Rumsfeld's next problem

[james_davis_nicoll]

A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo

This bit is interesting: "Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides "universal jurisdiction" allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world."

Comments

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

What'll you bet me the US will choose not to recognize that "universal jurisdiction" ....

[pauldrye.livejournal.com]

It's not a question of them recognizing it. The international community does, and it's mostly a question of how far gone US-World relations are whether this goes ahead or not. If it does -- I strongly suspect it will be quashed by pressure in Germany -- Rumsfeld might not be able to set foot outside the US without ending up in pokey.

It's especially humourous since the whole thread of international law that brought us to this point started at the Nuremberg Trials.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Same reason why Henry Kissinger doesn't travel much any more...

[dewline.livejournal.com]

My heart sarcastically bleeds for Mr. Kissinger.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Not one of my favourite people, no.

[(Anonymous)]

The international community recognises Germany's universal jurisdiction precisely as far as it's not them getting sued. America just pointed this out in advance.

[timill]

It's all good fun until Saudi Arabia uses the same theory to impose Sharia law worldwide...

[dewline.livejournal.com]

As far as their particular interpretation of shari'a is concerned, if they try it, it'll be too bad for them. Other, saner interpretations may yet prove more trustworthy in the eyes of the world at large, I suspect.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Well, I didn't say the US would be able to make non-recognition of it stick. :)

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

It's not a question of them recognizing it. The international community does, and it's mostly a question of how far gone US-World relations are whether this goes ahead or not. If it does -- I strongly suspect it will be quashed by pressure in Germany -- Rumsfeld might not be able to set foot outside the US without ending up in pokey.

It's kind of funny to think of the guys in the gang who helped make travel to anf from the US such a pain in the ass being inconvenienced to an even greater degree.

[twoeleven.livejournal.com]

lessee here: terrorism is a war crime as narrowly defined (deliberately directing military force against civilians). the us claimed the power to arrest anybody in the world it accused such war crimes. that was bad. germany claims the power to arrest anybody in the world it accuses of war crimes. this is good?

this is not the rule of law. the reason we have passports, formal requests for extradition, and other silly bits of international law is specifically to prevent gov'ts from randomly grabbing people for political reasons.

obsf: kornbluth, "the only thing we learn"

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

the us claimed the power to arrest anybody in the world it accused such war crimes.

Actually, the US claims wider powers and has for some time: foreign nations have been arrested by US law agents for crimes commited in nations other than the US. Humberto Alvarez Machain comes to mind as an example. It would be an implied act of disrespect to the US _not_ to arrest Rumsfeld, as it would imply that there's something wrong with US standard practice as established over decades.

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

foreign nations

Foreign nationals, I mean.

[elynne.livejournal.com]

Oh, I dunno... that's why we've got "peacekeeping forces" and "police actions," yeah?

[dewline.livejournal.com]

Some days I wish SHIELD really existed as an arm of the UN....

[casaubon.livejournal.com]

German law allows the prosecution, I don't think it allows the *arrest* of anyone outside Germany (or the EU, I guess). No one is going to be randomly grabbed. They're putting evidence before a judge, not sending out a kidnap team.
Universal Jurisdiction is intended for cases where alleged war criminals would not be tried in their own country. Such as the delightful Mr. Pinochet (who got away due to his irreversible descent into dementia - which was suddenly cured when he got back to Chile).

I expect the whole thing will be quashed, hopefully it'll be quashed by a judge dismissing it on legal grounds rather than politicians burying it due to embarrassment.

Tangentially...

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Universal Jurisdiction is intended for cases where alleged war criminals would not be tried in their own country.

Also used against things like child sex tourism, IIRC.

Re: Tangentially...

[(Anonymous)]

Normally countries only apply this to their own citizens, don't they? e.g. Australia. Interesting argument with PNG and the Solomans over this currently.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10406389

Cheers
Errol

Re: Tangentially...

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think I got the terms wrong - I've seen these referred to as "universal jurisdiction", but now I look the proper term for such laws seems to be "extraterritorial jurisdiction" rather than universal, for the reason you noted.

(FWIW, I think Australia's extraterritorial child-sex laws extend to long-term residents, not just actual citizens, and some nations extend extraterritorial jurisdiction to certain crimes committed against their citizens - for instance, Pinochet was arrested at the request of a Spanish court, for crimes committed against Spanish citizens in Chile.)

There's some discussion here (p. 26 in particular) implying that the USA's PROTECT Act might have true universal jurisdiction, but AFAIK this hasn't been put into practice.