Two points about the French Rumsfeld torture case: Attach his assets. A Brig. Gen. will testify.

[HamdenRice]

These points have been made in passing in several of the threads about the developing French case against Donald Rumsfeld for torture under the international Convention Against Torture, but I thought they needed to be highlighted in their own thread, as they were in the reporting by the French newspaper, Le Monde.

There seem to be opposing views here on DU about whether and what Rumsfeld "fled." Rumsfeld was not on the brink of being detained. But neither was this a trivial stunt by human rights organizations.

I think a more likely interpretation of what happened than him fleeing "detention," is that in general he will certainly be trying to avoid "service of process," which could postpone some financially catastrophic consequences for the former Defense Secretary.

This kind of case is exceptionally complicated. It involves private citizens asking the authorities to begin a case. Think of a private person, say a victim of rape, going to the police to ask that a criminal case be started. That is the position Rumsfeld is in, and France and other signatories of the International Convention Against Torture, take this very seriously. Moreover, according to Le Monde, the complaint included an affadavit by a former U.S. Brigadaire General supporting the case against Rumsfeld. That's serious evidence from within the U.S. armed forces, which means that France's independent prosecutor and judiciary has every reason to proceed:

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3210,36-971351@51-971276,0.html

"Deux témoignages emblématiques sont cités : celui d'un ancien détenu de Guantanamo, Mohamed Al-Qahtani, qui fut exposé à des sévices que M. Rumsfeld avait personnellement autorisés dans une note datée du 2 décembre 2002; et celui de l'ancien commandant d'Abou Ghraib, l'Américaine Janis Karpinski, qui s'est dit "prête à témoigner contre Donald Rumsfeld dans le cadre d'une enquête criminelle française"."

"Two emblamatic witnesses are cited: one, the former detainee at Guantanamo, Mohamed Al-Qahtani, who was exposed to service that Mr. Rumsefeld had personally authorized in a note dated December 2, 2002; and one from the former commandant of Abu Ghraib, the American Janis Karpiski <she was a Brigadaire General--HR> who is said to be "ready to testify against Donald Rumsfeld as part of a French criminal investigation."

Moreover, many seem to be overlooking the variety of expensive and life disrupting sanctions, beyond detention, that are threatened against Rumsfeld:

"La plainte a été déposée auprès du procureur du Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, Jacques Marin, et elle s'assortit d'une demande de "détention" de M.Rumsfeld, ou de mesures assurant "sa présence sur le territoire" français."

"The complaint has been filed with the prosecutor of the court of first instance of Paris, Jacques Marin, and it involves a request for detention of Mr. Rumsveld or measures assuring 'his presence on the territory' of France."

<end quote>

Keep in mind that Rumsfeld is an http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807EEDA103FF93AA15752C0A9679C8B63">extremely, extremely rich man with investments worth between $50 million and $200 million all over the world -- no doubt with investments and assets in Europe (to hedge against the collapsing dollar, perhaps?) or any of the 74 countries signatory to the Convention Against Torture, including the United States. Conventionally, legal measures intended "to assure a person's presence" for an investigation include attaching, or placing security interests and other stringent restrictions on, assets. Even if Rumsfeld cannot be detained, his assets can be attached in France or in any country (virtrually every European country) that is a signatory to the Convention Against Torture, that responds to a French court's request to attach his assets. In fact, in this incredibly complex problem of international jurisdiction, financial treaty law, mutual enforcement of judgements, and conflict of laws, it is possible that his assets in the U.S. might not be safe.

At best, Rumsfeld looks forward for the next several years spending millions of dollars on legal fees and much of his time huddled with lawyers and bankers trying to protect, hide or retrieve his assets abroad.

[0007]

1. Transport Rumsfeld to Syria. Hooded and with a Muslin name.

[tekisui]

2. This is the best news in a while.

The first steps in ensuring that miserable war criminal rots his days away. I heard someone mention he may have a serious disease?

[RC]

13. Serous disease?

He's a criminal neo-con. I would say that is serous. That's how he got his fortune

[acmavm]

3. I'd be impressed but then I stop and think that being an international

pariah and war criminal hasn't inconvenienced Henry Kissinger all that much.

[Junkdrawer]

4. K&R

[WGS]

6. This is going

nowhere.....

[Junkdrawer]

8. It's the least we can do for such a nice man...

tie up his sunset years in court....

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Yep. The French prosecuters have to follow up on this complaint.

Will they? Doubt it.

[peacebird]

5. I wonder if this was one of his "known unknowns" or one of his "unknown unknowns"

:rofl:
Seriously tho - I just hope that his life becomes as miserable as the lives of all the innocents he had tortured. :grr:

[HamdenRice]

9. ...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

It was an unknown unknown, but it "got known," so now it's an known unknown.

Till they attach his stuff, then it will be a known known.

[peacebird]

11. LOL!

[jimshoes]

17. At which point he will be "pwn3d"

I think that means "owned" in gamer parlance.

[mmonk]

42. That is unknown.

[MADem]

7. I wouldn't get your hopes up, frankly.

They raked Karpinski over the coals, and managed to aver that she failed in her duty at AG, and that's part of the reason why there were so many problems there. She was placed in an impossible position, but she played a useful role--that of a patsy, if need be. They probably would have been better off screwing over a guy--it still gets way too much attention when you stick it to a female in the way that they did. Also, I believe she's not a BGEN anymore, they busted her to 0-6, I thought.

How many assets do we suppose Rumsfeld has in France, or Europe? I'm sure he's shielded his goods. If he hasn't already, he's probably doing that now.

What might be limited is his ability to travel (however, if he travels as an envoy, so designated by the President, even with a bullshit excuse, he has diplomatic immunity--so that's probably how he'll do it from now until JAN 09). Beyond that, I don't know.

I also don't think he'll spend ANY money on lawyers--see, he was acting as an agent of the US government when he gave those orders.

Friends and neighbors, open your wallets--if there are any lawyers to be paid, we taxpayers will be paying for them.

Ka-ching, ka-ching.

[HamdenRice]

10. A few points

Karpinski -- The fact that she was demoted and smeared does not affect her credibility with a French court. They don't have to prove their case, but simply decide whether there is enough evidence to open an investigation. They can start attaching assets long before the trial to compel his presence.

As for immunity, arguably he has none. If he tortured people, and violated the International Convention Against Torture, which was already in effect, then he acted ultra vires (beyond his powers and illegally). That's the whole point of the International Convention Against Torture.

[MADem]

12. At some point, Karpinski's credibility becomes germane. And if Rummy perceived ANY risk

to his assets, they'd be walled off ALREADY, today. He wouldn't be waiting for someone to come after him. He may be a snake, but he's by no means dumb.

Finally, in order to prove he acted utra vires, you first have to try him and obtain a conviction.

In the interim, OPEN that wallet--because in the US, there's a presumption of innocence, and the US taxpayers would pay for his defense team, should it ever come to that.

[HamdenRice]

15. Wrong

"Finally, in order to prove he acted utra vires, you first have to try him and obtain a conviction."

That's the point you seem not to understand. The court attaches assets to ensure participation in the proceedings, not as punishment. They don't have to obtain a conviction; they have to decide there is sufficient evidence to start an investigation. If there is sufficient evidence to proceed, and the defendant will not appear, then his assets can be attached to compel his cooperation.

As for his assets being already hidden, did you read the cited NY Times article? The whole point of it was that it was exceptionally difficult, expensive and time consuming for Rumsfeld to "unwind" various kinds of international investments he had. Rumsfeld now knows that his investments are at risk. Good luck to him getting out of whatever attachable investment positions he has in Europe in the next 6 months before they or the proceeds are attached.

As for Karpinski, the point isn't her rank now. It's what she was in a position to know when she was a Brigadaire General. A Brigadaire General at the time of the crime who was demoted to colonel is a much more valuable and credible witness than a colonel at the time of the crime who was promoted to general.

And no, his defense will not be paid for by the U.S. Why do you think Clinton had fundraisers for a legal defense fund when he was impeached? Why is Gonzoles "lawyering up" rather than relying on the Justice Department? Why has every Washington D.C. figure who was accused of wrong doing had to spend his or her own money extravagantly for representation?

[MADem]

18. No, not wrong. Not wrong at all.

Did I not say that he will shield his assets? You can't attach what isn't there, after all. All he's got to do is kite his shit over to his kids or his wife, put a wall around it, and he's home free.

Clinton's case was ENTIRELY different. You err in even trying to make a case using that argument. When Clinton was fiddling around, he wasn't acting as an agent of the US government--in fact, he wasn't even PRESIDENT at the time of that Paula Jones business. And THAT's what he needed the money for. That, and Whitewater, which also happened before he was President. The Lewinsky shit, that resulted in the impeachment, was the end of a long, long line of horseshit that Starr was throwing against the wall, desperate to see if anything would stick. Now, if Rummy had started a "Tortures R Us" franchise before he assumed the position as SECDEF, you might have a point.

You are also missing the point that this is a FOREIGN government coming after an official in our government. It's not the same as Gonzo--he's in trouble because he might be charged by our government with misconduct, and they've got people in government pointing the finger at him. It's a different situation, there, entirely.

Rumsfeld, and other government officials, get sued EVERY DAY. That's why the Pentagon, State, and other agencies have lawyers on staff--to deal with those lawsuits.

This isn't the first time someone's tried to go after Rummy, either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld

On March 1, 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First filed a lawsuit against Rumsfeld in a federal court in Illinois on behalf of eight detainees who they say were subjected to torture and abuse by U.S. forces.

The suit charged Rumsfeld with violations of the U.S. Constitution and international law prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment. The lawsuit also seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the eight men allegedly tortured and abused by U.S. military forces after being captured in Iraq and Afghanistan.<59>

On March 27, 2007, a federal judge dropped the charges against Rumsfeld citing the legal precedent that U.S. Government officials cannot be held personally responsible for actions committed while in office.<60>

There's also a jurisdictional argument, that has been upheld previous to this case in a European court:

On 14 November 2006, human rights advocates Wolfgang Kaleck, and the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights brought charges at the German Federal Attorney General (Generalbundesanwalt) against Rumsfeld, former CIA Director George Tenet, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez and a number of other high U.S. officials by invoking command responsibility for their involvement in human rights violations in Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay....

The German prosecutor ultimately decided against launching an investigation into Rumsfeld, and Kaleck is now seeking to file war crimes charges in Spain.<64> A similar charge brought by Kaleck, Ratner and Weiss in 2004 had been rejected by German Federal Public Prosecutor Kay Nehm with the explanation that criminal prosecution in the nations of the accused and the victims should be given priority.<65><63>

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/27/iraq.torturesuit/index.html
"Despite the horrifying torture allegations," wrote U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan in a 58-page opinion, "the plaintiffs lack standing to pursue a declaratory judgment against the defendants."...Hogan said there was nothing in federal case law that would allow officials such as Rumsfeld to be held personally liable for actions related to their government service.....Rumsfeld, who was defense secretary until resigning last December, was sued along with three former military officers: Col. Janis Karpinski, who ran the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad; Col. Thomas Pappas, the highest-ranking military intelligence officer at the facility; and Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq....Hogan rejected the arguments on a number of legal grounds, including the fact that liability in such lawsuits would hamper the military's ongoing war on terror.

"The court cautions against the myopic approach advocated by the plaintiffs," wrote the judge, "which essentially frames the issue as whether torture is universally prohibited and thereby warrants a judicially created remedy under the circumstances.

"There is no getting around the fact that authorizing monetary damages against military officials engaged in an active war would invite enemies to use our own federal courts to obstruct the armed forces' ability to act decisively and without hesitation in defense of our liberty and national interests."

Hogan also noted that foreigners seeking legal redress in U.S. courts are limited in asserting violations of constitutional rights afforded U.S. citizens.

Legal precedent generally protects individual federal officials from these kinds of lawsuits.

Here's the details of the failed German charges, which sound an awful lot like these French ones: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html

[HamdenRice]

21. You don't seem to understand international law or pre-trial process at all

Everything you've written actually strengthens the argument that Rumsfeld can be held accountable in a French court.

The German case was not pursued because of a principle of international human rights law -- namely, that the country where the offense took place (the U.S.) has priority in prosecuting the case. So the German court basically said, maybe the U.S. will prosecute Rumsfeld, so right now, we won't. Note, they did not say they don't have jurisdiction, nor did they say the offense did not take place. As you wrote the German prosecutor's explanation was that "criminal prosecution in the nations of the accused and the victims should be given priority." It didn't say the German court could not go after Rumsfeld or did not have jurisdiction.

If the nation of the accused fails or refuses to prosecute then universal jurisdiction kicks in. That's why Slobodan Milosevic was tried at the Hague -- because Serbia wouldn't prosecute him. That's why Hissan Habre was tried in Europe and not Chad. That's why Charles Taylor was tried in Europe and not Liberia. When Serbia proved unwilling and Chad and Liberia unable, to prosecute, other countries and international tribunals asserted jurisdiction.

The fact that federal courts have decline to prosecute Rumsfeld means that now U.S. courts have shown the U.S. is unwilling to prosecute, so now any signatory of the International Convention Against Torture can do so and is more likely to do so.

You also keep making the same mistake over and over -- namely thinking that his assets will only be attached if convicted. No. Assets are attached in lawsuits all the time pending the outcome of the case. Le Monde says that the French court can take other measures to ensure his presence on French territory, not "if he is convicted."

You also don't understand "ultra vires." A Defense Secretary can't be sued for ordering an airstrike in Baghdad. But he can be sued for getting drunk while sitting in his Pentagon office and shooting someone who insulted his wife. He can't claim that he shot the victim as part of his duties as Secretary of Defense.

Remember the civil rights cases? Southern sherrifs murdered civil right workers. They claimed to have done so as part of their law enforcement duties. Well, killing civil rights workers was not part of their law enforcement duties. They could be sued despite sovereign immunity and they had to arrange their own defense.

Torture is, by international treaty to which the United States is a signatory, always ultra vires. That's why European courts can go after him. That's how they got Pinochet, Milosevic, Taylor and Habre.

[RainDog]

22. Thank you for these posts!

These explanations of the possible course give me hope that these torturers could be brought to trial. I wonder if this has gotten any play on teevee news? I'm sure there will be lots of pressure from the Pentagon (as there was in the German cases, I read) to dismiss the charges.

wish I could recommend the thread more than once.

[HamdenRice]

23. You're welcome! And one more word about the kind of assets he has

The New York Times article I cited explained the kind of assets Rumsfeld had when he first became Defense Secretary and the trouble he had unwinding them.

To be more specific, let me give you some examples of how difficult it is for wealthy people to protect or unwind or hide assets.

People like Rumsfeld do not have cash in the bank or mutual funds or even just stock portfolios like middle class and upper middle class people. These high net worth individuals have complex, often direct, investments that are nearly impossible to unwind.

For example, if you are a limited partner in a power plant in Slovenia, you can't just sell your limited partnership. Almost all these big direct investments require you to sell only to other limited partners. The other limited partners might not want to buy or be able to buy -- especially if a French court is in the background threatening to attach the asset. No one wants to buy a lawsuit.

Another investment of the very wealthy is participation in a hedge fund or a venture capital fund. But these investments strictly require you to leave your money in them for the duration of a certain term. Moreover, the market for such investments is extremely thin because there just aren't that many people who can afford to buy into them.

Moreover, wealthy people invest in "unregistered securities" -- that is, stocks and bonds that have not been registered with the SEC and therefore cannot be sold on the stock markets, and can only be sold to other wealthy investors using exceptionally expensive and time consuming processes, such as "private placements."

The Times article said that going into the Bush administration, Rumsfeld had direct investments and limited partnership investments:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807EEDA103FF93AA15752C0A9679C8B63

Nearly half of Mr. Rumsfeld's assets -- $22 million to $99 million -- are tied up in limited partnerships, including venture capital funds that invest in the health care, energy, Internet and biotechnology fields, both in the United States and in Asia, a review of the form showed.

...

The partnerships could prove particularly difficult to walk away from without a loss. Such partnerships typically require investors to make 5- to 10-year commitments and often impose penalties for early withdrawal. Mr. Rumsfeld invested in many of those funds in the last few years, suggesting that he gave little thought to the possibility of returning to government service.

<end quote>

Even if he could get out of these investments, the Times noted, he would lose millions of dollars. So just the threat of the French proceeding and his attempt to unwind or hide assets, could, hopefully, cause Rumsfeld severe financial loss.

[MADem]

28. Here's how you do it: You sign everything over to your WIFE and KIDS.

He doesn't have ANY of those assets, in that form, now. That was seven years ago. And anything he's retained is structured so that it isn't "his"--it belongs to a corporation, and he's twice removed, an employee of the corporation, who gets a paycheck.

You're dreaming if you think he'll be touched. He might as well go to court and change his name to Scott Free, because that's how he's getting off.

[HamdenRice]

29. You're kidding right?

First of all, you can't just assign a limited partnership interest to your "wife and kids." 1. The LP agreement doesn't allow it. 2. The gift tax consequences could be catastrophic. 3. Any court that wanted to attach those assets would set aside the transfer as a "fraudulent transfer."

That's just not how things work.

Oddly, rich people and corporations don't actually want other rich people and corporations to be able to hide assets. If the government can't get your stuff, neither can your creditors (other rich greedy people).

That's not how the system works.

[MADem]

30. What LP agreement? You're his tax accountant, now? Please.

Why do you assume that he hasn't done this already, over time? Why do you assume that his assets are structured in such a way that they can be gotten to so easily? You think a guy with that much dough is STUPID? That he can't find a way to trade something for something else on paper, to shelter his assets? Apparently you do. And you also apparently think his dough is in FRANCE, based on a financial declaration that's almost a decade old.

You're doing a lot of iffin'/wishin' and hopin'. You want this so badly that you're suspending judgment. And then, getting annoyed with me when I point out the great big holes in your assertions. I'm not doing this to be a 'meanie,' I simply live in the real world. See, no matter how much you say it, that IS how things work.

As for hiding assets, moving money around, playing shell games, and engaging in financial shenanigans, I invite your attention to a failed oilman and an outfit named Harken Oil. The SEC sure punished that feller, didn't they?

Oh, wait...they didn't.

Or how about his "deddy?" That feller gave a few speeches, and ended up with a shitload of stock that quickly gained value until it was worth a king's ransom! It was MAGICAL, it was!!

But unfortunately, magical French courts, or German courts either, aren't gonna punish Rummy, because--and the UN said so, already, with those convention provisos I noted--he hasn't violated any law. BushCo made sure of that before they ratified the convention.

These guys may be idiots when it comes to prosecuting a war, but they're not stupid when it comes to covering their own asses. That's why these European courts are flicking these filings aside.

[HamdenRice]

36. Jesus Christ, can't you read?????

The NY Times article said much of his worth was structured as LP investments. Why do you think the NY Times would lie about such matters? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that they are wrong? Have you ever drafted or read an LP agreement? Do you have any clue what you are talking about?

Moreover, after working almost a decade in the financial sector of NY, I can attest that rich people make investments in hedge and venture capital funds (which the NY Times said is a big portion of his portfolio) through LPs, as well as unregistered securities. Many investments by wealthy people of the type described by the NY Times are not liquid, which are not liquid or transferable. You can't just hide an investment in an Indonesian health insurance company or a Taiwanese medical instrument maker. Sorry, but you just don't know what you are talking about at all.

You need to take up your disagreement with the NY Times, not me. But as between the NY Times and you, I have to tell you, they have much more credibility as to how Rumsfeld's worth is structured.

The other thing that just can't seem to sink in with you is what is meant by a French court's attaching assets. It doesn't mean that he has assets in France. It means that a French court issues an order and asks courts in other jurisdictions where Rumsfeld has property to enforce the order. Virtually every Western European and American federal court will enforce an order by a French court having to do with attachments of property over property over which they have jurisdiction.

I don't know why I'm arguing with someone who has no clue what she is talking about.

[MADem]

37. Yeah--SEVEN or EIGHT YEARS AGO. You never update your portfolio?

You never shuffle your investments? Gee, stuck with that damned buggy whip stock--can't dump it. Darn! Funny how Fristie had no problem divesting when he wanted to...

You can unload pretty much ANYTHING. To suggest otherwise just isn't accurate.

And you actually think that the French would get ANY result if they ask the US to "attach his assets?" What are you smoking? You might try reading some of the links I provided.

Such a request would be promptly returned without any action whatsoever, because courts in the US have ALREADY RULED that Rumsfeld was acting within the scope of his official responsibilities.

Finally, why do you think the European courts have been knocking this shit down? Because it AIN'T gonna fly, is why.

But hey, keep dreaming. Look me up when the French court attaches those assets--I'll eat a big plate of crow if it happens.

But I'm pretty confident the taste of crow will forever remain a mystery to me in this regard.

[HamdenRice]

39. Wow, you really don't know anything about this, do you?

The point is -- for the what tenth time? -- that wealthy people in general use investment vehicles that are non-liquid. That's the fun of being super rich: the SEC registered security rules don't apply to you so you can invest in high return investments like venture capital funds and hedge funds. You have heard of these, right? You do know what they are, right? The draw back is that they are not liquid. He has different investments now, but as a "high net worth" investor, he would still be using the same kind of vehicles, like most other rich people, and as his investment history shows is his pattern.

Do you know anything whatsoever about how courts enforce judgements of other courts? If not, you really should not try to make stuff up on the fly.

Here's an example that maybe you can understand: A rich jet setting couple gets a divorce in France that includes a property settlement. They have property in New York. How is that property divided? (Hint: the New York court enforces the French court's divorce judgment; it does not relitigate the divorce.)

[MADem]

40. I might say the same to you. You keep insisting that the Europeans are gonna touch

this with a ten foot pole, when they aren't. The UN has paved the way for BushCo and cronies to escape unscathed.

And unless you're managing Rummy's portfolio, I'd say you're making more than a few "ass" umptions. You keep getting snarky, but all you're doing is making wiseass comments without backing them up with anything. You have absolutely no PROOF of where his money is now, and relying on an almost decades-old report is hardly conclusive. People divest and restructure all the time--ask Ken Lay's ghost. Ask Bill Frist. Ask Grandma who puts her ten million dollar house and assets in an irrevocable trust for her grandkids. Ask Leona Helmsly's lawyers, or her well-fed pooch.

A rich jet setting couple wouldn't GET a divorce in France, unless the divorce laws there benefitted the one seeking the dissolution. Odds are, the one looking for a payday would head to NY, where the goods are, if that were a community property state. Go where the money IS, not where you think you just might do well in court--because oft as not, that's down to the lawyers.

So that's a goofy example.

Ya know, I DO know how courts "enforce"--in Europe, they tell people seeking a judgment against Rummy to "GET LOST" because they don't have, or care to exercise, jurisdiction.

I seem to recall that a certain mother with a missing kid in Aruba tried to get an Aruban court to enforce a US court's judgment against a certain young man and his family that she thinks offed her child. That didn't work out too well for her, now, did it. WHAT? How COULD that beeeee??? The Aruban court, per your simplistic vision of the world, shouldn't have 'relitigated' now, should they have?

:eyes:

But hey, whatever. Keep carping. Time will tell. I wouldn't put two bucks on your scenario. BushCo, as I said, may be evil, but they aren't stupid.

[HamdenRice]

35. delete - wrong place

[MADem]

27. Two points YOU seem to overlook

You can't attach assets he DOES NOT POSSESS. Let me put that another way--if he doesn't have any "stuff" in France, they can't TAKE it.

I've only said this twice already. If anyone seems to have comprehension difficulties, it sure isn't me.

And I do understand ultra vires--you keep tossing all sorts of arguments around, trying to make them stick, while your goalposts dance all over the field. Weren't you the one who tried to use Clinton's extra-office dalliances as an example upthread, and I had to point out how your example didn't apply? Rumsfeld isn't shooting someone's wife, here, he's issuing an order in his capacity as SECDEF. A legal order, too--the UN Convention says so, and so do all those European nations where these cases are being dismissed.

See, there's another little difficulty you seem to be ignoring in your zeal to wave international law about. We didn't ratify that Convention quite the way you keep insisting that we did. In fact, none of the signing nations did.

We built in a trap door, so we can get out of it any time we say so:

The European Convention on Human Rights (signed by the participating member states of the Council of Europe) recognized that the use of the five techniques of sensory deprivation and even the beatings of prisoners are not torture. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights it was ruled makes such actions the lesser offense of "inhuman or degrading treatment"<2>. The European Court of Human Rights ruling that sensory deprivations and beatings do not rise to the level of torture is the present relevant law in Europe.<3>

Since 2004, the Convention has received new attention in the world press because of the stress and duress interrogation techniques used on detainees by United States military personnel, most notably at the Abu Ghraib prison and Bagram prison. The United States ratified the Convention, but lodged a declaration that "... nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."<4> The reason for this is that the United States Government lacks constitutional authority to enter into any treaty that violates any civil rights or other provisions within the Constitution of the United States.<5> Torture is illegal within the United States and is illegal if practised by American military personnel anywhere at any time.<6><7>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

I suggest you wrap your head around these facts before you erroneously continue to suggest that I don't "get it." See, I DO get it. The US government has made damned sure that their officials won't be touched, and the rest of the crowd, to include those Europeans you hang your hopes on, WENT ALONG WITH IT.

[L. Coyote]

14. K & R #5

[L. Coyote]

16. Asset movements should be tracked in relation to laws and where they are secure from attachment, and

this should be done with everyone involved in the war crimes and torture chain of command. It might reveal strategizing for eventualities like this.

[Disturbed]

19. Maybe this negative publicity will lead to Stanford U. declining

Rumsfaild's visiting lecturer status.

[MADem]

20. HIGHLY unlikely. This isn't the first lawsuit, first of all, and the others have FAILED

due to jurisdictional and other issues. To say nothing of the fact that the US hasn't signed on to many of those pesky human rights treaties over there in Europe--too much of a hamstringer, so says BushCo.

Plus, it's an 'inside job'--he's In Like Flynn with those guys at Hoover--he's one of the boyz:
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/september12/rumsfeld-091207.html

"I have asked Don to join the distinguished group of scholars that will pursue new insights on the direction of thinking that the United States might consider going forward," institution Director John Raisian said in a statement.

Raisian noted that Rumsfeld has been involved with the institution since 1989 and has served as a member of its Board of Overseers and as a member of the board's executive committee.

[HamdenRice]

24. 1. The lawsuits have not failed. 2. The U.S. has ratified the Convention against Torture

1. As I tried to explain upthread, Germany declined to prosecute on the grounds that it would wait to see of the U.S. would prosecute. It hasn't failed; it just hasn't gone forward.

2. While the U.S. has failed to adopt some human rights treaties, the U.S. has ratified the international "Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment." Article 6 states:

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

"Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present, shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted."

<end quote>

In other words, the U.S. has agreed that if France makes an "examination of information" and decides that a person alleged to have committed or ordered torture (Rumsfeld) is in their "territory," that State Party (France) can take him into custody or take other legal measures under French law to prosecute him criminally or extradite him.

[MADem]

26. That isn't what the German judge said, though.

He said it would be more appropriate for the lawsuit to be brought in either the country in question, the US, or the country of the victim. Legal speak for GET LOST.

And as for that Convention you cite, we signed it all right--with express RESERVATIONS that deal with this situation, specifically:

Since 2004, the Convention has received new attention in the world press because of the stress and duress interrogation techniques used on detainees by United States military personnel, most notably at the Abu Ghraib prison and Bagram prison. The United States ratified the Convention, but lodged a declaration that "... nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."<4> The reason for this is that the United States Government lacks constitutional authority to enter into any treaty that violates any civil rights or other provisions within the Constitution of the United States.<5> Torture is illegal within the United States and is illegal if practised by American military personnel anywhere at any time.<6><7>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

See, we don't torture, because we SAY we don't torture. The government maintains that stress/duress isn't torture. We've not moved an inch on that--that's their story, and they're stickin' to it.

Like I said at the outset, don't get your hopes up.

[RainDog]

34. This is one of the most important issues

Because the Bush admin. has said torture isn't torture, those nations need to call the U.S. to account if our own legislative and judicial branch will not. Americans were part of that filing. They are using whatever outlets they have to try to make BushCo accountable for their actions.

I agree that getting a trial, etc. seems totally unlikely now. but things change. Pincochet was finally called to acct. (too late, I acknowledge) -- Spain and GB held him accountable. His hidden accts were found too (at least some of them) and one of them, no surprise, was Riggs Bank, with Uncle Jonathan Bush on board. If nothing else, Americans should be screaming because Blackwater employs mercenaries aligned with crimes against humanity.

If I understand the quote above, the conventions are recognized as treaties? How could a trial for what most everyone in the world defines as torture be a violation of civil rights?? btw, it's not just torture and how the conventions have defined them. it's also the pictures of women and children being raped. The court could subpoena any member of congress to testify about the nature of those pictures because they've seen them. Last time I checked, rape wasn't okay by any american standard.

Chaplain Yee was put in prison and threatened with treason charges when he requested better conditions for the prisoners in gitmo. The way in which they are held is also a violation of our signed treaties... nuremberg, for instance.

Maher Arar, the guy who was just making a plane connection in NYC, then kidnapped by this govt. can definitely testify that this nation tortures others and sends them to third parties for torture.

Also the military guy who first brought the Abu Ghraib pictures to light. He could also testify about how he was treated after the issue was made public. There are former members of the Bush administration who have knowledge of torture of John Lind, for instance.

Maybe if Congress sees other western nations are holding our govt to account for their actions they'll actually do something to stop this administration themselves....because they are complicit in many ways now, repub or dem. I'd especially like to have some of those republicans who have backed Bush on every action to have to testify about their complicity.

Fascists will of course seek revenge on those who have brought their crimes to light. what else is new?

[MADem]

41. I don't suggest at all that the USGov are saints.

But the trick is proving it. Where are these pictures? The only ones that we've seen suggest humiliation and stress--but again, look at the cite--that ain't "torture" per the definition that everyone has agreed on, conveniently.

And as for the people that committed those acts of humiliation and stress, why, they've been tried and convicted. It's a long road to suggest that Donny Rumsfeld called up Lindy England and others and gave anyone specific directives. The "bad actor" defense is a winner for Rummy, assuming that the "Official Capacity" excuse doesn't stand (and I see no reason why it wouldn't).

And as for other evidence, photographic, video, and so forth--try getting a hold of it. It's classified and locked away. IF it still exists.

John Walker Lindh is locked away doing 20, and he SIGNED A STATEMENT saying he wasn't tortured. So forget about that.

Rendition can be explained away with a "Gee, we didn't KNOW, and we didn't AUTHORIZE" argument. Oh, those pesky 'bad actors!!'

Yee managed to get off, but see, he was a lousy guy to blow the whistle, because he wasn't "Caesar's Wife" material--someone who was clean as a hound's tooth. He was screwing around on his rather religious (and ooooooh, SYRIAN!!!!) wife with a servicewoman assigned to Gitmo, and he did the old "mishandle the classified material" thing that way too many staff corps do, plus he had porn on his gubmint computer. Tsk tsk. They get stuff like that on someone, and they manage to OBFUSCATE. Sure, Yee spoke the truth, but his truth was diminished because he wasn't Arnie Army, the Best, Most Squared Away Soldier in the Whole Damned Military.

They've covered their tracks. No one likes to hear it, but they have. They've covered them here, and they've covered them in the International Tribunals, via the UN.

Bush is a lame duck. Every day, his power diminishes. I wish he'd just get his ass to Crawford and let the gubmint run itself, badly, like it has been doing since he staggered into the White House.

I count the days until JAN 09. But I don't, for a second, think that these "To the Hague!!!" exhortations will EVER bear fruit.

[DemoTex]

31. Swiss pharma giant Roche => Gilead => Tamiflu => Rummy's $$$

Rummy was CEO of Gilead Sciences before joining the Bu$h cabinet. Roche markets Gilead's drug Tamiflu. Rummy (and former GOP Sec of State George Shultz) has made millions from Tamiflu sales, boosted by US government hype about bird flu.

That might be a starting point for any French search for Rummy's European assets.

[lovuian]

32. I feel that justice must prevail

and the people of Europe know whats going on

[catmandu57]

33. I wonder how much of the missing nine billion

found it's way into rummy's hands, if he even got a portion of it which I suspect every top player did, he'd be laughing at the idea of asset seizure. We would take his millions while he sits on hundreds of millions if not billions.

[wildbilln864]

38. Damn! Too late to recommend, but here's a kick! n/t