governor in Tim Pawlenty who I know — you know well is in a dogfight. Congressman Mark Kennedy served well in the House, in that Senate race, tough battle — both down in the polls. Some suggest despite their accomplishments on the economy, that the administration or the war in IraQ: are bringing these two down and other Republicans. Do you reject that premise?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I do. We’ve got a timetable for elections out there. We have one every two years. You don’t in the meantime always have the opportunity to say what issues are going to come up. When we ran in 2000, the President and I did not expect to spend most of our time in office dealing with the global war on terror, and the aftermath of 9/11.

The economy is in great shape. The economy is kicking along, doing very, very well. So we do the best we can, and the elections come along, and then we’ve all got to stand; and those of us whose names are on the ballot — ours isn’t this time, obviously, since it’s an off-year election — but that’s the way our system is supposed to work. It’s an opportunity for people to vote.

There are a lot of tough contests around the country, and that’s altogether fitting and proper that there should be. I’m fairly optimistic about the outcome. I think we’re going to do well in the House and Senate.

Q: You’re pretty good at election predictions. I think I’ve caught up with you before the ’04 election and in previous midterms, so I give you full credit in Washington, you’ve watched a lot of them. We’ll take that advice as one that’s important.

I want to ask you about after the election, lastly. David Limbaugh has written a devastating book on today’s Democratic Party that depicts them as partisans that are essentially bent on undermining our national interest in the war on terror. And given that record, and a potential change in congressional control, his view — and he argues in this book — is that you’d have a disastrous situation that would tie your hands, the President’s hands, the administration’s hands in the critical prosecution of this war.

Do you agree with that premise, that’s what would happen if the election changes congressional control? And how do we change that tone, change that debate from this awful — the people in the Heartland just do not like the tone in politics today.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m on the receiving end of a lot of that, and so you’d like to see the tone improved a bit, too.

But I think this Q:uestion of national security and how we defend the nation, we made a fundamental choice after 9/11 that we were going to go on offense, that we had to treat this as a war, that 9/11 wasn’t a criminal act or a law enforcement problem, it was a war. And we were going to use all the tools at our command to defend the nation, but also to carry the fight to the enemy. I think it’s worked. I think it’s worked very successfully in terms of our having been able to liberate 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq, take down terrible regimes, successfully defend the nation here at home.

I think the Democrats would have a different approach. The basis for that? Well, I look, for example, at the three critical programs that we’ve had to defend the nation here, the Patriot Act, which Congress supported overwhelmingly when we first passed it, but when it came up for renewal, the Democrats tried to kill it. Harry Reid actually boasted about filibustering to death the Patriot Act. He was wrong. We beat him. But they opposed it.

Then we mention the Terrorist Surveillance Program that lets us intercept international communications, one end of which is related to al Qaeda. That’s been up for a vote in the House. It was opposed by 177 members of the Democratic Party in the House. And then we talked about the interrogation program for high value detainees, again, where an overwhelming majority of Democrats — House and Senate — opposed it.

I think there are fundamental differences. I think the record reveals that. I think the way we maintain the safety and security of the nation and fight the terrorists overseas, instead of here at home is to follow the aggressive policies the President has put in place. I don’t think the Democrats as represented by a majority in the Congress would support that strategy.

Q: Mr. Vice President, always an honor. And lastly, I should again extend my invite as I have many times before. I know you’re fond of pheasant hunting in South Dakota, but there’s some great bird hunting in North Dakota. Is this going to be the year you come up and do a little bird hunting in North Dakota?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t know. I don’t want to tell where I’m going to be going, but I am going to do a little pheasant hunting this year.

Q: All right, we’ll hope — let’s hope just a little bit north, about an hour. I know it’s an important national security secret, so we’ll honor that. Thank you, sir.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right, thank you, Scott, good to see you again.

US-Vize Cheney hält Folter für „selbstverständlich“
The Interrogation Documents:
Rumsfeld: Kriegsverbrechen auf höchster Ebene
Endlich: Rumsfeld in Berlin angezeigt
Vielen Dank Herr Rumsfeld – gehen Sie nun ins Gefängnis?
Background Brief on the case against Rumsfeld, Gonzales and others. Filed in Germany on November 14, 2006
US Army Report on Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners
The CIA’s Pain Project
The Birth of Soft Torture
Klageschrift gegen US-Verteidigungsminister Donald Rumsfeld, den ehemaligen CIA-Direktor George Tenet und andere US-Führungskräfte
US-Militärzeitungen wollen Rumsfelds Rücktritt
650 000 Iraker durch Kriegsfolgen gestorben
It’s worth it Baby!
The Lancet

On June 22, 2004, the White House officially released 14 documents originating from the White House, the Pentagon and the Justice Department concerning the Administration’s interrogation policies.

These records include only one that previously was published by news media sources, and did not include at least 5 additional documents widely reported in the news media and already made available to the public by the news media concerning interrogation policies from the White House, Pentagon, Justice Department and Department of State.

Dec 2, 2002 – Memo from the Department of Defense summarizing approved methods of interrogation, with annotation from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

Still other records are reported to exist or referenced in the already released materials, but have not been made available — either officially or unofficially — to the public. This Electronic Briefing Book includes a comprehensive listing of available records relating to U.S. interrogation policies, including records officially released by the White House and the Department of Defense on June 22, leaked documents that have not been officially released, and a description of 17 records that have not been made available to the public.

In addition, this posting includes the text of a congressional subpoena proposed by Senators Leahy and Feinstein that was defeated on June 17, 2004 by the Senate Judiciary Committee and a copy of the „Taguba Report“ detailing the findings of a Department of Defense investigation into the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq. Read more & get the Files

US-Vize Cheney hält Folter für „selbstverständlich“
The Interrogation Documents:
Rumsfeld: Kriegsverbrechen auf höchster Ebene
Endlich: Rumsfeld in Berlin angezeigt
Vielen Dank Herr Rumsfeld – gehen Sie nun ins Gefängnis?
Background Brief on the case against Rumsfeld, Gonzales and others. Filed in Germany on November 14, 2006
US Army Report on Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners
The CIA’s Pain Project
The Birth of Soft Torture
Klageschrift gegen US-Verteidigungsminister Donald Rumsfeld, den ehemaligen CIA-Direktor George Tenet und andere US-Führungskräfte
US-Militärzeitungen wollen Rumsfelds Rücktritt
650 000 Iraker durch Kriegsfolgen gestorben
It’s worth it Baby!
The Lancet

Stephan Fuchs – In Berlin wurde gegen den Verteidigungsminister Donald Rumsfeld Strafanzeige eingereicht. Kronzeugin ist die Ex-Kommandantin des Foltergefängnis Abu Ghraib. Die Anklageschrift sowie sechs Gutachten von renommierten Rechtswissenschaftlern und Zeugenaussagen sind der Öffentlichkeit bei den Rechtsanwälten Hummel.Kaleck online zugänglich.

Wegen Kriegsverbrechen haben Menschenrechtsorganisationen den ehemaligen US-Verteidigungsminister Donald Rumsfeld bei der Bundesanwaltschaft angezeigt. Die 384 Seiten umfassende Strafanzeige und sechs Sachverständigengutachten sind der Generalbundesanwältin Monika Harms übermittelt worden, erklärte der deutsche Anwalt der Menschenrechtler, Wolfgang Kaleck in Berlin. Kaleck vertritt zwölf Folterüberlebende, ehemalige Insassen der US-Gefängnisse Abu Ghraib und Guantanamo.

Verbrechen auf höchster Ebene

Die Anklage richtet sich nicht nur gegen den „Kriegsfürst“ Rumsfeld, sondern auch gegen die zivilen und militärischen Verantwortlichen die das „System Folter“ im „Krieg gegen den Terror“ ermöglicht haben. Die Strafanzeige richtet sich gegen Justizminister Albert Gonzales, den ehemaligen CIA-Direktor George Tenet, den früheren Kommandeur der US-Truppen im Irak, General Ricardo Sanchez, sowie gegen acht weitere Personen. Ihnen wird vorgeworfen, Kriegsverbrechen entweder angeordnet, unterstützt oder nicht verhindert zu haben.

Bereits 2004 wurde ein Versuch unternommen den Verteidigungsminister auf deutschem Boden Anzuklagen, allerdings wurde der Antrag als unzulässig abgeschmettert. Die Menschenrechtsgruppen- und Anwälte vermuten, dass die Beschwerde von 2004 auch auf Druck der deutschen und der amerikanischen Regierung fallen gelassen worden sei. Diesmal stehen die Karten für die deutschen Anwälte allerdings besser: Jetzt, zwei Jahre und viele Skandal-Aufdeckungen später ist die Zeit reif. Diesmal muss die Bundesregierung Ernst machen mit ihrer Menschenrechtspolitik, forderte Kaleck.

Geplant und auf höchster Ebene durchgeführte Verbrechen
Deutsche Gerichte sind nach Angaben von beteiligten Menschenrechtsgruppen wie dem Center for constitutional rights (CCR), Internationale Liga für Menschenrechte (FIDH) und Republikanischer Anwaltsverein (RAV) die letzte Hoffnung auf ein Verfahren. Die USA haben den Internationalen Strafgerichtshof in Den Haag nicht anerkannt und haben bis heute kein Strafverfahren gegen hohe Verantwortliche eingeleitet, kritisierten die Menschenrechtsgruppen. Deutsche Ermittler jedoch dürften bei Kriegsverbrechen tätig werden, unabhängig davon, an welchem Ort die Taten begangen worden seien. Zudem verliere Rumsfeld nach seiner Abberufung seine Immunität. „Der kürzlich verabschiedete Military Commissions Akt, der zur Amnestierung der mutmaßlichen Kriegsverbrechen führt, ist sicherlich das deutlichste Zeichen des fehlenden Willens zur Strafverfolgung in den USA. Diese Straftaten sind nicht die Fehltritte einiger fauler Äpfel; sie waren geplant und durchgeführt auf der höchsten Ebene der US-Regierung.“ sagte Michael Ratner, Präsident des CCR.

Wichtige Zeugin
Kronzeugin ist Brigadegeneral a. D. Janis Karpinski ehemalige Kommandierende im Bagdader Gefängnis Abu Ghraib, in der irakische Gefangene von US-Soldaten und zivilen Contractors misshandelt wurden. Sie war für die Befragung der Häftlinge nicht verantwortlich gewesen, sagte Karpinski in Berlin, trotzdem ist sie als Kommandantin des Gefängnisses verantwortlich und dementsprechend auch degradiert worden.

Die 53-Jährige kämpft in Deutschland nicht nur für die Wahrheit, sondern auch für ihre Reputation. Der Abu-Ghraib-Skandal hat die damalige Brigadegeneralin tief stürzen lassen. Ein interner Untersuchungsbericht des US-Verteidigungsministeriums unterstellte ihr, sie habe die Soldaten im Skandalgefängnis nicht im Griff gehabt und trage deshalb Mitverantwortung für die Misshandlungen irakischer Gefangener. Auf sie prasselte der Zorn der Hexenjagd, bis sie im vergangenen Jahr offiziell von der Brigadegeneralin zur Oberstin degradiert wurde. Eine Schmach, die sie nicht hinnehmen will.

US-Vize Cheney hält Folter für „selbstverständlich“
The Interrogation Documents:
Rumsfeld: Kriegsverbrechen auf höchster Ebene
Endlich: Rumsfeld in Berlin angezeigt
Vielen Dank Herr Rumsfeld – gehen Sie nun ins Gefängnis?
Background Brief on the case against Rumsfeld, Gonzales and others. Filed in Germany on November 14, 2006
US Army Report on Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners
The CIA’s Pain Project
The Birth of Soft Torture
Klageschrift gegen US-Verteidigungsminister Donald Rumsfeld, den ehemaligen CIA-Direktor George Tenet und andere US-Führungskräfte
US-Militärzeitungen wollen Rumsfelds Rücktritt
650 000 Iraker durch Kriegsfolgen gestorben
It’s worth it Baby!
The Lancet

Executive Summary of the Complaint’s Allegations:
Center for constitutional rights From Donald Rumsfeld on down, the political and military leaders in charge of ordering, allowing and implementing abusive interrogation techniques in the context of the “War on Terror” since September 11, 2001, must be investigated and held accountable. The complaint alleges that American military and civilian high-ranking officials named as defendants in the case have committed war crimes against detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and in the U.S.-controlled Guantánamo Bay prison camp.

Rumsfeld

The complaint alleges that the defendants “ordered” war crimes, “aided or abetted” war crimes, or “failed, as civilian superiors or military commanders, to prevent their commission by subordinates, or to punish their subordinates,” actions that are explicitly criminalized by German law. The U.S. administration has treated hundreds if not thousands of detainees in a coercive manner, in accordance with “harsh interrogation techniques” ordered by Secretary Rumsfeld himself that legally constitute torture and/or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, in blatant violation of the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1984 Convention Against Torture and the 1977 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – to all of which the United States is a party. Under international humanitarian treaty and customary law, and as re-stated in German law, these acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment constitute war crimes.

The U.S. torture program that resulted in war crimes was aided and abetted by the government lawyers also named in this case: former Chief White House Counsel (and current Attorney General) Alberto R. Gonzales, former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, and General Counsel of the Department of Defense William James Haynes, II. While some of them claim to merely have given legal opinions, those opinions were false or clearly erroneous and given in a context where it was known and foreseeable to these lawyers that torture would be the result. Not only was torture foreseeable, but this legal advice was given to facilitate and aid and abet torture as well as to attempt to immunize those who tortured. Without these opinions, the torture program could not have occurred. The infamous “Torture Memo” dated August 1, 2002, is the key document that redefined torture so narrowly that such classic and age old torture techniques as water-boarding were authorized to be employed and were employed by U.S. officials against detainees.

Why Germany?
The complaint is being filed under the Code of Crimes against International Law (CCIL), enacted by Germany in compliance with the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court in 2002, which Germany ratified. The CCIL provides for “universal jurisdiction” for war crimes, crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity. It enables the German Federal Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute crimes constituting a violation of the CCIL, irrespective of the location of the defendant or plaintiff, the place where the crime was carried out, or the nationality of the persons involved.

Major General Geoffrey Miller

No international courts or personal tribunals in Iraq were mandated to conduct investigations and prosecutions of responsible U.S. officials. 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. Furthermore, the U.S. gave immunity to all its personnel in Iraq from Iraqi prosecution. All this added to the United States’ unquestionable refusal to look at the responsibility of those of the very top of the chain of command and named in the present complaint, and the recent passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (see below) aimed at preventing war crimes prosecutions against Americans in the U.S., German courts are seen as a last resort to obtain justice for those victims of abuse and torture while detained by the United States.

The Plaintiffs in the Case:
The complaint is being filed on behalf of 11 Iraqi citizens who were victims of gruesome crimes at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison. They were severely beaten, deprived of sleep and food, sexually abused, stripped naked and hooded, and exposed to extreme temperatures.

Another plaintiff in the case is Mohammed al Qahtani, a Saudi citizen detained at Guantánamo since January 2002. At Guantánamo, Mr. al Qahtani was subjected to a regime of aggressive interrogation techniques, known as the “First Special Interrogation Plan,” that were authorized by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and implemented under the supervision and guidance of Secretary Rumsfeld and the commander of Guantánamo, defendant Major General Geoffrey Miller. These methods included fifty days of severe sleep deprivation and 20-hour interrogations, forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, physical force, prolonged stress positions and prolonged sensory over-stimulation.

None of these plaintiffs – and the hundreds of other detainees subjected to similar abuses – has seen justice, and none of those who authorized these techniques at the top of the chain of command have been held liable for it, or even seriously and independently investigated.

The Defendants in the Case:
The U.S. high-ranking officials charged include:
– Former 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
– Colonel Thomas Pappas
– Former Chief White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales
– Former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee
– Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo
– General Counsel of the Department of Defense William James Haynes, II
– Vice President Chief Counsel David S. Addington

The 2004 Complaint:
In November 2004, the previous German Federal Prosecutor failed to prosecute an earlier complaint against many of these same defendants filed by CCR with the support of FIDH and RAV. The U.S. pressured Germany to drop the case, saying not doing so would jeopardize U.S.-German relations, and the complaint was ultimately dismissed in February 2005 on the eve of a visit by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to Munich, Germany. In dismissing the case, the Prosecutor stated: “there are no indications that the authorities and courts of the United States of America are refraining, or would refrain, from penal measures as regards the violations described in the complaint.” The passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 immunizing officials and others from prosecution and much new evidence shows this is not the case.

The Impact of the Military Commissions Act of 2006:
The Military Commissions Act was signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, and it protects U.S. officials and military personnel by: 1) narrowing the grounds of criminal liability under the War Crimes Act and making those revisions retroactive to November 26, 1997; and by 2) retroactively extending a defense for criminal prosecutions related to detentions and interrogations back to September 11, 2001. These immunizing provisions essentially grant an amnesty for international crimes including war crimes and torture. The retroactivity provision directs that prosecutions of war crimes committed since 1997 will fall under the new narrowed range of standards and interpretations of war crimes, which would protect civilians from being prosecuted for committing acts that would have been considered war crimes under the old definition – thereby explicitly aiming at immunizing American officials and others from prosecution in their country.

How the 2006 Complaint Is a Stronger Case:
The grounds for the 2005 dismissal are no longer justified:
The prosecutor’s original decision to dismiss the case was solely based on the assumption that an ongoing investigation was being carried out in the U.S. regarding the Abu Ghraib scandal. We now have extensive evidence that demonstrates that this investigation was directed only towards the criminal culpability of the lowest ranking military personnel. Indeed, some of these very defendants have been or are being rewarded with higher-level appointments and medals. The investigative and prosecutorial functions in the United States are currently directly controlled by the ones involved in the conspiracy to perpetrate war crimes and named in this complaint, which politically blocks possible investigations and criminal prosecutions. Furthermore, the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is unquestionably the clearest illustration of such unwillingness to prosecute Americans for war crimes.

New evidence:
Extraordinary new materials, documentation and testimonies that have come to light over the past two years – about what the plaintiffs went through (Mr. al Qahtani is a new plaintiff to the case), about the signed memos that led to the justification and practice of torture, and about the defendants’ personal involvement – only strengthen the case.

In addition, former U.S. Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, a defendant in the earlier complaint as the commanding officer at Abu Ghraib, is now providing testimony and will testify on behalf of the plaintiffs.

New additional defendants:
The new complaint charges the government lawyers alleged to be the legal architects of the Bush Administration’s practice of torture.

Rumsfeld can no longer claim sovereign immunity:
Rumsfeld’s resignation on November 8, 2006, means that he cannot claim either the functional or personal immunity of sovereign officials from international prosecution for war crimes. Functional immunity – related to acts performed in the exercise of a person’s official functions – does not, since the Nuremberg trials in 1945, apply to international crimes such as war crimes. As to personal immunity – covering officials’ private acts accomplished while in office – it only applies during the individual’s term of office.

Unprecedented support for the case:
When filing a complaint to the Federal Prosecutor, any group may join the complaint as a “co-plaintiff,” which demonstrates the support of these groups and their common request for the opening of an investigation. Co-plaintiffs in the present case include:

Individuals
1980 Nobel Peace Prize winner Aldolfo Perez Esquirel (Argentine),
2002 Nobel Peace Prize winner Martín Almada (Paraguay),
Theo van Boven, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture,
Sister Dianna Ortiz, (Torture survivor, Executive Director of TASSC)

International and Regional NGOs
FIDH: International Federation for Human Rights
The International Peace Bureau (Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1910)
International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA)
European Democratic Lawyers
European Democratic Jurists,
International Association of Democratic Lawyers

National NGOs
Argentina: Comité de Acción Jurídica (CAJ)
Argentina: Liga Argentina por los Derechos del Hombre
Bahrain: Bahrain Human Rights Society (BHRS)
Canada: Lawyers against the War (LAW)
Colombia: Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo
Democratic Republic of Congo: Association Africaine des Droits de l’Homme (ASADHO)
Egypt: Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (EOHR)
France: Ligue Française des Droits de l’Homme (LDH)
Germany: The Republican Attorneys‘ Association (RAV)
Jordan: Amman Center for Human Rights Studies (ACHR)
Mexico: Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos (CMDPDH)
Mexico: Liga Mexicana por la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (LIMEDDH)
Nicaragua: Centro Nicaraguense de Derechos Humanos (CENIDH)
Palestine: Palestinian Center for Human Rights
Tchad: Association Tchadienne pour la Promotion et la Défense des Droits de l’Homme (ATPDH)
Senegal: Rencontre Africaine pour la Défense des Droits de l’Homme (RADDHO)
USA: The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)
USA: National Lawyers’ Guild (NLG)
USA: Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition International (TASSC)
USA: Veterans for Peace

Centerforconstitutionalrights
Endlich: Rumsfeld in Karlsruhe angezeigt
Vielen Dank Herr Rumsfeld – gehen Sie nun ins Gefängnis?
US Army Report on Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners
The CIA’s Pain Project