Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal      Home login  
Joined: 11/19/2005
Msg: 1
view profile
Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminalPage 2 of 2    (1, 2)
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?,8599,1557842,00.html

Joined: 11/19/2005
Msg: 2
view profile
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??
Joined: 11/19/2005
Msg: 3
view profile
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...

Joined: 9/29/2004
Msg: 4
view profile
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..........
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 5
view profile
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.

Joined: 9/9/2006
Msg: 6
view profile
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 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.

Antigua and Barbuda

Bosnia and Herzegovina
Burkina Faso

Central African Republic
Costa Rica

Democratic Republic of the Congo
Dominican Republic









Marshall Islands

New Zealand


Republic of Korea

Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
San Marino
Sierra Leone
South Africa

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Trinidad and Tobago

United Kingdom
United Republic of Tanzania



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.
Joined: 3/6/2006
Msg: 7
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.
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 8
view profile
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.
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:

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
Joined: 5/18/2006
Msg: 9
view profile
Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 11/26/2006 10:25:44 AM
Rummy ought to be "water-boarded" until he confesses.

Then string him up.
Joined: 5/18/2006
Msg: 10
view profile
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!
Joined: 8/23/2005
Msg: 11
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.


Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Joined: 11/19/2005
Msg: 12
view profile
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.
Joined: 12/21/2004
Msg: 13
Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/17/2006 12:52:06 AM
Just to give an idea of some of the stuff that happened in abu ghraib.

As far as saddam ....

A few posts back mentioned he is a boyscout compared to GW. Erase that from your head.

Do some research on Saddam. By his own hand he tortued thousands of people. GW has alot to answer for, but GW did not tortue people, watch with his own eyes as the life went out of them with a smile on his face. GW did not electrocute people and watch, he did not strangle and torture small children with his own hands, he did not gas his people and watch as they died by the thousands, he did not rip innocent people from their homes because he considered them a threat then imprison them for years and starve them to death. He did not have his children run around and also commit crimes against humanity.

Saddam could easily be equated to the likes of hitler.

There is a huge difference in someone like GW being a general idiot, And someone like Saddam. You are delusional to think otherwise.

As far as rumsfeld, or anyone else that is responsible for the torture of people, they will get what they deserve.
Joined: 12/21/2004
Msg: 14
Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/17/2006 1:02:58 AM not.

Forget the oil, Reagan, and WMD. Im not speaking of those. My post is about one topic and one topic alone.

Torture. Evil.

Joined: 11/19/2005
Msg: 15
view profile
Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/17/2006 3:06:20 PM
>bolo, Ok maybe saddam actually used his own hands to harm and kill. BUT bush has harmed and killed far more people than saddam could ever have dreamed of. Bush has suspended human rights, broken the geneva convention, with drawn from the international courts, even trampled on the rights of his own people. He may not have tortured prisoners himself but HE IS responsible. Hitler didnt go about killing anyone personally yet we all know he was RESPONSIBLE. Or Maybe you think he was just like Bush and not responsible. You might also want to know that the holding of prisoners for years on end in guantonamo is also against international law and a human rights violation. The only difference you have noted between the two is that saddam was "hands on". You can forgive your president for lying to you and violating your rights but he also lied to the entire world and tried to bring them into his war.

As for the US getting out soon and there being no threat, I still say thats false. Iraq will be complete chaos. Everyone will be blaming the US for having caused the situation. Forget that bush has painted EVERYONE as a terrorist. There are terrorists that will go after american targets just as they did before 9/11. All bush has done is make the region unstable, increased the power and influence of Iran and syria and pissed of the Israelis by increasing the threat to them. Its led to the growing power of Hamas and Hezbolah. Leaving it in a mess and blaming the Iraqis for not being able to gain control is foolish on many levels. It isnt the Iraqis fault that it is a mess. Blame that on Bush and Rumsfeld. Problem is bush calls everyone a terrorist. there are only a few in Iraq. the rest are insurgents, or from their point of view, they are freedom fighters fighting an occupying army. When america leaves there wont be anyone bothering to stop groups from training and planning terrorist attacks. The country will end up imploding and pulling in other countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia and could turn into a sunni-shiite war throughout the middle east.

America might still get oil from Venezeula but for how long? Bush can only call him an enemy of the US for so long before he decides to turn off the tap.

Forget turkey and Russia coming to help america out of Iraq. Why the hell would they? Powel warned Bush and the american people that if you break it you have bought it. Well its broken and theres no running to other countries for help. Bush had his great coalition of the willing at the start. But when the coalition of the willing realized that they were the coalition of the deceived they all started pulling out. Even the offering of billions of dollars is not enticing them to remain. Turkey is trying to join the EU and they aree not going to jump into this mess and blow there future. The Russians have NO interest in Iraq and have their own internal problems to deal with. Bush will never, ever fool another nation into believing a word he says. There is no nation that would go into Iraq now. Its an american mess. Bush created it and he IS responsible for cleaning it up.

Bush is a compulsive liar that has caused the deaths of more people than any other this century. Just because he doesnt actually do the killing in person he is responsible. I never said saddam was a nice guy, just not the liar Bush is.
Joined: 9/29/2004
Msg: 16
view profile
Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/26/2006 2:13:47 PM
"I believe that most of the decent Iraqis think of Bush as a Hero and will probably have a Bush day as a holiday."

You've gotta be kidding; right?

Under Saddam Iraqis were tortured; under the US Iraqis are tortured.
Under Saddam Iraqis were impisoned; under the US more Iraqis are imprisoned.
Under Saddam Iraqis had a reliable supply of safe drinking water; under the US it's "hit or miss"
Under Saddam Iraqis had security; under the US Iraqis can't walk down the street.
Under Saddam Iraqis had jobs; under the US most are unemployed.
Under Saddam Iraq was a secular society; under the US it's ruled by Islamic clerics.
Under Saddam Iraqis had a reliable supply of electricity; the US can't keep the lights on.

Under Saddam Iraq was one of the most developed countries in the middle east where the average Iraqi could enjoy a good life provided they didn't skeak out against the government. Not perfect but paradise compared to life in Iraq today.

George Bush a Hero?

I think war criminal sounds much better. Like the saying goes; if the shoe fits.............
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 17
view profile
Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal
Posted: 12/26/2006 4:27:11 PM

falldownfunny wrote:
msg. 2
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

If the "Bush Administration is innocent of war crimes, then they will not be found guilty of any ... right? So what's the problem?


falldownfunny wrote:
msg 4
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?

Exactly what "American interests" was the American President (and his administration) protecting while committing such crimes that would eventually be tried before the ICC? Again, if they are innocent of war crimes, then they will not be found guilty ... right?

Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Rumsfeld again facing charges as a war criminal