KUALA LUMPUR WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 1-CP-2011
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission Against George W Bush Anthony L. Blair
CHARGE
Charge 1
4
Case No. 1-CP-2011
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission Against George W Bush Anthony L. Blair CHARGE The Chief Prosecutor of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission pursuant to Article 7 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission charges: 1. George W Bush, from the United States of America, and 2. Anthony L. Blair, from the United Kingdom Individually, for CRIMES AGAINST PEACE as follows:
The Accused persons had committed Crimes against Peace, in that the Accused persons planned, prepared and invaded the sovereign state of Iraq on 19 March 2003 in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law. 5
Charge 1
Particulars of the Charge: 1.
2. 3.
4.
5.
6
On 19 March 2003 the United States of America (USA) and the United Kingdom (UK) launched a war against Iraq without the sanction of the United Nations and without just cause whatsoever.
The accused George W Bush (Bush) was at the relevant time the President of the USA and the accused Anthony Blair (Blair) was the Prime Minister of the UK.
Bush acted on purported advice that the US could launch a pre-emptive war without the approval of the United Nations, notwithstanding the fact that Iraq had not threatened war against the US or attacked the US;
Bush had contemplated waging war against Iraq as early as 15 September 2001 and had at some time confided in Blair of this intention. During 2002, Bush and Blair, without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council directed air strikes against Iraq in order to degrade Iraq’s air defenses, in preparation to invade Iraq in 2003. A memorandum of a UK cabinet meeting known as the ‘Downing Street Memo’ dated July 23 2002 summarised a meeting between Blair and his cabinet with British intelligence officials. It records that ‘Military action was seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy’. Blair supported this line of action.
Case No. 1-CP-2011
6.
On 8 November 2002 the United Nations Security Resolution 1441 (SCR1441) was adopted. This resolution was jointly sponsored by the USA and the UK. The summary of the SCR1441 is as follows: a.
b. c.
That Iraq was and is in breach of its obligations to cooperate with UN inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete certain actions as required by previous resolutions, among them SCR 687. Gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its obligation to disarm.
Declared that if Iraq failed to comply then: i. ii.
iii.
d.
This would be a further breach of its obligations. A report will be made to the Security Council by the UNMOVIC and the IAEA for assessment. The Security Council would convene immediately to consider · the situation and · the need for full compliance with all the resolutions in order to secure peace and security.
Noted that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq ”that it would face serious consequences as a result of its continued violation of its obligations”.
The SCR 1441 clearly did not authorise the use of military action to compel compliance with the resolution. A straight 7
Charge 1
7.
8.
9.
reading of the resolution made it abundantly patent that the Security Council would convene to decide on the next course of action, if any, upon receiving the requisite report.
This was further emphasised by the statements made by the ambassadors of both the US and UK after the passing of the SCR1441 that there was no automatic right of unilateral military action in the event Iraq failed to comply with SCR144; and that any further action will have to be decided by the Security Council. The US and the UK leaders, namely Bush and Blair, subsequently, and aware that the Security Council would not support their resolution to go to war, changed their stance and declared that they reserved the right to take military action against Iraq if the Security Council did not take action.
Under the UN Charter there is no right for implied authorisation to take unilateral decisions to use force against a sovereign country, except in self-defence in circumscribed circumstances (which has no application to the facts here).
10. Iraq had, in any event, complied with SCR1441 by readmitting weapons inspectors.
11. Blair had in testimony to the Chilcot inquiry on 14 January 2011 admitted that the then Attorney General, Peter Goldsmith, advised that a further Security Resolution (after SCCR 1441) was obligatory under international law to authorise the use of military force; and his Cabinet Office had reached the same conclusion in its earlier paper. 8
Case No. 1-CP-2011
12. On 24 February 2003 the US, UK and Spain did table a second draft resolution that Iraq had failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in SCR 1441. The other permanent members of the Security Council did not agree with this assessment to authorise the use of force.
13. In any event it is now a well established fact which is in the public domain that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction. Indeed it was made clear by the Chief UN Inspector Scott Ritter that by 1998 Iraq’s chemical structures were completely dismantled and that the nuclear weapons were completely eliminated. The physical structures were also dismantled. This means that, in any event as of that date, the alleged threat posed for weapons of mass destruction was nil. This information was willfully ignored by Bush and Blair and demonstrates that Bush and Blair knowingly contrived to use an utterly false basis to invade Iraq several years later – in 2003. 14. There is also evidence that the sites named by the US that were sealed since the late 1990s by the UN Inspectors were found to be still sealed after the war was launched against Iraq. This was also confirmed by Scott Ritter the chief UN Inspector. 15. The allegations made that Saddam kicked out inspectors in 1998 is also not true. 16. On 24 September 2004 the then UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, also weighed in to state that the war against Iraq was illegal. 9
Charge 1
17. Bush and Blair have over the years since the war admitted that they knew or believed the intelligence reports on WMD to be unreliable; and yet they proceeded unilaterally to wage war based on a false and contrived basis.
18. More then 1.4 million Iraqis have been killed and continue to die as a direct and indirect result of the illegal war waged by Bush and Blair against Iraq.
19. By these acts and omissions, George W Bush and Anthony L Blair committed Crimes Against Peace by willfully waging war against the sovereign nation of Iraq without any just cause and in breach of international law, international conventions and the United Nations Charter. ADDITIONAL FACTS: 20. Reference is made to the following meetings, directions, authorizations, representations and documents, namely: a.
b.
10
On 21 November 2001, Bush secretly ordered the preparation of formal war plans for the invasion of Iraq;
In response to Bush’s order, Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretray of Defence of the USA, on or about 27 November 2001, directed General Tommy R. Franks (“General Franks”), the head of Central Command to prepare immediately plans for the invasion of Iraq. This plan was planned and formulated with the knowledge and consent of General Richard B. Myers, who was at
Case No. 1-CP-2011
the material time, the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (“Meyers”);
c.
On 29 January 2002, Bush in his State of the Union Address labelled Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an “Axis of Evil”;
d.
On 17 March 2002, in Washington DC, Paul D. Wolfowitz (“Wolfowitz”), Deputy Secretary of Defense of the US, was advised by the British Ambassador, Sir Christopher Meyers to “wrong-foot” President Saddam Hussein by seeking a UN resolution for the readmission of weapons inspectors. The premise was that, in the event of President Saddam Hussein’s refusal, the same shall be cited as a justification for war.
e.
f.
The memorandum, dated 23 July 2002 from Mr. Matthew Rycroft to Mr. David Manning (more commonly referred to as the “Downing Street memo”) which made reference to the meeting between the British Prime Minister, Blair and his senior officials at 10, Downing Street on 23 July, 2002.
At the said meeting, Sir Richard Dearlove, known as “C”, head of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) (“Dearlove”) informed Blair that there was a perceptible shift in attitude in the United States – “military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were fixed around the policy”. 11
Charge 1
g.
h.
Upon learning from George J. Tenet (“Tenet”), the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and others that Iraq and President Saddam Hussein had no involvement with either the attacks of September 11, 2001 or Al Qaeda, Donald Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of Defense, directed Douglas J. Feith (“Feith”) to secretly create the Counter Terrorism Group (CTEG) to “establish links” between Iraq and Al Qaeda by reviewing raw intelligence which was previously discarded as being unreliable.
In order to swing public opinion in favour of war against Iraq, Bush established the “White House Iraq Group” (WHIG) chaired by Karl Rove (“Rove”). The main objective of WHIG was to secure Republican majority in both Houses of Congress in the November 2002 congressional elections, thereby ensuring republican support for Bush’s war plans against Iraq. i.
i.
ii. iii. 12
WHIG’s strategy was formulated to mislead and deceive both the Congress and the US public by suppressing material facts and making statements knowing the same to be without basis and or a reckless indifference to their truth, specifically: suppressing the ulterior objectives for invading Iraq; suppressing the ulterior objectives of seeking an UN resolution for the deployment of weapons inspectors; stating that there was a link between Iraq and the September 11 attacks;
Case No. 1-CP-2011
iv.
j.
stating that President Saddam Hussein had established links with Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda terrorist organization; v. stating Saddam Hussein’s intent to attack the United States and the United Kingdom; vi. stating that Iraq was in possession of nuclear weapons; vii. stating that Iraq was manufacturing biological and chemical weapons; and viii. stating that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were a threat to world peace.
As a result of the propaganda campaign conducted by the aforesaid organisations referred to subparagraphs (8) and (9), the US Congress resolved on 11 October 2002 to “Authorise Use of Force Against Iraq”. The said resolution provides: “The President is authorised to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to – i
ii
defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”
21. Sometime in September 2002, the UK Cabinet Office Joint Intelligence Committee headed by one Scarlett and assisted by one Campbell prepared a dossier on Iraq, “Iraq – Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation” 13
Charge 1
which was used as a justification for war against Iraq. However, several portions of the said dossier were not based on actual intelligence sources but plagiarised from an article in the journal “Middle East Review of International Affairs” and written by a post graduate student, Ibrahim al- Marashi.
22. On the 8th November 2002, the UN Security Council approved Resolution 1441, a US-British sponsored resolution requiring Iraq to reinstate weapons inspectors after a four year absence. President Saddam Hussein complied with the said UN Security Council’s resolution and weapon inspectors were re-admitted into Iraq. 23. Reference is made to the following statements, meetings, directions, authorizations, representations and documents, namely: a.
14
On 12 September, 2002, Bush addressed the UN General Assembly and stated inter-alia that, “The history, the logic and the facts lead to one conclusion. Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime’s good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take… Saddam Hussein … continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one…”
Case No. 1-CP-2011
b.
c.
Bush made this statement knowing it to be false and or misleading and inconsistent with the facts particularised in paragraph 19 (1) to (10) above; Rumsfeld’s testimony to Congress on 19 September 2002, “No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein”.
Rumsfeld made this statement knowing the same to be false and or misleading and made for the purpose of inciting war against Iraq. In his State of Union Address on 28 January 2003, Bush stated,
“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq’s recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. “From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. 15
Charge 1
“The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”.
The statement was made knowing the same to be false and or misleading and served as a camouflage for the real reasons for waging war against Iraq as particularized in the foregoing paragraphs.
d.
In his address to the UN Security Council on 5th February 2003, Colin Powell stated, “We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he’s determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein’s history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?
The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world”. 16
Case No. 1-CP-2011
e. f.
The statement was made knowing the same to be false and or misleading and served as a camouflage for the real reasons for waging war against Iraq as particularized in the foregoing paragraphs. Blair’s statement on 29 January 2003 on TV linking Saddam with Al-Qaeda.
Bush, Blair and Spanish Premier Jose Maria Aznar gathered in the Azores and collectively set a deadline for end of Monday, 17th March, 2003 for the UN Security Council to support the United States / United Kingdom resolution demanding Iraq’s immediate disarmament. Bush declared that it was “a moment of truth for the world”. g.
h.
On the 17 March 2003, the United Kingdom Ambassador to the UN declared that the diplomatic process on Iraq has ended and announces the withdrawal of the abovementioned draft resolution. Weapons Inspectors were ordered to be evacuated from Iraq.
On 17 March, 2003, Goldsmith issued a written parliamentary statement that the war on Iraq would be legal on the grounds of existing UN resolutions, knowing the same to be false and or misleading when he had in late July 2002 advised Blair in a hand written letter, that such a war was unlawful and a breach of international law. Goldsmith had then pointed out: i.
War could not be justified purely on grounds of “regime change”; 17
Charge 1
ii. iii. iv.
The parliamentary statement of 17 March 2003, was therefore issued to solicit support for a war against Iraq and to mislead the British public that the war was legal.
i.
On 18 March, 2003, Blair stated, “We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd”.
The statement was made by Blair to mislead and deceive the public that Saddam Hussein at the material time was still in possession of nuclear weapons and was made to incite support for the invasion of Iraq which Blair knew would be launched in just a few days later.
j.
18
Although UN rules permitted ‘military intervention’ on the basis of ‘self-defence’, they did not apply in this case because Britain was not under threat from Iraq; While UN allowed ‘humanitarian intervention’ in certain circumstances, that too was not relevant to Iraq; and It would be very hard to rely on earlier UN resolutions in the Nineties approving the use of force against Saddam.
On the eve of the invasion of Iraq, Bush in his address to the nation on the 19 March, 2003 stated, “The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not
Case No. 1-CP-2011
live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder”.
k.
This statement was made by Bush knowing the same to be false and or misleading and as a further justification for waging war against Iraq. At the material time, Iraq and President had not made any threats against the United States or any other countries with weapons of mass murder as alleged.
One of the grounds cited in support of Bush’s allegations that Iraq had reconstituted nuclear weapons was a purported intelligence report that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger. In making and or relying on this fraudulent claim, the above-named Defendants suppressed from the public the declaration on by El Baradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that, “Iraq has provided a comprehensive explanation of its relation with Niger. The IAEA was able to review correspondence from the government of Niger and compare full format contents and signature of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement related documentation. Based on thorough analysis the IAEA has concluded, with concurrence of outside experts, that these documents which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are, in fact, not authentic”.
19
Charge 1
24. On 20 March, 2003 the invasion of Iraq was ordered by Bush and Blair, in violation of international law. The invasion was dubbed “Operation Iraqi freedom”. 25. However, no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq after the illegal invasion of Iraq. Dated at Kuala Lumpur this 4 August 2011
…………………………………….. Gurdial S Nijar Chief Prosecutor Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Legal Team (Established by the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission)
20
Case No. 1-CP-2011
KUALA LUMPUR WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 2-CTH-2011
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission Against 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
George Walker Bush Donald Henry Rumsfeld Richard Bruce Cheney Alberto R. Gonzales David Spears Addington William J. Haynes II Jay Scott Bybee John Choon Yoo
21
CHARGE
Charge 1
24
Case No. 2-CTH-2011
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission Against
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
George Walker Bush Donald Henry Rumsfeld Richard Bruce Cheney Alberto R. Gonzales David Spears Addington William J. Haynes II Jay Scott Bybee John Choon Yoo
CHARGE
The Chief Prosecutor of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission pursuant to Article 7 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission charges: George Walker Bush Donald Henry Rumsfeld Richard Bruce Cheney Alberto R. Gonzales David Spears Addington William J. Haynes II Jay Scott Bybee John Choon Yoo
25
Charge 2
All of whom are from the United States of America CRIME OF TORTURE and WAR CRIMES as follows:
The Accused persons had committed the Crime of Torture and War Crimes, in that:
The Accused persons had wilfully participated in the formulation of executive orders and directives to exclude the applicability of all international conventions and laws, namely the Convention against Torture 1984, Geneva Convention III 1949, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Charter in relation to the war launched by the US and others in Afghanistan (in 2001) and in Iraq (in March 2003); Additionally, and/or on the basis and in furtherance thereof, the Accused persons authorised, or connived in, the commission of acts of torture and cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment against victims in violation of international law, treaties and conventions including the Convention against Torture 1984 and the Geneva Conventions, including Geneva Convention III 1949. Particulars of Charge: 1.
26
The Accused were at all material times from September 2001, part of the Administration of the United States of America (US) and held the following positions:
Case No. 2-CTH-2011
a. b. c.
d. e. f.
2.
3.
4.
g. h.
George Walker Bush, then President of the US Richard Bruce Cheney, then Vice-President of the US Donald Henry Rumsfeld, then Secretary of Defense of the US Alberto R. Gonzales, then Counsel to President Bush David S. Addington, then General Counsel to the VicePresident William Haynes II, then General Counsel to Secretary of Defense Jay Scott Bybee, then Assistant Attorney General John Choo Yoo, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General
The Accused George W. Bush was the President of the US from January 2001 to January 2009 and pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution exercised Executive Power as President as well as Commander in Chief of the Armed services of the US.
On the day of his inauguration on 20 January 2001, Bush took an oath as required by the said US Constitution to faithfully execute the office of the President and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. Article VI of the said US Constitution provides that the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws
27
Charge 2
5. 6.
7.
8.
28
of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding�. (emphasis supplied)
The US is, and was at all material times, a party to the Torture Convention 1984 and the Geneva Conventions including Geneva Convention III 1949. As President and Commander in Chief of the Armed services, Bush exercised authority, direction and control over the entire Executive Branch comprising the White House, the Office of the Vice President, the Department of State, Defense, the National Security Council and the Armed Forces.
All the Accused persons are individually responsible for the crimes alleged against them under this charge. The accused planned, ordered, committed, or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation, or execution of these crimes. None of the Accused persons personally participated in actual acts of torture and inhuman treatment of the victims but facilitated and directed the implementation of torture and inhuman treatment through issuing of memorandums, legal opinion and directives to, among others, their subordinates. They also did not prevent the commission of these acts after knowing or being in a position to know of the perpetration of such acts and treatment. The lawyers - Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to President Bush, David Addington, General Counsel to Vice-President Cheney, William Haynes, General Counsel to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, and John Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General –were complicit
Case No. 2-CTH-2011
9.
in that they provided the legal opinions and justification for avoiding the obligations under the Convention against Torture 1984 and the Geneva Convention III 1949 thereby facilitating the implementation of torture and inhuman conduct when it was plain that the advice they were giving was erroneous in law. They knew that their advice, if accepted, would be acted upon.
The first three named Accused persons were at all material times superiors and are in international law responsible for the criminal acts of their subordinates as they: a.
b.
Authorised the commission of acts in violation of the said Conventions;
In any event they knew or had reason to know that their subordinates were about to commit such acts or had done so, and they failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts or to punish the perpetrators.
10. The authorizations issued by President Bush, with the knowledge of Vice President Cheney, include the following:
A Memorandum dated 7 February 2002 that “none of the provisions of Geneva” apply to our conflict with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world”. The Memorandum was issued for the Vice President Cheney, the Secretary of State, the Secretary for Defense Rumsfeld, the Attorney General, the Chief of Staff to the president, the Director of CIA, the assistant 29
Charge 2
to the President for National Security Affairs and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This Memo approved the opinion of John Yoo dated 9 January 2002, and solicited by President Bush, that the CIA was free to ignore the Geneva Conventions with regard to prisoners classified as Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees.
11. The authorization issued by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld includes: a.
b.
c. 30
Memorandum dated 19 January 2002 to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the “the US has determined that Al Qaeda and Taliban individuals under the control of the Department of Defense are not entitled to prisoner of war status for purposes of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. This endorsed the opinion of John Yoo dated 9 January 2002 that the CIA was free to ignore the Geneva Conventions with regard to prisoners classified as Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees. Approval on December 2 2002 of an Action Memo from General Counsel of the Department of Defense dated 27 November 2002 for use of “Counter-Resistance Techniques”. This included the use of all category II techniques and one Category III technique during interrogations at Guantanamo.
Memorandum dated April 6 2003 to the Commander, US Southern Command approving the use of specified counter-resistance techniques.
Case No. 2-CTH-2011
12. President Bush and Vice President Cheney were aware of the memos, approvals and directives referred to in the two preceding paragraphs; and that these would be, and were in fact, acted upon. They failed to intervene to prevent any illegal activity conducted under these memos and approvals.
13. The legal opinions referred to in paragraph 8 of the Particulars were relied upon by the first three named accused – Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and translated into Memos and directives which were issued to persons in charge of dealing with detainees at prisons run by, or under the supervision of, the US and its officials. The legal opinions include: a.
b.
Alberto Gonzales had on 25 September 2001 issued an opinion that the Geneva Convention was ‘obsolete and quaint’ in application to Al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners. David Addington wrote and/or contributed to this memo.
John Yoo had on 9 January 2002 issued a memorandum that the CIA was free to ignore the Geneva Conventions in relation to the Al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees [‘the Geneva Memo’]. David Addington contributed to this memo.
Bush on 18 January 2002 issued a Directive approving the Geneva Memo of 9 January 2002. Donald Rumsfeld on 19 January 2002 issued a memorandum for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 31
Charge 2
c.
d.
of Staff, re: Status of Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees approving the Geneva Memo of 9 January 2002.
Jay S. Bybee on 22 January 2002 issued a legal opinion that the Armed Forces may ignore the Geneva Conventions. David Addington contributed to this opinion.
William Haynes had in an Action Memo to Rumsfeld dated November 27 2002 sought the approval of certain counter-resistance techniques stating them to be “legally available”. Rumsfeld approved this memo on December 2 2002.
14. As a result and on the basis of these authorizations which relied upon the ‘legal’ opinions, war crimes, that is acts of torture and brutal, barbaric, cruel and dehumanizing acts were perpetrated against countless persons, including in particular: a.
b.
32
Moazzam Begg of the United Kingdom, unlawfully detained from 31 January 2002 until January 2005, abducted in Pakistan and detained in Afghanistan and Guantanamo;
Rhuhel Ahmad of the United Kingdom, unlawfully detained from around end of 2001 until March 2004 in Afghanistan and Guantanamo;
Case No. 2-CTH-2011
c. d.
Ali Sh. Abbas of Iraq, unlawfully detained from 13 October 2003 until March 2004 in Iraq and held in Abu Ghraib prison;
Abbas Abid of Iraq, unlawfully detained from 28 August 2005 until 5 September 2006 in Iraq and held in Abu Ghraib prison
[These persons are hereinbefore and hereinafter referred to collectively as ‘victims’.]
15. These victims were subjected to a systematic pattern of abuse in the execution of these acts of torture in interim detention centres and across various countries and prisons including Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
These acts of torture, cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment consisted of: a. b.
c.
d. e. f.
Hooding for incredibly long hours; Short shackling where the hands and legs of a detainee are tied together, for prolonged periods of time, up to 7-8 hours. Shackling of the feet, body and hands for prolonged periods; Chaining in physically impossible postures, including to the floor of a cell, for prolonged periods; Shackling and chaining for long periods such as to cause severe and prolonged physical pain; Sleep deprivation; 33
Charge 2
g. h. i. j.
k. l. m. n. o. p. q.
r. s. t. u. v. w. x.
Being subjected to blasting loud noises continuously for prolonged periods; Continuous beatings causing severe pain; Confinement in solitary and (often while hooded) for prolonged periods; Subjecting to extreme and physically unbearable conditions (extreme cold or hot, humid, devoid of sunlight, ); Overcrowding prisoners in dismally small cells; Disallowing normal bodily functions in decent conditions (not allowing to go to toilet, have a bath, defection in full view of others, abruptly ending prisoners when carrying out such functions); Withholding food and/or drinks; Where food was provided, providing atrocious and terrible food; Humiliation: including by women officers; Using dogs to threaten and intimidate; Using electrocution, including of sensitive areas such as genitals; Threatening to harm family members; Simulating torture of family members; Threatening to shoot with gun pointed at the head; Securing confessions through coercion and inducements; Denying medical treatment; Dispensing hallucinating drugs; Suggesting suicide.
16. These victims were subjected to severe physical and mental pain, and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment including 34
Case No. 2-CTH-2011
by the employment of the above methods. The methods were applied to them cumulatively and over long periods. They were designed to force the detainees to confess to “crimes” they had no knowledge of, and/ or were not involved in. These inhuman and degrading acts were applied to almost all detainees. PARTICULARS a.
Moazzam Begg i.
He was forced to confess (falsely) by threats that he would be killed or remain in Guantanamo for decades without access to anyone or any legal process; ii. He was put in a cell and did not see daylight for 9 months – at Guantanamo; iii. He was incarcerated in solitary confinement for 1 and a half years – in Guantanamo. iv. He was hooded and shackled for prolonged periods in a manner that was barbaric and extremely painful; v. He was carried to places using the ‘strappado technique’ – which results in ‘excruciating pain’; vi. It was insinuated to him that his wife was being held and tortured, and he was made to hear screams of a woman in the next cell; vii. He was transported to Guantanamo from Afghanistan– a 20- hour journey – in shackles in a 3 piece suit of chains, hooded, with blackened goggles and ear muffs all of which were tight fitting and very painful; 35
Charge 2
viii. The psychological effect was immense whereby “I lost my mental ability to reason properly on several occasions and began to punch and kick and scream in the cell because I saw no end to this”.
b. Rhuhel i.
c.
He was subject to sleep deprivation and exposed to continuous neon or strobe lights and loud music 24 hours a day for as long as 45 days; ii. He was exposed to extreme cold weather – in Afghanistan; and high humidity and intense heat – in Guantanamo; iii. He was short shackled, and placed in a special three piece suit and hooked to the floor; iv. He was hooded and handcuffed; v. He was forced to take injections every 6 months which resulted in hallucinations; vi. He was subject to intense and prolonged interrogations for 5 months; vii. He was subjected to acts that endangered his mental health; viii. He was provided with atrocious food that lacked taste and nutrition.
Ali Sh. Abbas i. ii. iii.
36
He was confined to space that was 30 cm by 30 cm. He was hooded and electric shocks applied to his body; He had a gun put to his head and was told that he would be killed;
Case No. 2-CTH-2011
iv. He was deprived of food; v. He was beaten continuously; vi. He was rendered nude for 2 weeks; vii. A jagged wooden stick and then a rifle barrel was inserted into his rectum; viii. He was tied to a grill and blaring loud music was played in the cell till next morning until he lost his hearing (til todate); ix. He “lost (his) mind”. x. He was subjected to pain and lost consciousness; xi. On one occasion some persons placed him on top of a carton box containing can food. They then connected wires to his fingers and ordered him to stretch his hand out horizontally, and switched on the electric power. As the electric current entered his whole body, he felt as if his eyes were being forced out and sparks flying out. His teeth were clattering violently and his legs shook violently as well. His whole body was shaking all over; xii. He was electrocuted on three separate sessions. On the first two sessions, he was electrocuted twice, each electrocution lasting few minutes. On the last session, as he was being electrocuted, he accidentally bit his tongue and was bleeding from the mouth. The electrocution was then stopped and a doctor was called to attend to him. He was lying on the floor. The doctor poured some water into his mouth and used his feet to force open his mouth. He then remarked, “There is nothing serious, continue!” Then he left the room. He was bleeding profusely from his mouth and blood was all over his blanket and body. But the beating continued. After some time, the beating stopped; 37
Charge 2
d.
xiii. He was then left alone in a cell for 49 days; xiv. Then he was transferred to Tent C in a camp for another 45 days; xv. In the beginning of March 2004, he was put into a truck and taken to a highway and then thrown out. A passing car stopped and took him home.
Abbas Abid i. He was subjected to electric shocks to various parts of the body and especially the penis; ii. He was hung from the wall and while he was hanging weights were hung from his penis for long hours; iii. He was beaten with tools, thick cudgels, cables, metal pipes and metal ribbons; iv. His finger nails were forcefully extracted; v. The person holding him in custody brought his wife and mother to the prison and threatened to sexually abuse them; vi. He was hung from the wall for long hours until he fainted –he was handcuffed with the hands to the back and then he was hung from the handcuffed hands that caused the dislocation of his shoulder; vii. He was beaten while so hung with several tools of torture until the handcuffs broke. This happened many times.
17. The Prosecution will also rely upon, among others: a.
38
Admissions made by Bush that he approved, and knew of, the acts of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading acts against prisoners;
Case No. 2-CTH-2011
b.
c.
Admissions made by Cheney that he knew of, and approved, the said acts; this includes an audio interview of Cheney conducted by ‘Democracy Now’ on August 30 2011. Interviews conducted and recorded by authors investigating these war crimes (such as international lawyer, Philippe Sands);
18. These acts of torture are in contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention against Torture 1984.
19. These acts also constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in contravention of Geneva Convention III 1949 on the treatment of combatants and civilians in any armed conflict and are applicable to interrogations. These acts are designated as war crimes under the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission Charter. 20. The victims were detained without just cause. No due process of the law was applied. Victims were not allowed access to justice including to legal counsel or courts of law. In fact the victims Moazzam Begg and Rhuhel were kept in a prison in Guantanamo, which is located on the southern tip of Cuba, with the avowed aim of denying them recourse to the courts of the US. 21. The victims were not charged in a court of law for any offence. They lost their liberty for periods ranging from a year to 3 years. 39
Charge 2
22.
Finally, and in any event, if the separate charge filed against Bush for the commission of the Crime against Peace succeeds before this Tribunal, then all the acts of the Accused Persons in so far as they relate to the war in Iraq would be illegal and constitute war crimes.
Dated this 1st day of September 2011
…………………………………….. Gurdial S Nijar Chief Prosecutor Kuala Lumpur Malaysia
40