| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/15/2006 2:52:41 PM | Once again Rumsfeld is facing charges as a war criminal. He feared going to Germany back in 2005 because a similar suit had been brought against him in 2004. Of course the US pressured Germany to quash the case so that Rumsfeld could travel to Germany for a NATO conference. These charges were dropped the day before the conference because the Germans felt that the US courts should and would deal with Rumsfeld. Unfortunately the US chose to do nothing about him until now. Now that he is no longer in charge and the prosecutors have gathered further evidence of his direct involvement in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and also the secret torture prisons in Eastern Europe. The USA will no doubt try their hardest to pressure the German govt to lean on their courts to again quash the charges. If and when Rumsfeld is tried it will open up the door for bush's war crimes trial once his term is over. I am sure they will be very understanding to the idea of by passing the Geneva Convention. After all it isn’t torture if you change the definition...
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. (Nov 10, TIME) This was almost 2 years ago.
Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case — that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue — has been proven wrong. (Nov 10, TIME)
Pity they didn’t realize 2 years ago that there was no way that America would ever deal with Rumsfeld. Bush still is protected from prosecution for 2 more years but his day will come.
German law has universal jurisdiction that allows them to prosecute crimes that have occurred any where on the planet. Canada has created similar laws to deal with child molesters. The Canadian law is designed to go after Canadians that travel to other countries (like Thailand) to have sex with kids. If the US had a similar law they could have picked up that john mark karr creep years ago. Pity they had not kept the evidence against him but once he was out of the states he was no longer a concern.
The Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity. (Nov 10, TIME)
Now why would an international court "unjustly" go after the Bush administration? Even Hitler didn’t suspend the Geneva Convention. Bush thinks that by claiming to not recognize the authority of the court he wont be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.
Maybe Bush should look at what happened to Saddam. After all he has been convicted by a court that Saddam has repeatedly claimed not to recognize and that does not have the authority to prosecute him. (Not to mention Rumsfeld was involved in helping Saddam commit his crimes). Saddam has a more legitimate claim that his trial is biased as he has been tried by an American supported government in a country that is still in turmoil. The international courts should have tried Saddam but Bush's administration could not allow that, as too many former American govt officials would have been in jeopardy of also being convicted.
Those in the Bush administration will probably never face justice but they will have to live out their days living IN the US as the moment they step on foreign soil they can be arrested and transferred to Germany.
Germany is not the only country to have an investigation. Spain and Italy also have investigations underway. There have also been calls for investigations in Britain but those will have to wait until Blair steps down next year.
Just wondering how people feel about this topic. Should the Bush administration be held responsible? The fact that Bush and Rumsfeld tried to put the blame for everything on the Generals I think speaks volumes. Where does the buck stop? I’m sure they will trot out another private to pin the blame on.
Is Bush responsible? Or just irresponsible?
www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html
 | |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/15/2006 3:02:20 PM | The Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.
That was the right decision | |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/15/2006 3:07:26 PM | | Falldown, You say it was the right decision but why? I mean it was right becuse it protects them from prosecution. Does it not also show a lack of morals on their part?? | |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/15/2006 3:22:06 PM | kitsguy
Who's morals are we talking about?...and who's morals are the right morals to consider? Is the job of the American President to protect American interests or to submit to a world body? If it is to submit then what are the goals of that body and what type of agenda does it push? | |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/15/2006 6:37:01 PM | >falldown, Thanks for the question, I thought you wanted to delete this thread! Who's morals? Those would be the common morals shared throughout the world. I think you can agree that the Geneva Convention is based on morals. Discussing rules of warfare and the treatment of prisoners.
I agree that the issue of deciding who's morals are the right ones to follow can be difficult. There are a lot of moral issues that divide people. Gay marriage, abortion, religion in schools, etc. However these are not issues involved here. We are dealing with what most people would feel to be right or wrong. Like the outcry from the public whenever a film of police beating or spraying pepperspray in the faces of handcuffed prisoners is shown on TV.
Maybe the best way of looking at it is treat others as you would like to be treated if the roles were reversed.
Remember that during WWII the Japanese also decided to turn their back on the Geneva Convention. Did that protect them from prosecution at the end of the war? NO! They didnt even sign it in the first place. They were tried under the Potsdam Declaration.
For those like Bush that support torture this might sound familiar:
Words of a Japanese Officer:
" The major means of getting intelligence was to extract information by interrogating prisoners. Torture was an unavoidable necessity.Murdering and burying them follows naturally. You do it so you won't be found out. I believed and acted this way because I was convinced of what I was doing. We carried out our duty as instructed by our masters. We did it for the sake of our country. From our filial obligation to our ancestors. On the battlefield, we never really considered the Chinese humans. When you're winning, the losers look really miserable. We concluded that the Yamato [i.e. Japanese] race was superior"
(Wikipedia website, Haruko Taya Cook & Theodore F. Cook, Japan at War 1993 ISBN 1-56584-039-9, p. 153)
* unavoidable necessity.
* We did it for the sake of our country.
The problem with torture is it doesnt work. The people captured rarely have ANY useful information and if the do have information their own people will assume it has been compromised the moment the person was captured and they will change their plans accordingly. What info did an iraqi private have to share? NONE. Just like an 18 yr old american soldier. They arent given more information than is needed to do their job.
As for terrorists they work in cells. Designed for the protection of other members. They will never catch a guy that can tell them where bin ladin is. Besides in the prison scandlethe issue wasnt even to get information. It was done purely to humiliate the prisoners. That is a CRIME.
In what way has Bush protected american interests? Do you mean access to oil?
America wanted saddam to submit to world opinion. I believe you even wish that Iran submit to americas demands. shouldnt the same rules apply to all countries?
Has the war on Iraq helped american interests? Has it made america (or the world) safer? Please do not try to claim this is a war against terrorism as even bush cant make that claim anymore.
Instead of going after terrorism bush increased the threat. Both Spain and England have been attacked as a result of their support for the war on Iraq.
Choosing the word submit is pretty strong. I mean do you submit by obeying the law? Would you run around on a crime spree because you dont want to submit to societies laws? If you did would your society have the right to punish you? America has always struggled with isolationism. America is PART of the world community. The world has rules. Isnt it strange that America likes to paint the president as the "leader of the free world" and yet the rest of the free world objects to that title? He does not represent any other country, their people or their values.
As for what agenda the world body is trying to push its quite simple...
THE AGENDA IS FREEDOM & WORLD PEACE.
| |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/15/2006 11:14:19 PM | Wow--an apologist for a war criminal and his ilk!! Look out F. Lee Bailey, falldownfunny Attorney at law to the rescue!! What kind of moral vacuum are you operating in, pal?! Let's hope Bush and his criminal thug friends put you to the top of their list when they need legal advice. Say--*here's* an idea--why don't you defend Henry Kissinger in *his* legal woes, that way you can be fresh and ready with your *stunning* legal finesse and moral relativism when the time comes. Why don't you fly to Iraq and save Hussein with the same "logic" you are using now?! What *are* you doing on a web site like this when you could be making money getting *criminals* like that off the hook? Better yet--*write a book*, and dedicate it to the half million Iraqis or so who died in an illegal war (but not by your reckoning) and are now "free". Wow--can I have the first copy autographed puhleese??
cheers | |
|
e-wok
|
Joined: 9/25/2006
Msg: 7 | |
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/15/2006 11:49:50 PM | Rumsfeld will have his day in court and I'm sure the prosecution will
go over all the evidence meticulously.
Rumsfeld is now a civilian and does not travel the world with
diplomatic protection. He'd better be extremely vigilent
to which country his plane lands on or flies over during his vacation...world
leaders are gunning for him. Extradition...the word he touted
about through his reign is going to be a word he'll regret.
Who's morals are we talking about?...and who's morals are the right morals to consider?
Definately not the politicians as you are suggesting. He didn't protect
you....he protected the oil cartel. Don't you read the news? That's old
news and you're hanging on to NOTHING. It's case closed. Canada even
rejected the "slam dunk" evidence...do we really have to revist this again?? | |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/16/2006 12:34:26 AM | If you look at the start of the current Iraq problems, when the 3 amigos were demanding Saddam show them what he had, you must realise that he lived in a tough neighbourhood. He had been at war with Iran, most of the other countries, including Israel would have pounded him if they knew he had nothing. So he had to bluff. Now its obvious the cause of the war was false. We were led there by lies and mistruths from world leaders. I am amused by the rants of how they will not "cut and run" and all the spin, yet as soon as the election in the US, where is Rummsfeldt? Gone! After all, it is only a job. When these people stuff up, others have to pay the price and they avoid any repercussions because of their positions and Power.
During the conflict, if you listened to Bush, he was adamant his God was on the right track. Other leaders (Amigos) soon began to appear in church and mouth the same God driven chant. Now as America stumbles under the reality of what it has allowed under George W, many are already voicing their exit strategies from his influence.
What now of David Hicks, who for many years has remained in the Guantanamo Bay prison without charge or trial. Held on the will of the President of the US and sanctioned by the other amigos in the coalition of the willing. This man was arrested by US forces on the word of an unnamed and unknown camel herder who was illiterate, poor and probably a terrorist himself. If this man is still alive and can be located, it would be interesting to hear his testimony on Davids activities. In a country where $10 is a months pay, the money given out by eager to please US forces would encourage many to turn in their grand mothers. When will this direct infringement of the Geneva Convention be overturned? How will we as a planet, ever expect anyone in any conflict to respect the rights of another human being after the disregard shown by the US on not only this, but other glaring atrocities to any standards.
While George W trumpets about terrorists using an atomic weapon, he should recall the only world power ever to inflict this terrible act on humanity (twice) was the US itself.
I wont say anything about Israel, other than the US is allowing them the same freedom of war it enjoys itself.
People are worried now about a sweeping dislike towards the US. It hasnt just started, it has been coming for many years. George W and his group just made it more unpalatable for many to tolerate any longer. | |
|
e-wok
|
Joined: 9/25/2006
Msg: 9 | |
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/16/2006 2:05:28 AM | He had been at war with Iran, most of the other countries, including Israel would have pounded him if they knew he had nothing. So he had to bluff.
He had to bluff?? He's always insisted he disposed of the weapons. Meanwhile,
the Republicans insisted he had them because they still had the receipts
showing they had sold it to them.
"He had to bluff" is a total mischaracterization of what was going on.
GWB was antagonizing and humiliating him into refusing to co-operate so
that they can invade and take over the oil fields.
| |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/17/2006 5:24:56 AM | | The war crimes committed by Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush administration are clear cut. I wonder if the neo-cons would support others using the same tactics promoted by Rumsfeld to capture and obtain a confession from Rumsfeld. Afterall what's sauce for the goose.......... | |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/17/2006 5:44:43 AM | I'd like to see them all get what they have coming to them.
But the whole process would just be a big distraction from those things we really need to focus on right now.
And that would be to get out of Iraq.
Forget the doggone oil and get out of there.
| |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/17/2006 6:13:39 AM | The Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.
That was the right decision
I had to read this twice as I couldn't believe that someone would actually defend a government that rejected adherence to the ICC. It's the very reason for such court to exist in the first place...to bring war criminals to justice! "unjustly prosecute U.S. officials"??? Unjustly my as s!!! War criminals are brought to court based on proven war crimes. To refuse to to be a part of such an international criminal court proves without any doubt that the bushie league knew very well that they were at fault and needed to protect their hides.
As of 1 November 2006, 103 countries are States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Out of them 28 are African States, 12 are Asian States, 15 are from Eastern Europe, 22 are from Latin America and the Caribbean, and 26 are from Western Europe and other States.
On 1st November 2006, Chad deposited its instrument of ratification to the Rome Statute. The Statute will enter into force for Chad on 1st January 2007.
This will bring the total number of States Parties to 104 on 1st January 2007.
A
Afghanistan
Albania
Andorra
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Australia
Austria
B
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
C
Cambodia
Canada
Central African Republic
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
Costa Rica
Croatia
Cyprus
D
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
E
Ecuador
Estonia
F
Fiji
Finland
France
G
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guinea
Guyana
H
Honduras
Hungary
I
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
J
Jordan
K
Kenya
L
Latvia
Lesotho
Liberia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
M
Malawi
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritius
Mexico
Mongolia
Montenegro
N
Namibia
Nauru
Netherlands
New Zealand
Niger
Nigeria
Norway
P
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Poland
Portugal
R
Republic of Korea
Romania
S
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
Senegal
Serbia
Sierra Leone
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
T
Tajikistan
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Timor-Leste
Trinidad and Tobago
U
Uganda
United Kingdom
United Republic of Tanzania
Uruguay
V
Venezuela
Z
Zambia
Now, when you look at all those countries that are a part of this international court of law, you have to wonder about those who are not such as: USA and Israel! The reason is simple as they are two countries who shines above all in regards to war crimes.
Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney will eventually get what's coming to them. To refuse to be a part of such international organization will not protect them outside of the US. As soon as they all loose their diplomatic immunity, none of them will be able to travel out of the country as they will be wanted for war crimes in most others.
The sad part is that no matter who’s in the white house in the future, they will still protect the bushie league and refuse to send them to face an international court of justice.
| |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/18/2006 8:59:03 AM | | Rumsfeld will more likely return to his ranch in New Mexico and remain there for the rest of his days. We will never hear much of again and he will never face a court of law. He indicated to 60 minutes some years ago that it was his intention to simply retire when his term was over. | |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/26/2006 6:23:45 AM |
Should the Bush administration be held responsible?
Cotter wrote in msg. 11:
I'd like to see them all get what they have coming to them.
But the whole process would just be a big distraction from those things we really need to focus on right now. If this can be done in a way that will not keep us from focusing on what we (US) needs to do now to mend our country, then I'm all for it.
Perhaps if it's done like this, it will give some a little closure when you consider all who are grieving their losses ... both of the dead and the losses that the injured sustained as well.
I have a question ... What about the ruined future of all those injured? Does this also mean that we can eventually go in and make these people responsible for the care and treatment of the soldiers who have been injured in the course of this "illegal war"? We all know what poor treatment the VA is currently offering Vets these days. 
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/GermanCase2006/extendedsummary.asp
The Defendants in the Case:
The U.S. high-ranking officials charged include:
- Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
- Former CIA Director George Tenet
- Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Dr. Stephen Cambone
- Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez
- Major General Walter Wojdakowski
- Major General Geoffrey Miller
- Colonel Thomas Pappas
- Former Chief White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales
- Former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee
- Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo
- General Counsel of the Department of Defense William James Haynes, II
- Vice President Chief Counsel David S. Addington
New evidence:
Extraordinary new materials, documentation and testimonies that have come to light over the past two years – about what the plaintiffs went through (Mr. al Qahtani is a new plaintiff to the case), about the signed memos that led to the justification and practice of torture, and about the defendants’ personal involvement – only strengthen the case.
In addition, former U.S. Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, a defendant in the earlier complaint as the commanding officer at Abu Ghraib, is now providing testimony and will testify on behalf of the plaintiffs.
The Impact of the Military Commissions Act of 2006:
The Military Commissions Act was signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, and it protects U.S. officials and military personnel by: 1) narrowing the grounds of criminal liability under the War Crimes Act and making those revisions retroactive to November 26, 1997; and by 2) retroactively extending a defense for criminal prosecutions related to detentions and interrogations back to September 11, 2001. These immunizing provisions essentially grant an amnesty for international crimes including war crimes and torture. The retroactivity provision directs that prosecutions of war crimes committed since 1997 will fall under the new narrowed range of standards and interpretations of war crimes, which would protect civilians from being prosecuted for committing acts that would have been considered war crimes under the old definition – thereby explicitly aiming at immunizing American officials and others from prosecution in their country.
New additional defendants:
The new complaint charges the government lawyers alleged to be the legal architects of the Bush Administration’s practice of torture.
Rumsfeld can no longer claim sovereign immunity:
Rumsfeld’s resignation on November 8, 2006, means that he cannot claim either the functional or personal immunity of sovereign officials from international prosecution for war crimes. Functional immunity – related to acts performed in the exercise of a person’s official functions – does not, since the Nuremberg trials in 1945, apply to international crimes such as war crimes. As to personal immunity – covering officials’ private acts accomplished while in office – it only applies during the individual’s term of office.
Unprecedented support for the case:
When filing a complaint to the Federal Prosecutor, any group may join the complaint as a “co-plaintiff,” which demonstrates the support of these groups and their common request for the opening of an investigation. Co-plaintiffs in the present case include:
Individuals
1980 Nobel Peace Prize winner Aldolfo Perez Esquirel (Argentine),
2002 Nobel Peace Prize winner Martín Almada (Paraguay),
Theo van Boven, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture,
Sister Dianna Ortiz, (Torture survivor, Executive Director of TASSC)
International and Regional NGOs
FIDH: International Federation for Human Rights
The International Peace Bureau (Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1910)
International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA)
European Democratic Lawyers
European Democratic Jurists,
International Association of Democratic Lawyers
National NGOs
Argentina: Comité de Acción Jurídica (CAJ)
Argentina: Liga Argentina por los Derechos del Hombre
Bahrain: Bahrain Human Rights Society (BHRS)
Canada: Lawyers against the War (LAW)
Colombia: Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo
Democratic Republic of Congo: Association Africaine des Droits de l’Homme (ASADHO)
Egypt: Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (EOHR)
France: Ligue Française des Droits de l'Homme (LDH)
Germany: The Republican Attorneys' Association (RAV)
Jordan: Amman Center for Human Rights Studies (ACHR)
Mexico: Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos (CMDPDH)
Mexico: Liga Mexicana por la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (LIMEDDH)
Nicaragua: Centro Nicaraguense de Derechos Humanos (CENIDH)
Palestine: Palestinian Center for Human Rights
Tchad: Association Tchadienne pour la Promotion et la Défense des Droits de l’Homme (ATPDH)
Senegal: Rencontre Africaine pour la Défense des Droits de l’Homme (RADDHO)
USA: The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)
USA: National Lawyers’ Guild (NLG)
USA: Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition International (TASSC)
USA: Veterans for Peace | |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/26/2006 7:56:27 AM |
Rumsfeld Okayed Abuses Says Former U.S. General
MADRID (Reuters) - Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the prison's former U.S. commander said in an interview on Saturday.
Former U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski told Spain's El Pais newspaper she had seen a letter apparently signed by Rumsfeld which allowed civilian contractors to use techniques such as sleep deprivation during interrogation.
Karpinski, who ran the prison until early 2004, said she saw a memorandum signed by Rumsfeld detailing the use of harsh interrogation methods.
"The handwritten signature was above his printed name and in the same handwriting in the margin was written: "Make sure this is accomplished"," she told Saturday's El Pais.
"The methods consisted of making prisoners stand for long periods, sleep deprivation ... playing music at full volume, having to sit in uncomfortably ... Rumsfeld authorized these specific techniques."
The Geneva Convention says prisoners of war should suffer "no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion" to secure information.
"Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind," the document states.
A spokesman for the Pentagon declined to comment on Karpinski's accusations, while U.S. army in Iraq could not immediately be reached for comment.
Karpinski was withdrawn from Iraq in early 2004, shortly after photographs showing American troops abusing detainees at the prison were flashed around the world. She was subsequently removed from active duty and then demoted to the rank of colonel on unrelated charges.
Karpinski insists she knew nothing about the abuse of prisoners until she saw the photos, as interrogation was carried out in a prison wing run by U.S. military intelligence.
Rumsfeld also authorized the army to break the Geneva Conventions by not registering all prisoners, Karpinski said, explaining how she raised the case of one unregistered inmate with an aide to former U.S. commander Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.
"We received a message from the Pentagon, from the Defense Secretary, ordering us to hold the prisoner without registering him. I now know this happened on various occasions."
Karpinski said last week she was ready to testify against Rumsfeld, if a suit filed by civil rights groups in Germany over Abu Ghraib led to a full investigation.
President Bush announced Rumsfeld's resignation after Democrats wrested power from the Republicans in midterm elections earlier this month, partly due to public criticism over the Iraq war.
http://tinyurl.com/ye346c | |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/26/2006 8:11:43 AM | [quoute] Now its obvious the cause of the war was false.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't they enter the country on an understanding that he had weapons? Then at some point didn't the military find weapons hidden in the country? | |
|
| |
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/26/2006 10:30:48 AM | Nope. No weapons were ever found.
Just dismantled relics from the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.
No WMDs, no smallpox, no nuclear program, nothing that could have possibly posed a threat to the US or any other country was ever found.
In an interesting side note to that, a recent survey of news consumers in the US found out that Fox News viewers are by far the most misinformed audience. A whopping 37% of Fox News viewers mistakenly believed that WMD had been found. You aren't one of them are you?
Fox News: The more you watch, the less you know! | |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/26/2006 11:56:12 AM | | It had better not happen, as soon as we start curbing towards a world court in such a manner you can just wash away any National Sovereignty. As much as I think Rummy is second coming of McNamara and belongs to an evil cabal my first and foremost interests are American and the constitution, not a world body. Soon (2-3 generations) most of Europe will just be a muddled mess of singularity with no sense of Nationality, and what will become of your countries then when all your individual laws are circumvented in the name of the many over the few? | |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/26/2006 12:04:16 PM |
Now its obvious the cause of the war was false.
What many fail to recognize is that the First Gulf War was never officially declared over, right or wrong on your position, this is the real issue. Why is it Daddy Bush never declared it at a close before his administration came to closure? | |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/26/2006 12:15:25 PM |
what will become of your countries then when all your individual laws are circumvented in the name of the many over the few?
The provinces of Canada and the states of the USA all have different characters. Culture and character won't blend due to a few laws. Especialy laws that mainly oversee warfare, in the case of the ICC.
Peace | |
|
e-wok
|
Joined: 9/25/2006
Msg: 22 | |
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/26/2006 12:37:28 PM | Do some research on Article 98 which the United States is forcing other
sovereign nations to sign. Sovereign nations who refuse to sign will see
humanitarian efforts cut including AIDS medications, military support, financial
support.
On December 26, 2002, India became the 15th country to sign a bilateral agreement with the U.S. under Article 98. The agreement aims to prevent the "extradition of nationals of either country to any international tribunal without the other country's express consent".
The United States has cut aid and development funding for many countries in retaliation for cooperating with the ICC. Countries who have lost aid include Brazil, Costa Rica, Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, South Africa, and several other Latin American and African countries.
The nations who signed were BRIBED and threatened. This is what it means
to be part of the coalition with the US. Your either with us or against us....coalition
of the bribed.....threats....you name it. This is the new diplomacy to protect
the Rumsfelds and the Hitlers of the world.
Where you see support for the ICC, you need to ask yourself; which nations
signed the 'bilateral agreement'? Germany will use it's might to force
the bribed nations to renege on the agreement. They don't need the bribes but
they can certainly throw their weight around Europe. Rumsfeld is nervous and
rightfully so, his days are numbered. | |
|
e-wok
|
Joined: 9/25/2006
Msg: 23 | |
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/26/2006 1:01:44 PM | http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/intl/guides/article_98.cfm
This link will show which countries signed on the article and when.
It's lengthy so I won't paste it here.
The US is trying to circumvent the ICC's hold on them.
Note, MOST are very poor nations in need of funding and AIDS assistance.
African nations seeing the poorest of the poor dying had not alternative
but to sign it.
The article states:
Article 98(2) Cooperation with respect to waiver of immunity and consent to surrender
The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international agreements pursuant to which the consent of a sending State is required to surrender a person of that State to the Court, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of the sending State for the giving of consent for the surrender.
So, if you have Rumsfeld in custody, and if you are extraditing him, you first need
to ask the Whitehouse....and vice versa.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't they enter the country on an understanding that he had weapons? Then at some point didn't the military find weapons hidden in the country?
Yes...they claimed they had tonnes of weapons including nuke's and the like because
Bush said he had the receipts to prove it LOL....what they found was nothing...Saddam
never claimed he NEVER had them becuase naturally the United States gave
it to him, but what he claimed was it was all but destroyed. That is why he
never used it during this war. It was useless and Saddam ended the program...which
was proven also. | |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/27/2006 1:49:40 PM | Hey, all:
Gawd, does anyone NOT understand, NOT GET IT, that the intelligence was a LIE manufactured by BushCo? Heard of Downing Street? Sheesh.
Justice will not be done until everyone of them: Bush, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the whole murderous goddam lot of them are in a cold jail cell, cowering in fear, with nothing but their conscience--oh, wait--they have none.
David
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! | |
|
| Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/16/2006 11:45:53 PM | Misterhaze you are wrong, they never found ANYTHING even remotely sinister in Iraq. Saddam said he had nothing and he had nothing. Bush was the one telling lies to the world. Saddam is an honest boy scout in comparison to GW.
As for America pulling out of Iraq they cant. If america leaves then the country will turn into civil war. The Saudis will back one side and Iran the other. They had that brady guy from the Iraq study group come out and say that Turkey would move in to back the armenians in the north. Really sorry to hear that he thinks that considering it is exactly the opposite feeling of the turks. Again shows that another group of "experts" got together and yet none of them have any understanding of the situation. The turks are opposed to the splitting of Iraq because if the armenians get the north then they will try to unite with the armenians in the south eastern part of turkey, spreading even more violence. Leaving Iraq in a mess will allow for REAL terrorists to organize against american targets. Right now they are taking pot shots at american troops and doing the odd kidnapping. Once the americans leave they will plan for attacks on american interests in other parts of the middle east and on american soil. America will HAVE to stay in Iraq for its own safety. They just have to get with the program and learn HOW to win a war. Or more correctly win the peace. Sad thing is its taken so long and there have been so many lies that the american people dont know whats going on and the administration is beginning to believe their own lies.
Sadly the latest idea is to threaten the Iraq govt into taking greater control. They have NO control and yet this new report comes out and says that if the Iraqis cant get things under control the US will have to pull out. Like its the Iraqis fault for the mess they are in.
Sad to say it but its onlty going to get worse over there until they completely change their way of thinking. | |
|
Home
login 
