Skip to content

Prosecution of Secretary Rumsfeld in Germany? (UPDATE)

According to Time Magazine, "new legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." The plaintiffs include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners in Abu Ghraib. They have chosen Germany for the court filing because
German law provides "universal jurisdiction" allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a "a big, big problem." U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint. (...)
"The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer," says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001.
The Time Magazine article is currently the most often quoted news story at Technorati and already widely emailed around. To avoid misunderstandings: The plaintiffs are Iraqis, not Germans. The plaintiffs are supported by an American NGO, not a German NGO. The Center for Constitutional Rights provides a "background brief of the case against Donald Rumsfeld" and mentions the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Republican Attorneys' Association (RAV) as their supporters. They want to have a criminal investigation in Germany, but it is doubtful whether they will get one. Although Rumsfeld is unlikely to be prosecuted in Germany, such news stories are the reason for the Bush administration's strong opposition to the International Criminal Court (ICC) "on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials", although the ICC -- as well as "universal jurisdiction" laws in a couple of European countries -- are intended for war criminals in Darfur, Congo, Uganda etc.


UPDATE:
Some very popular American online publication are incapable to understand the Time Magazine article and go ballistic on Germany:
Drudge: "Germany to pursue criminal prosecution of Rumsfeld over prison abuse." (UPDATE: Now changed to "Germany many bring charges...", but plenty of bloggers picked it up already)

Atlas Shrugs can't spell the Nazi greeting right: "EURABIA:Death [Seig Heil] to Germany (...) You’re kidding me right? Germany going after American Heros?
The retired operators of Treblinka, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Dachau… are taking OUR folks to court about prison abuses? Hugh writes, " Death to Germany! Kill them all. Better yet, let the Islamofascists kill them while we sit back and laugh."

The
National Review Online writes "Old Europe's Revenge. It may be time for the US to close its military bases in Germany and shift them to Poland and the new East European democracies.  They are far better allies and understand the importance of freedom and liberty." Many Americans demand this since 2003, but fact is that the bases in Ramstein and Spangdahlem have been upgraded and the Stryker Cavalry regiment recently moved to Germany.
Another author at the National Review Online describes this issue as "Germany vs. Rumsfeld" and yet another author points out that such a characterisation is incorrect, because German authorities have not endorsed the lawsuit. He makes good points
America's Alien Torts Act can, in some respects, be compared with Germany's notion of 'universal jurisdiction'. That doesn't justify the German law, but it puts it into some context.
While on this unlovely topic, however, one thing that has always puzzled me (yes, I'm being ironic) is why such plaintiffs never seem to take a run at old Gorby. You may recall that he presided over the not notably gentle Afghan war for three years or so.
Wonkette: "Federal prosecutors in Germany have a different idea: They'd like to charge him with war crimes."

All Headline News: "Germany To Charge Senior U.S. Leaders With Terror Prison Abuses"

The Conservative Voice: "The top prosecutor in Germany will file lawsuits against Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA Director George Tenet and other senior Bush Administration officials and civilians, Time magazine reports. "

KnoxViews: "Germany to prosecute Donald Rumsfeld"

• 
DETROIT NEWS ONLINE writes under the headline "German legal imperialism":
German lawyers and judges, and possibly German state prosecutors, are actually entertaining the idea of imposing their jurisdiction on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration for Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo? (...) Since the end of the last two world wars, Germans have had exactly two words to say to any American until the end of recorded time: "I'm sorry." The Germans actually have the gall to criticize Americans about the way this nation has run prison camps? Whatever may have occurred in them, six million people haven't died in them.
Southern Appeal writes: "What gives Germany the right to assert anything about anything outside its borders? Gotta love those dormant Nazi tendencies coming to the surface yet again."

etc etc. Time Magazine has written a pretty easy to understand article, and yet these publication and dozens (hundreds?) of bloggers get it wrong.


While this issue all over the news and the blogosphere, another news story related to Germany seems to be ignored, except for some
wire service reports:
German naval forces escorted U.S. and U.K. warships near the Horn of Africa before and during the war in Iraq, the government said, casting light on then Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's claim that there was no German involvement in the conflict. (...)
Playing on Germans' distaste of war, Schroeder dismissed Bush's plans for an invasion of Iraq as "adventurism,'' prompting a souring of German-U.S. ties that led former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to liken the country to Cuba and Libya for its intransigence. Although Schroeder refused to support the U.S.-led military campaign, Germany has since 2001 been participating in the U.S.- led "Operation Enduring Freedom'' designed to combat terrorism.
The Bundestag has just voted to extend the German participation in Enduring Freedom.
Besides, Rumsefeld is not yet a "former" defense secretary. He will continue to serve until confirmation of a successor by the Senate.


UPPERDATE: The following case is different, but nevertheless interesting. DW World:
A German federal court decided Thursday [October 26, 2006] that families of civilians killed in a 1999 NATO air strike on a Serbian town cannot seek compensation from Germany, affirming that civilians may not sue countries for war damages. Thirty-five survivors and victims' family members from the Serbian village of Varvarian had been seeking about 500,000 euros ($638,200) from the German government until the German Federal Supreme Court in Karlsruhe, Germany's highest court of appeals, ruled Thursday that civilian victims of war cannot claim such damages.
The incident dates back to 1999 when a surprise NATO air strike in the town of Varvarian at the height of the Kosovo war killed 10 civilians and injured another 30.

Although no German planes took direct part in the raid, the plaintiffs claimed that German troops serving with NATO helped select the target and that Germany therefore shared responsibility for the NATO action.

Trackbacks

Atlantic Review on : Two American Experts Comment on the European Reactions to the U.S. Elections

Show preview
The Atlantic Review has already written about German Reactions to the Midterm Elections. Americans are now commenting about the European reactions to the elections: "Aspen Institute Berlin Director Jeffrey Gedmin has an interesting and useful piece,

Comments

Display comments as Linear | Threaded

JW-Atlantic Review on :

The Democrats do not support the ICC either, do they? I admit the headline is quite sensationalistic; just like in many other blogs. Originally I wanted to write "Former Abu Ghraib Prisoners and US NGOs Seek Prosecution of Secretary Rumsfeld in Germany?" as the headline, but that was too long.

Don S on :

"The Democrats do not support the ICC either, do they?" I think the vote in the senate was about 70-30 against. That was in 1999 or 2000 I think. It's reasonable to infer that most of the pro-ICC votes came from the Democrats at that time, although it may have gotten Republican support from people like Jeffords, Chafee, Snowe, and Collins. There has been significant turnover in the Senate since 2000, so I wouldn't venture to opine whether Democrats support ICC now. It's reasonable to assume that 55-60% of the Senate Democrats supporrted ICC in 2000, however.

Possum on :

"Universal jurisdiction" is an oxymoron. European jurisprudence knew this back in the days of the Inquisition. So, what is wrong in Europe? Amnesia or something? And even the inquisitors understood the necessity of trying a person in his home town or where the crimes were committed. It's basic law. Clue: You can believe anything about a stranger, but there are only certain things you can believe about someone you know. Get it? Trying people a million miles away is one of the oldest dirty judicial tricks in the book. It's what they did to Joan of Arc, for example, and it was illegal even then. A person must be tried where he isn't a total stranger that his judges might believe any wild lie about. Are Europeans less educated now? Is Europe more backward now than then? Or is this just a powerplay to insinuate the manipulative tentacles of control into a soverign foreign country? Is it just Europe's new way of doing the same old thing = trying to rule the world. Why does Europe still have judges who investigate cases, make arrests, and then sit in judgement of those they've accused? Don't Europeans see what might be wrong with that? Do Europeans understand the concept of sovereignty? Or do they suddenly dis-understand it when the country in question is the United States? What law? Where is it written? Passed by what legislature? Elected by whom? Under what Constitution? With what accountability? And, if any, to whom? "Universal jurisdiction" - an oxymoron for anyone who doesn't have themselves confused with God.

Fuchur on :

"Trying people a million miles away" Well, this might prove kinda difficult, since the equator only measures about 13,000 km :-) . "It's what they did to Joan of Arc, for example, and it was illegal even then." But she was tried in France, wasn´t she? Where should she have been tried?? "A person must be tried where he isn't a total stranger that his judges might believe any wild lie about." Are you talking about the military tribunals for the inmates in Gitmo? Besides, you´re just plain wrong: When a German commits a murder in the US, then he´ll be tried in the US, regardless of whether he´s a stranger there or not. "Why does Europe still have judges who investigate cases, make arrests, and then sit in judgement of those they've accused?" I´m not sure what you´re talking about. Obviously in this case, the investigation is made by some state prosecutor, the arrest is made by the police, and the judging is done by a judge. Same as in the US. "Do Europeans understand the concept of sovereignty?" As far as I know, the German law clearly states that the German courts can ONLY take action when is obvious that the courts in the country in question do not make any effort to investigate any of the charges. "What law? Where is it written? Passed by what legislature? Elected by whom? Under what Constitution?" Sigh. Haven´t you read the article at all? German law, written in the StGB (I guess?), passed by the Bundestag and Bundesrat, elected by the German people, under the German Grundgesetz.

Anonymous on :

At least Germany does not invade other countries on the pretense of "bringing democracy," but in effect just causing mayhem.

joe on :

Please Please Please.......go for it. This surely will expose Germany as to being the true ally of the US that it is. I know David has to be smiling about this. psst....David so am I

David on :

Why stop at Rummy? Two weeks ago Vice President Cheney called the torture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed "a no-brainer", and Ron Suskind points out in his book "The One Percent Doctrine" that President Bush personally odered the torture of a mentally deranged detainee,Abu Zubaydah. The White House has never denied Suskind's account. Given that torture has been sanctioned by the highest level of the US government, I would like my friends here to make a serious argument for why the President and Vice President SHOULDN'T be charged with war crimes.

Don S on :

Indeed yes. Why stop at Rummy? Patience, David. Let them try the first case and get a little confidence. Then they can reach higher...

joe on :

When you are so morally superior you can have laws like this.

JW-Atlantic Review on :

I have written an update and cited someone from the National Review Online, who says that "America's Alien Torts Act can, in some respects, be compared with Germany's notion of 'universal jurisdiction'. That doesn't justify the German law, but it puts it into some context."

JW-Atlantic Review on :

Why are so many big bloggers unable to understand the Time article? Or do they misunderstand it on purpose? Why do they choose headlines that are factually wrong? PoliPundit.com: "Germany to Prosecute Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Tenet" [url]http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=15955[/url] The list could go on and on. Go to technorati and google "Rumsfeld Germany" It's all over the blogosphere... Is this funny? Ace of Spades HQ: "Germany To Prosecute Rumsfeld Over Inhumane Treatment Of Prisoners, Citing Copyright Infringement (...) They've got to protect their intellectual property." [url]http://ace.mu.nu/archives/204679.php[/url] The next time one of these bloggers wants to accuse Germans of Anti-Americanism or criticize German humor, they should look in the mirror.

Don S on :

Indeed, Joerg - 'big' bloggers and other lowlifes misunderstand deliberately. A phenomena completely unkown in Germany, no doubt? Angela Merkel is not behind this - though I don't believe that necessarily means 'the government' isn't behind it. It's not official policy at the highest level. Nevertheless it is symptomatic of the high regard that many (most?) Germans feel for the US that such a thing occurs. The hostility has been muted for 18 months but now that the new Congress has been elected it's "No more Herr Nice Guy" time. One comment for now. "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread....."

JW-Atlantic Review on :

"A phenomena completely unkown in Germany, no doubt?" Why do you make such comments ALL the time? What is your point? In my latest post I am criticizing a German paper. Don, I am starting to believe that you are not a conservative American, but an ultraleftist troll, who just makes fun. Please prove me wrong and write some thoughtful comments!!! "Angela Merkel is not behind this - though I don't believe that necessarily means 'the government' isn't behind it." Or it could be an Al Qaeda plot. Or it could be that gays from SF are behind this. Don, why are you soo paranoid? "Nevertheless it is symptomatic of the high regard that many (most?) Germans feel for the US that such a thing occurs." What has Germany done wrong? Please explain any involvement by any German in this matter. A couple of days ago, you said that Bush would be regularly equated with an ape in the European media. That was your response regarding an observation about the dirty election campaigns in the US. a) I still don't see the connection between the two. One is politics, the other is media. b) You have not presented any evidence for your claim. Later you said you were referring to cartoons, but still you did not present any evidence of a cartoon where Bush is equated with an ape. German cartoonists draw Bush in similar ways as American cartoonists do. You are sooo biased and blinded that you see evil Anti-Americans everywhere. And now you suggest that Germany might be behind the lawsuit against Rumsfeld. Again, this claim is a) ridiculous and b) you don't provide any evidence and not even an argument why the government would like to do that. I have explained: The plaintiffs are Iraqis, not Germans. The plaintiffs are supported by an American NGO, not a German NGO. The Center for Constitutional Rights provides a "background brief of the case against Donald Rumsfeld" and mentions the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Republican Attorneys' Association (RAV) as their supporters. They want to have a criminal investigation in Germany, but it is doubtful whether they will get one. And yet you claim: "Nevertheless it is symptomatic of the high regard that many (most?) Germans feel for the US that such a thing occurs." What is symptomatic?? What has occured? What are Germans feeling? What has Germany done? Why do you criticize Germany? The only thing that has occured is that an American NGO issued a press release. They say they want to file legal documents next week. Germany's only "fault" seems to be that they have a universal jurisdiction law (which is apparently similar to the American Alien Torts Act). Therefore an American NGO would like to see how far this law goes. That's all. Don, you are very welcome to express your opinion here, but please back it up, when someone challenges you. Crazy and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories are not welcome.

David on :

Joerg, Why the defensive tone? Of course "Germany has done nothing wrong". Why do you care what the idiots at NRO say about anything? The roots of the National Review date back to attempts to stop racial equality in the US. They have been wrong on every issue ever since. The NRO and its admirers who comment here will only be happy when Germany becomes once again a reliable vassal of Washington.

Don S on :

Joerg, I assure you that I am not an 'ultraleftst troll'. Merely a run of the mill fascist.... ;) I'll take the rest of this offline and reply via email.

Zyme on :

ahahahaha :D Now this is the kind of story that brightens my mood! Just imagine: 60 years after the Nuremberg Trials, a former defense secretary of the united states of america, found guilty of war crimes! I suggest: Death by Hanging! :D "To avoid misunderstandings: The plaintiffs are Iraqis, not Germans. The plaintiffs are supported by an American NGO, not a German NGO." Hey man, you should become a diplomat. Relax and have some fun ;) Seriously - On the long run, the way this news is presented on international blogs (their press will follow I guess) only makes clear, how far we have moved apart. Only under the current circumstances this news can create such an unrest. We have moved apart from each other and this is a perfect opportunity to (unconsciously) demonstrate how far, isn´t it?

Don S on :

Hanging, Zyme? Nah. Too good for him. I suggest 'rendition' to German human rights groups so they can waterboard him - and worse. Or perhaps the Greens - assuming there is any difference. Then they can hand him over to Al-Zawhari's bunch in Iraq for the usual treatment. Video beheading on Al-Jazeera.

JW-Atlantic Review on :

@ Zyme You are right. I should relax. Yes, Americans and Europeans have moved apart, but for silly reasons. So many folks on both sides of the Atlantic are bloody ignorant, stupid, and/or mischievous. While some idiots go ballistic over this Rumsfeld/Germany thing, the editor of Die Zeit is not any better (see new post from today). When you go down to basics, Europeans and Americans have pretty similar interests and values. And at the end of the day, Europeans and Americans know that they need partners on the other side of the Atlantic for dealing with the big issues. Neither the EU nor the US can go it alone. Sure, there are some big difference and disagreements, but some idiots in the MSM, blogosphere and politics exaggerate the differences and disagreements. Besides, they do their best to make these difference and disagreements bigger and bigger, although none of that is in the long-term interest of either the EU or the US. Bla, bla, bla. This is all pretty obvious.

Zyme on :

@ Editor Die Aufopferungsbereitschaft und das Durchhaltevermögen von Ihrer Seite in diesem Fall erstaunt mich nicht zum ersten Mal. Insoweit ziehe ich natürlich den Hut davor, wie man sich so vehement gegen eine breite Entwicklung zu stemmen versucht. Nun bin ich kein Mensch der sich starr an Prinzipien klammert. Aber die Fähigkeit, Dinge zu ändern die man ändern kann - und Dinge zu akzeptieren, die man nicht zu ändern vermag, ist eine sehr wertvolle. Sie verhindert, dass man sich an Punkten nervlich aufreibt, die sich davon nicht beeindrucken lassen. Es ist immer geschickter, dann diese Kräfte zu schonen - denn verlorene Nerven sorgen nur für eine schnelle Alterung :) Natürlich ist mir bewusst, dass Ihnen (offenbar aufgrund Ihres Werdegangs) die transatlantischen Beziehungen eine Herzensangelegenheit sind. Vielleicht wäre es eine Anregung, sich mehr mit der wirtschaftlichen Zusammenarbeit der beiden Kontinente zu befassen - hier bleiben beide Seiten aufgrund der disziplinierenden Wirkung des Marktes in der Regel rational und es ist auch nicht zu erwarten, dass es hier zu einem vergleichbaren Aufeinanderprallen von Antipathien kommen wird. Die Aussage, dass Europa und Nord-Amerika gemeinsame Interessen haben, stimmt nur zur Hälfte. So führen die Bürger beider Kontinente einen halbwegs vergleichbaren Lebensstil und haben deshalb (wenig überraschend) auch vergleichbare individuelle Bedürfnisse und Wünsche. Die Aufgabe der Regierungen auf beiden Seiten besteht auch primär darin, die Bedürfnisse und Wünsche ihrer Völker zu bedienen. Aber genau deshalb werden wir zu Konkurrenten, weil beide Seiten einen mehr oder wenig offen ausgesprochenen Führungsanspruch gegenüber einer Welt äußern, in der Ressourcen nicht endlos verfügbar sind. Die deshalb zunehmende Feindseligkeit wird jenseits der politischen Führung von außenpolitisch interessierten Bürgern bewusst oder unbewusst registriert und wiedergegeben - so schleicht sich die gegenseitige Abneigung in den Rest der jeweiligen Gesellschaften ein. Dass dieser Prozess das Anfangsstadium (in dem man leicht korrigierend eingreifen kann) schon längst hinter sich gelassen hat, zeigt sich an den hysterischen Reaktionen und der Geschwindigkeit ihrer Verbreitung in Fällen wie diesen hier. Die neuen Medien erhöhen dabei nur noch das Tempo und machen ein effektives Entgegenwirken durch die politische Führung dadurch unmöglich, dass die jüngste Sau bereits durchs Dorf getrieben worden ist. Angesichts dieser Situation sind Sie aufgrund Ihres persönlichen Anliegens wahrhaft nicht zu beneiden.

JW-Atlantic Review on :

Danke, Zyme! "Die Aussage, dass Europa und Nord-Amerika gemeinsame Interessen haben, stimmt nur zur Hälfte." Das reicht doch. Das ist mehr als viele Kritiker auf beiden Seiten des Atlantik behaupten. Ich denke, die Auseinandersetzung in den neuen Medien (inkl. Spiegel Online) ist viel schriller und suggests a worse state of transatlantic relations than is reality. Our governments cooperate quite a lot, especially on a working level (Arbeitsebene). Economic relations are strong. Many Germans and Americans have friends on the other side of the ocean etc. The internet, however, encourages hot debates due to anonymity. I think there are many big problems and threats neither Europe nor the US can solve alone. Wir sind zur Kooperation verdammt, ob wir's wollen oder nicht. (We are "doomed" to cooperate.) There are not so many other potential allies. Do you think that many Germans trust the Russians (or any other major non EU country) enough to form an alliance that is as strong as the alliance with the US? I think suspicions re Russia are increasing anyway. On some issues Europeans and Americans will cooperate. On other they won't. Fine with me. We don't have to agree on everything. "Vielleicht wäre es eine Anregung, sich mehr mit der wirtschaftlichen Zusammenarbeit der beiden Kontinente zu befassen - hier bleiben beide Seiten aufgrund der disziplinierenden Wirkung des Marktes in der Regel rational und es ist auch nicht zu erwarten, dass es hier zu einem vergleichbaren Aufeinanderprallen von Antipathien kommen wird." Yes, economic relations are quite well and rational. We could write more about them, but many article on economic relations are boring. (Some 95% of transatlantic trade work fine, but people like to make a fuss about the 5% of trade disputes...) Perhaps we could try to make political relations as rational as the economic relations? Wishful thinking? Yes, it is. Please recommend news stories on economic relations.

Anonymous on :

WASHINGTON -- Robert Gates, President Bush's choice to lead the Pentagon, argues that the United States should be talking with Iran instead of shunning it. He says America's spy agencies misled the president on whether Saddam Hussein harbored weapons of mass destruction _ but also believes the nation should never launch another pre-emptive military strike without "unambiguous" intelligence. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/10/AR2006111000950.html

joe on :

That is a pretty bold statement that Germans and Americans have pretty much the same values and interests. Yes, we do use the same words they just have different meanings. Maybe the reason for this is we have such different histories.

mbast on :

About that "universal jurisdiction" thingie: not true. German law does not state German prosecutors/courts have "universal jurisdiction" in all criminal matters. The problem is on another level. Basically, a German prosecutor will prosecute crimes if a. either the perpetrator or the victim is German (active and passive personality principle) or b. the crime took place on German soil (crime scene principle, "Tatortprinzip"). That's the starting point. So what, do you ask, is the fuss all about? Well, as always in all matters related to law, there are exceptions. The exception in this case is given by the new German International Criminal law (Völkerstrafgesetzbuch) which was put into effect on june 30th 2002. That law is actually based on generally accepted principles of international law (in this case, the famous "Weltrechtsprinzip") and states that for certain crimes (i.e. war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity) German judicial authorities have jurisdiction even if there is no tie to Germany otherwise. In these cases (and in these cases only) do the German judicial authorities have jurisdiction. That's what the fuss is all about. So what's the reason for all this? Well, actually the German legislative only acted on principles that have already been established in international law for quite a long time, notably in the Geneva convention. And these principles do not only confer jurisdiction on Germany, but on any other state as well. Theoretically, Rumsfeld could therefore get indicted in any other country. Methinks he'd be better off getting indicted in Germany ;-). More importantly, the law recognizes the principle of subsidiarity. If American authorities start criminal procedures against Rumsfeld, German authorities will not prosecute (well, actually, they'd have a choice, but somehow I doubt they would even investigate if they can wriggle out of a potential international crisis in any way ;-)). And that's even if the American authorities decide not to prosecute, if the reasons for that decision conform to US legal standards. So in short: nichts wird so heiss gegessen wie es gekocht wird. Interesting article by Prof. Bothe of the University in Kassel on that problem: http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb5/frieden/regionen/Irak/folter-kurzgutachten.html

joe on :

Jorg, Asked what has Germany done wrong.... Gee I thought about this and for the life of me could not think of a single thing... I did enjoy the background information on how this law came about. It was passed by the elected members of the German people. The purpose was to bring German justice to the world... is this a new concept or building on history? This is a bit confusing giving that there seems to be overlap with the beloved ICC. The question becomes who gets to try Rummy first? the ICC of the Germans?

JW-Atlantic Review on :

[b]Since more and more Americans read blogs rather than WSJ, NYT, Wash Post etc: Do we need a watchblog for the US blogosphere? [/b] A Blogger for the DETROIT NEWS ONLINE writes under the headline [b]"German legal imperialism"[/b]: "German lawyers and judges, and possibly German state prosecutors, are actually entertaining the idea of imposing their jurisdiction on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration for Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo?" They are not yet "entertaining" anything because this American NGO and their lawyers have not filed anything yet. Besides, in the US, everybody can go to a prosecutor and ask him/her to "entertain" all kinds of ideas. It's a free country... Continues: "Since the end of the last two world wars, Germans have had exactly two words to say to any American until the end of recorded time: "I'm sorry." The Germans actually have the gall to criticize Americans about the way this nation has run prison camps? Whatever may have occurred in them, six million people haven't died in them." [url]http://info.detnews.com/weblog/index.cfm?blogid=8581[/url] [b]Southern Appeal[/b] writes: "What gives Germany the right to assert anything about anything outside its borders? Gotta love those [b]dormant Nazi tendencies[/b] coming to the surface yet again." [url]http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/2069[/url] Atlas Shrugs can't spell the Nazi greeting right: "EURABIA:Death [Seig Heil] to Germany You’re kidding me right? Germany going after American Heros? The retired operators of Treblinka, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Dachau… are taking OUR folks to court about prison abuses? Hugh writes, " Death to Germany! Kill them all. Better yet, let the Islamofascists kill them while we sit back and laugh." [url]http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2006/11/youre_kidding_m.html[/url]

Fuchur on :

Well, if you ever needed any more prove that Randians tend to have a few screws loose ;-) The first comment at atlasshrugs is priceless: [i]Pamela, (...) I think you should take a little break (...) please, we care about you. you deserve some rest.[/i] ROFL Btw, this was the reaction from Andrew Sullivan, one of the most outspoken critics of Rumsfeld: [url]http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/11/rumsfelds_war_c.html[/url]

Don S on :

Speaking oif having a few screws loose, Fuchur. I'm an ex-fan of Sully and he has a few more than a 'few' screws loose IMHO.

Fuchur on :

Naturally you are entitled to your opinion :-) . But undeniably, he´s one of the bigshots among US bloggers.

Don S on :

Absolutely. We have it on no less an authority than [b]Time magazine[/b] where Sullivan is now the in-house Blogger, Anointed by the Powers That Be. This grants him a legitimacy lacked by such lesser mortals as Glenn Reynolds, Powerline, Little Green Footballs, and Patterico. They have not been Anointed as Andrew Sullivan has been and thus lack credibility. Nonetheless I speak from degree of experience here, having been a faithful daily reader back in the 'blue-page' days and even a yearly contributor. Andrew is not what he was. I think he;s off his lithium or something.

Don S on :

"although the ICC -- as well as "universal jurisdiction" laws in a couple of European countries -- are intended for war criminals in Darfur, Congo, Uganda etc." Do you have any data on where and how the ICC and/or 'universal jurisdiction' laws have actually been used? Failed attempts count as well as actual trials in my opinion.

JW-Atlantic Review on :

Wikipedia writes about the International Criminial Court: The Chief Prosecutor of the court, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, has decided to open an investigation into three matters, after rigorous analysis in accordance with the Rome Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence: * Uganda and the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), which was referred to the court on January 29, 2004 by Republic of Uganda, a 'state party' of the court (the term indicates that they are a country that has ratified the Court's Rome Statute). On October 6, 2005 the court issued its first public arrest warrants for the Lord's Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony, his deputy Vincent Otti, and LRA commanders Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odiambo, and Dominic Ongwen. * The situation in Ituri, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which was referred to the court by the DRC on April 19, 2004. On 2006-03-17 Thomas Lubanga, former leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots militia in Ituri, became the first person to be arrested under a warrant issued by the court; * The situation in Darfur, Sudan, which was referred to the court in March 2005 by the United Nations Security Council The Central African Republic referred itself to the court on January 6, 2005, but the Chief Prosecutor has not yet decided whether to open an investigation into this matter. In a special case, former Liberian President Charles Taylor was transferred to the buildings of the ICC in June 2006 for a trial under the mandate and auspices of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. This was due to political and security concerns about holding the trial in Freetown. On 2006-02-09 the Chief Prosecutor published a letter[2] answering complaints connected with the invasion of Iraq. He concluded that he did not have authority to consider the complaint about the legality of the invasion, and that the available information did not provide sufficient evidence for proceeding with an investigation of war crimes due to the targeting of civilians or clearly excessive attacks; the evidence for willful killing and inhuman treatment, which covered around 20 people, did not appear to meet the "gravity" threshold for an investigation." [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#Cases_before_the_court[/url]

joe on :

Why would anyone other than a liberal and a euro read the WashPo, LATimes, NYT...or watch PNN or any of the broadcast news in the US? The story line is already known.

mbast on :

Ahem, it's still "European", if you please. "Euro" is a currency, you Dollar, you ;-). And I take it by "PNN" you actually mean "CNN", right? @ Don and JW: As for the ICC: that's another huge can of legal worms. The ICC was created by multilateral agreement between the states party to it. The US aren't party to it, for reasons best known to the Bush administration (well, actually they stated they were afraid American soldiers and government officials might be tried under ICC rules; turns out even their retired defense secretary would have been eligible for the tender ministrations of the Hague judges, so it seems to be a good thing they stayed away from the ICC ;-) ). Jurisdiction of that court is not really the issue here, since it is undisputed: the ICC only has jurisdiction in states party to it or that have entered into an agreement with the ICC over its jurisdiction. In plain Texan english for certain American presidents: ain't no such "phenomena" as "universial joorisdiction" at the ICC ;-). Not quite the same as the German International criminal law. Don't compare apples and oranges here.

joe on :

Mbast, Might I suggest you check with Hattie, who has a long memory, about the ICC. The ICC issue was settled by the demos under the first euro president of the US, William Jefferson Clinton. I realize this is a bit confusing since GWB is to be blamed for everything but not to worry, the travelers are going to get this mess cleaned up.

mbast on :

Ah. Yes. Ok, i confess I'm an ignoramus. Who's "Hattie", what's a "demo" (well, I do know the term "Demo", but it's German, and I take it it's not exactly what you mean :-)) and why are you always bashing our currency :-D. Seriously, though: I know the Clinton administration had concerns about the ICC. Those concerns were not quite the same as the ones voiced by the Bush administration. May I quote "euro"-Clinton: "In signing (the Rome Statute)…we are not abandoning our concerns about significant flaws in the Treaty…The US should have the chance to observe and assess the functioning of the court, over time, before choosing to become under its jurisdiction. I will not, and do not recommend that my successor, submit the Treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied." In other words: Clinton wanted to join (and, indeed, he signed the Rome Statute in 2000), but he wanted to watch how things developed first before ratifying it. Bush's approach is quite different: it's basically "kill the ICC". Period. No participation, no support at all, just blatant denial, and a very active lobbying effort to prevent other countries from joining. The reason given is, indeed, that there is a possibility that American servicemen and government officials might be tried. Whatever your take on the ICC, there is no denying that it was Bush who killed US participation in the ICC, not Clinton.

joe on :

Mbast, Deutsche Welle which I believe is the official propaganda arm of the Germany government refers to Euro law makers. Today’s latest reference using the term is below. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2240388,00.html Hopefully you will get an opportunity to have an exchange with Hattie. Hattie is a bit busy right now cleaning up messes. You must come from the Jorg school of posting but that can wait for another day and topic. I will try to focus only on former POTUS Clinton and the ICC. Pres Clinton was much loved by the euros because he signed lots of things which were their pet rocks. He was up to a point sincere in his efforts such as pointing out reasons why Kyoto or the ICC would never become US law because it would fail in the Senate. Even when these reasons were pointed out to the euros they were not addressed. Knowing as written these would never be ratified Pres Clinton was free to sign them. As to the ICC, the results of that was the American Service members Protection Act (ASPA) Which in fact did become US law. You can read it here along with some background. http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/othr/misc/23425.htm The actions taken by Pres Bush are in keeping with the law passed by the US Congress. As President and a member of the executive branch it is his duty to insure those laws passed by Congress are enacted. So in a word the concerns of former Pres. Clinton were overtaken by events. To address your final comment about POTUS Bush and former Pres Clinton, I would disagree. It was the US Congress who “killed the ICC” and in the case of Kyoto the US Senate. To fault Pres Bush for the failures of the ICC is a bit unfair but then again this is not about facts but about emotions. Of course, our form of government is a bit strange and at times difficult to understand.

mbast on :

"Deutsche Welle which I believe is the official propaganda arm of the Germany government refers to Euro law makers." Indeed, just like Fox News is the official propaganda arm of the Bush government, right? As for that "Euro" bit, DW does not have the tendency to use the word as a derogatory term, AFAIK. Hence my somewhat caustic comment. "You must come from the Jorg school of posting but that can wait for another day and topic." Seems to be an insider of this blog. Clarify, please: what is the "Jörg school of posting"? "I will try to focus only on former POTUS Clinton and the ICC. Pres Clinton was much loved by the euros because he signed lots of things which were their pet rocks." Mhmm. Right. And these "pet rocks" would be...? "He was up to a point sincere in his efforts such as pointing out reasons why Kyoto or the ICC would never become US law because it would fail in the Senate. Even when these reasons were pointed out to the euros they were not addressed. Knowing as written these would never be ratified Pres Clinton was free to sign them." What is it to be, joe? Either Clinton was a "euro" and signed off on every "pro-euro" bill he could get his hands on, or he wasn't and just "made nice" to the "euros" by signing bills he perfectly knew would not fly, in which case he was anything but "pro-euro". Get your argument straightened out. But we're digressing: I know Bush is not responsible for everything that goes wrong in the world. I didn't say that. Oh, and I do have a cursory grasp of the American system of government, don't worry. I think I did understand that at the time, there was a republican majority in congress. Which is still not necessarily a reason why the Rome statute and the Kyoto agreement would not have passed if amended in the ways Clinton proposed. Anyway, blaming Clinton (OR congress, which, like I said, was firmly in republican hands until only very recently) for Bush's ruthless crusade against the ICC (and Kyoto, incidentally) is just wrong. Bush, or members of his administration, take your pick, wanted to kill the ICC and tried his/their damnedest to do so. Clinton did not nullify the signature on the Rome Statute, Clinton did not refuse to participate even as an observer state, Clinton did not sign off ASPA (thanks for reminding me of that one). ASPA, by the way, originated within the republican party; it got introduced by Sen. Helms, if I'm not mistaken. Also, if he didn't like it, why didn't Bush veto it, hmmm? So do me a favor, spare me the "it's all Clinton's fault" rhetoric. Old argument. And unlike wine, it doesn't age well. The policies on the ICC and Kyoto are Bush's policies, not Clinton's.

joe on :

Mbast, It would appear you have an opportunity to expand my knowledge. Reading your post you seem to objection to my referring to Deutsche Welle as the propaganda arm of the Germany government. I am under the impression that Deutche Welle is in fact funded by the Germany government. If I am wrong about the funding source please provide me a reference to research. As for FOX, it is public traded company and part of News Corp. (NWS) which by the way was down $0.10 today. It latest reporting earnings did in fact exceed analysts’ expectations. So your comparison is invalid. Probably a more valid example would be Radio Free Europe. But then I am not really sure if any of this is relevant to your position or the points you are attempting to make. Once again you misstate your case about the vote in the US Senate for the American Service members Protection Act (ASPA). The vote was 78 -21 for passage. Of those voting for passage there were 32 demo and 46 Republicans; against 18 demos and 3 Republicans and one member did not vote. To save you from doing the math you will note the demos controlled the Senate at the time at 51 – 49. I would attempt to expand your own knowledge but you stated you had a firm grip on the facts. It would appear you are correct. I cannot address the facts you have created for yourself. Which is OK, one has to believe in something and facts that you make up are probably just as good as anything you might read in the euroland M$M. It is unfortunate your facts are not facts at all. I believe and if I am wrong please correct me but I did not fault former Pres Clinton for either Kyoto or the ICC. These were both flawed treaties. Pres Clinton hoped that at some point the parts which he found wanting would be changed. They were not and the world moves on. It really is very simple. As you stated you have a cursory grasp of the American system of government then you are aware of several things about the Office of the President of the United States. The first of these is each President regardless of party or party in control of Congress seeks to retain the power of the office. Also no President will submit to the Senate a treaty for ratification that he feels will not be ratified. Failure would in fact diminish the power of the office. This is why you see the most recent former two POTUS working together on many issues. It is one of the smallest clubs in the world.

mbast on :

First things first: I notice you didn't respond to my comment on Clinton being a "Euro" or on Sen. Helms introducing ASPA. I can't help but wonder why. As for DW, it's not quite a "propaganda" arm of the German government. Like ARD or ZDF, it's an "Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts". It would take quite a while to explain to you what that means, but you can rest assured it does not mean they're a propaganda arm of anybody. In fact, among other things, it means they're bound by law to remain unbiased, especially towards the government. You are probably referring to the fact that DW, unlike ARD or ZDF, is financed by federal funds. That is not due to them being a "propaganda arm", that's due to the fact that, like the BBC World Service, their purpose is to broadcast beyond the borders of Germany and for a large part in languages other than German. Like I said, long and complicated story, but nothing to do with propaganda. As for Fox News: privately owned, sure. Unbiased? Yes, right, pull the other one. But, like you said yourself, we're digressing. "Once again you misstate your case about the vote in the US Senate for the American Service members Protection Act (ASPA). The vote was 78 -21 for passage. Of those voting for passage there were 32 demo and 46 Republicans; against 18 demos and 3 Republicans and one member did not vote." Nope, it was 75-19 on the last amendment (July 24 2002). You're referring to the first vote on December 7 2001. So much for getting the facts wrong. And if I was picking nits I'd say on both votes there was one Independent caucused with the Democrats, but who could theoretically have led to a tie in votes with the vice president's vote breaking the tie, so in fact your allegation that the senate was "demo" at the time is not true. Ah well, whatever. You're using the old tactic of diverting the argument, so perhaps I`ll have to clarify (again) what I mean: neither the Clinton administration nor the "demos" as you call them, were quite as radical as the Bush administration in fighting the ICC or Kyoto. I won't repeat all the stuff I stated earlier since you don't seem inclined to answer, so we'll leave it at that. "As you stated you have a cursory grasp of the American system of government then you are aware of several things about the Office of the President of the United States. The first of these is each President regardless of party or party in control of Congress seeks to retain the power of the office." I don't know how to translate the German word "Binsenweisheit". Truism? Doesn't really reflect what I mean, so I hope you speak German. "Also no President will submit to the Senate a treaty for ratification that he feels will not be ratified. Failure would in fact diminish the power of the office. This is why you see the most recent former two POTUS working together on many issues. It is one of the smallest clubs in the world." So? How does that relate to our argument? Bush could've done it like Clinton: try to get the kinks in the Rome statute straightened out before getting it ratified. He didn't. In fact he did quite the opposite. He did everything in his (considerable) power to completely sink the ICC. Not amend it, mind, but sink it. @ Don: "I think people's minds may change about the ICC. But if you want to change people's minds to be more positive on ICC I can tell you precisely how not to proceed. Do NOT make efforts to indict high US officials for 'war crimes' in European courts. This includes Geberal Tommy Franks, Donald Rumsfeld, and even Henry Kissinger....." Yes and no. High officials of any country should not be immune to procedures being initiated against them. That includes high officials of the US. Mind you, that does not mean they should be found guilty, it only means you shouldn't exclude procedures against officials of one country or another as a matter of principle. Otherwise, the ICC will be seen as just another instrument of the first world countries to keep the third world ones under control (and it would also be unfair to boot). Franks, Rumsfeld and Kissinger should not be statutorily safe from any prosecution to find out if they did anything wrong. If the prosecution finds there is no case against them, fine, there'll be no trial. If the prosecution finds there is a case, they should be brought to court like any other citizen of any other country. And the court should be allowed to decide on their fate. All this, of course, is only necessary if US prosecutors and courts refuse to initiate procedures on illegal grounds. If US prosecutors examine the facts and, by US law, find there is no case, well then, the ICC prosecutors won't have to lift a finger either. Understand: the ICC is only there for cases where the national judiciary of a state does not prosecute for illegal reasons or where the rules governing criminal procedures are not up to the standards you find in democratic countries. I don't think the US fall into that category so I honestly fail to see the problem.

joe on :

Mbast, You make these sweeping statements and the facts just do not back them up. As to the vote, the vote to pass the basic bill was what I stated. There can be lots of amendments to any bill. While those votes are important they are not as important as the vote for passage. You might remember the explanation “I voted for it before I voted against it”. A good example of voting for the bill and then voting against an amendment or vice versa. Just what radical actions has the Bush Administration taken to fight (using your words) the ICC and Kyoto? And since the demos were fully in control of the Senate at the time former Pres Clinton signed Kyoto, then why did he not submit it for ratification? You seem not to like my explanation. So what is your’s? As for former Pres Clinton being the first euro president. Look at both his background prior to being elected as well as some of the policies the attempted to implement, and the things he signed. To this you could add his use of the US military in such adventures as Haiti, Bosnia and Somalia. The euros thought all these things were great. As for getting the “kinks” in both the ICC and Kyoto worked out, the euros did not want to hear any of it. It would be just like trying to reform the UN a huge waste of both time and effort. The ICC and Kyoto reflect the world as the euros view it. Besides why does the US need to participate in either of these? As to being for Deutsche Welle its mission statement includes …. We communicate German points of view as well as other perspectives. Much of that point of view is generated in Berlin.

mbast on :

"You make these sweeping statements and the facts just do not back them up." And that's not a "sweeping statement" in itself? "As to the vote, the vote to pass the basic bill was what I stated. There can be lots of amendments to any bill. While those votes are important they are not as important as the vote for passage. You might remember the explanation “I voted for it before I voted against it”. A good example of voting for the bill and then voting against an amendment or vice versa." Sure. Just don't tell me I get my facts wrong while doing a "triage" of facts yourself. Still haven't heard anything from you on Sen. Helms introducing ASPA yet, btw. " Just what radical actions has the Bush Administration taken to fight (using your words) the ICC and Kyoto?" You mean you don't know? Strange, given that I stated a few of those things in the above posts. Also, I thought it was pretty well known stuff. Ok, so let's see: 1. Bush declared the signature on the Rome Statute void in 2002 (another "creative interpretation" of US international legal obligations). 2. Bush withdrew the US officials from the negotiations on the Rome Statute in 2001. 3. Bush refused to participate in the assembly of states party even as an observer state (unlike all the other big non-signatory states like China, Russia or Israel). 4. Bush signed ASPA. 5. The Bush administration conducts a systematic campaign to pressure states into so-called "Art. 98" agreements, precluding these states from surrendering US nationals to the ICC. Quite a lot of political strong-arming was used to get some of these agreements (not sure how many there are exactly at the moment, but there must be around 100 agreements of that kind). 6. The Bush administration repeatedly tries to obtain jurisdictional exceptions for US nationals in UN peacekeeping missions (see Bosnia by way of example). 7. The Bush administration refuses to join any resolution of the UN security council acknowledging the existence of the ICC. And I'm sure I forgot one or two things... Essentially, Bush would love to completely scrap the whole ICC project (or, even better, turn it into an US-controlled institution). Now you might or might not agree with the reasons for that (I don't, as you might have gathered), but the fact that he is actively working against the ICC remains. Trying to deny that fact seems to me an exercise in futility, especially for somebody who doesn't really seem to have an issue with Bush's policy toward the ICC. As for Kyoto: oh, heck, I'm tired of stating the obvious. Just read this [url=http://www.net.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=28983]timeline of Kyoto protocol events [/url]. "As for former Pres Clinton being the first euro president. Look at both his background prior to being elected" Well, talk about sweeping statements, eh? "as well as some of the policies the attempted to implement, and the things he signed." Cf. above. "To this you could add his use of the US military in such adventures as Haiti, Bosnia and Somalia. The euros thought all these things were great." BTW: who exactly are "the euros"? As for Haiti, Bosnia, and Somalia: only one of these was of any direct interest to Europe: Bosnia. All the rest did not concern Europe directly. Pretty weak evidence for your position that Clinton was a "euro" president. He was just not as fundamentally "anti-euro" as Bush. "As for getting the “kinks” in both the ICC and Kyoto worked out, the euros did not want to hear any of it." Again, that's a pretty general statement. What eactly did the "euros" not want to hear about? "It would be just like trying to reform the UN a huge waste of both time and effort." Why? "The ICC and Kyoto reflect the world as the euros view it." It does? Specify, please: how, pray, does the "euro" view differ fundamentally from the US view (excepting, of course, the Bush administration's view, which does have a very, shall we say, different take on world affairs indeed)? In fact, I'd be very interested in learning that there is indeed such a thing as a unified "euro" position on the "way Europe views the world". And, last not least, on DW: to explain why your statement that DW is a "propaganda arm" is not only wrong but actually pretty insulting would take me quite a bit of time, so I'm afraid I'll have to leave you to research the German system of public broadcasting by yourself. You might start with [url=http://www.dw-world.de/dw/0,2142,3326,00.html]this[/url] link.

Don S on :

Mbast, there is no reason to believe that Kyoto would [i]ever[/i] pass the US Senate as currently written, given that a Sense of the Senate vote addressed to Clinton was 95-1 (I think) against. ICC was a little closer I believe, but still far from passage. 70-30 or something like that. I think people's minds may change about the ICC. But if you want to change people's minds to be more positive on ICC I can tell you precisely how [i]not to proceed[/i]. Do NOT make efforts to indict high US officials for 'war crimes' in European courts. This includes Geberal Tommy Franks, Donald Rumsfeld, and even Henry Kissinger.....

Olaf Petersen on :

Are wars of aggression war crimes or are they not? They are and that makes Rumsfeld a war criminal no matter whether he ever will be held responsible for that. The German Federal Administration Tribunal has already declared Operation Iraqi Freedom a breach of international law (in the Pfaff trial). Every other relevant court in the world will come to the same conclusion. Funny enough the ICC would not be one of the relevant courts because it only takes action in cases where it is impossible to bring someone to justice in his home country. Rumsfeld, any American soldier and anyone else can be brought to justice in the USA. That means all arguments opposing the ICC are weak. At least they should... ;)

Potsdam Amerikanerin on :

Although America's Alien Torts Act can, in some respects, be compared with Germany's notion of 'universal jurisdiction', there seem to be some major differences. First of all, the Alien Tort Statute only allows civil lawsuits, not criminal charges. Secondly, such a lawsuit against a non-citizen can only take place if the accused is actually [b]in the United States[/b] to be served the court papers. Germany's "universal jurisdiction" law seems similar to Belgium's 1993 law, which allowed victims to file complaints in Belgium for alleged atrocities (war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide) committed abroad. After an avalanche of lawsuits were deposed (accusing Ariel Sharon, Yasser Arafat, George H.W. Bush, etc), Belgium changed its law in 2003 to require that the accused person be Belgian or present in Belgium.

Ralf Goergens on :

'Universal jurisdiction' is inaccurate. It really is 'jurisdiction, where nobody else has jurisdiction'. On other words, if a dictator or local warlord won't be punished in his own country, because that country's government approves of his atrocities, he'll be punished if we can get him. There obvioulsy is no claim to have jurisdiction over Rumsfeld, for the US has a jusdiciary that investigates and punishes crimes.

ADMIN on :

Please note that by default the comments in this blog are threaded rather than linear, i.e. some of the latest and very interesting comments are not at the bottom, but in the middle. At the top of the comments section you have the option to change the view from threaded to linear, which enable you to see the latest comments at the end of the thread.

Dave on :

How about issuing arrest warrants against German authorities for politically-motivated prosecutions and conspiracy to falsely imprison Americans?

Add Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

Form options