Rumsfeld et al to face War Crimes prosecution?

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by niteboy82
It amazes me how I can see some people complaining about how the UN doesn't do enough to assert it's own power, only from their next drawn breath to utter some nonsense about how they don't have to recognize them. So convenient it seems.

The UN is ineffective, it should be dissolved if it does not reform. Where it needs to assert itself is with the security council, it should also be quicker to respond to world situations. The UN is a voluntary world body, it is NOT a world government, nor should it ever be one. They should only have authority over member states and it is up to each member states to choose which treaties and optional bodies within the US they want to join or accept.

Maybe they "should" only have this or that - but the simple truth is that the US signed those treaties in good faith, and the world took the US on good faith(As we all take each other on good faith - thus the UN, so we can talk about the issues instead of going to war over them).

THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER

AND THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ

The United Nations Charter is a treaty of the United States, and as such forms part of the "supreme law of the land" under the Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. The UN Charter is the highest treaty in the world, superseding states’ conflicting obligations under any other international agreement. (Art. 103, UN Charter)

Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack; and when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. Neither of those circumstances now exist. Absent one of them, U.S. use of force against Iraq is unlawful.

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
- I know you don't care. I also realize you don't understand. But that is OK, that is what the net is for. So people like you can be exposed to the lies you have been told. Your welcome.

Yes, I am so thankful to be educated by foreign insult tossing intellectuals like you and those oil for food beneficiaries.

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
- NO, YOU didn't decide.

Actually we did decide, we are a representative country. And please, please, do not claim to speak for US soldiers and the military, that is a greater disservice and insult to them than anything else.

Comman sense, followed by 3 years of evidense to support the claim shouldn't never be considered "intellecutalism". To do so, insults the true intellect's(Of which I am certanly not). I am not speaking for the servicemen and women of merely just the US, but all servicemen worldwide. They all put into their coutnries the trust not to send them to die needlessly. Isn't that why the price of freedom is eternal vigilence?

See, I feel it is another benfit of always being exposed to the world and not wrapping myself up in a nationalistic flag. I am first a member of the Human race. I am secondly a citizen of North America. Thirdly I am a citizen of Canada. My concern and compassion doesn't stop at some imaginary line on some map.

I don't mean to insult you WP, I really don't. And for the record I enjoy your posts even if I don't agree with them. You have spunk and fight. I can really respect that. The only thing I guess I lose my temper on is when it starts to cost the lives of people who did nothing to you, then it makes you look like a bully, and I know that is not what you feel you are, nor the image you wish to project. If I have truly insulted you, I do apologize.

Cheers.

Has anyone here heard of Juliana Valentine McCourt, 4, New London, Conn.?

She was one of the victims killed on flight 175 that crashed into the south tower of the WTC.

How about Christine Lee Hanson, 2, Groton, Mass.?

She was another tiny victim on the same flight killed along with her mother, Sue Kim Hanson, 35, Groton, Mass.?

What about Dana Falkenberg, 3, of University Park, Md. and her sister, Zoe Falkenberg, 8, University Park, Md.? They were both killed on flight 77 along with both their parents, Charles S. Falkenberg, 45, University Park, Md. and www.september11victims.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Leslie A. Whittington, 45, University Park, Maryland..

For a complete list and profiles of all the victims on the tragic morning on 11 SEP 01, go here.

The only war crimes that's been commited are by the liberal pacifists who have a yellow steak going up their spineless backs!

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Has anyone here heard of Juliana Valentine McCourt, 4, New London, Conn.?

She was one of the victims killed on flight 175 that crashed into the south tower of the WTC.

How about Christine Lee Hanson, 2, Groton, Mass.?

She was another tiny victim on the same flight killed along with her mother, Sue Kim Hanson, 35, Groton, Mass.?

What about Dana Falkenberg, 3, of University Park, Md. and her sister, Zoe Falkenberg, 8, University Park, Md.? They were both killed on flight 77 along with both their parents, Charles S. Falkenberg, 45, University Park, Md. and www.september11victims.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Leslie A. Whittington, 45, University Park, Maryland..

For a complete list and profiles of all the victims on the tragic morning on 11 SEP 01, go here.

The only war crimes that's been commited are by the liberal pacifists who have a yellow steak going up their spineless backs!

And attacking a country that didn't attack you and had no hand in it, is the utmost sign of cowardice.

See, two can play that game pinky.

Read carefully here:

If the White House is tried in a UN court for war crimes via actions in Iraq then ISRAEL is also going to be there for their little incursion into Lebanon.

Well good and if that is the only way to deter war...then go after the leaders on all sides.

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
Comman sense, followed by 3 years of evidense to support the claim shouldn't never be considered "intellecutalism".

In this case the "evidence" and "common sense" I feel is very relative to ones views and opinions. And the UN is hardly the right objective or partial body to decide what the truth is with respect to the current situation.

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
I am first a member of the Human race. I am secondly a citizen of North America. Thirdly I am a citizen of Canada. My concern and compassion doesn't stop at some imaginary line on some map.

I obviously consider myself a human but I will always be an American, and a proud one at that. And I'm glad your compassion does not only extend to your own countrymen but to all that truly deserve it. I feel the same way, but sometimes when 'we' put those words into action I feel is when we start to encounter problems.

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
The only thing I guess I lose my temper on is when it starts to cost the lives of people who did nothing to you, then it makes you look like a bully, and I know that is not what you feel you are, nor the image you wish to project. If I have truly insulted you, I do apologize.

I understand, it's a very serous issue and one that has irreversible consequences but I truly feel that our actions are for the better good, of all involved. And no you have not truly insulted me I just don't like being talked to as if I'm a brainwashed simpleton who's being led to the "truth".

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
Comman sense, followed by 3 years of evidense to support the claim shouldn't never be considered "intellecutalism".

In this case the "evidence" and "common sense" I feel is very relative to ones views and opinions. And the UN is hardly the right objective or partial body to decide what the truth is with respect to the current situation.

- Doesn't it strtike you as slightly strange that no one had a problem with the UN until they said that Bush's push towards an Iraq invasion was not right. Then in typical form the Admin villianized them, and now there is this notion that they are biased. Simply looking at it should tell you it is impossible to be bias in that situation because you have 200 people all pulling in different directions(remember they all have their own countries agenda in mind). When they do actually agree on something, it isn't because it is biased(As history has now shown) it is because it is so completely obvious. The US was exceptionally premature in their rush to go into Iraq, and if they weren't, IF the us people were smart enough to see that this was the same charactor assination/spin that the Bush Admin is now infamous for, how many brave American soliders would be alive today?

Facts are that Iraq was not a threat, had no WMD's, and was pinned down through no fly zones. It really has nothing to do with having to be objective. It is just comman sense. When someone can't blow their nose without everyone knowing - they simply aren't a threat.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
I am first a member of the Human race. I am secondly a citizen of North America. Thirdly I am a citizen of Canada. My concern and compassion doesn't stop at some imaginary line on some map.

I obviously consider myself a human but I will always be an American, and a proud one at that. And I'm glad your compassion does not only extend to your own countrymen but to all that truly deserve it. I feel the same way, but sometimes when 'we' put those words into action I feel is when we start to encounter problems.

- Campassion doesn't require that the other person deserves it. It is something that is within you. My compassion extends to ever Canadian, American and British person. Everyone of our allies and enemies(If they stay were they are, no problems. They invade any of our allies countries, then I can still have compassion for them to eventually grow up, but they either have to leave or they will be killed). I agree completely though that sometimes all the best intentions in the world can lead to a complete cluster in the end. I suppose all that we can do is try our best - which is why not acting rash and invading countries willy nilly is something not to do.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I understand, it's a very serous issue and one that has irreversible consequences but I truly feel that our actions are for the better good, of all involved. And no you have not truly insulted me I just don't like being talked to as if I'm a brainwashed simpleton who's being led to the "truth".

- Let me ask you, if I punch you will you punch me back? If someone bombed your country would your country bomb them back? So what do you suppose is the enevitable end result of the US invading Iraq? Also, now that the US has shown such little regard to the actual lines of communication within the UN, anyone that does decide that AMerica has stepped on their shoes, you will not even know it until it is done. Because of the strength of the US, I would suppose it is only comman sense to assume if someone will hit you they are REALLY going to hit you and a manner that will make 911 look like the bloody nose that it truly was.

However, all of this is off topic. Rummy, is a war criminal - by definition. If the US is going to rejoin the rest of the civilized world they should do something about him(And the rest of those responsable for the deaths of these innocent people). If the US fails to do it, then you simply can not get mad when someone does it for you. As someone into the whole military thing, I assume you know all about discipline. Discipline will either come from within, or it will come from without. You can chose to discipline yourself, or others will discipline you. That isn't talking down to you, or treating you like your a brainwashed person - merely pointing out reality as the majority of the world seems to see it.

Cheers

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Let's see what happens at the polls today.

Nothing too exciting, Senate and House leadership wont change, though we will get some new faces.

[edit on 7-11-2006 by WestPoint23]

Hahahahahahahaha, you were so sure that the House and Senate Leadership would not change TOO FUNNY specially since the Democrats won both House and Senate !!!!!!!!!!!!

Let the impeachments begin

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Has anyone here heard of Juliana Valentine McCourt, 4, New London, Conn.?

She was one of the victims killed on flight 175 that crashed into the south tower of the WTC.

...
For a complete list and profiles of all the victims on the tragic morning on 11 SEP 01, go here.

The only war crimes that's been commited are by the liberal pacifists who have a yellow steak going up their spineless backs!

This post is entirely representative of the worst, most ill-informed, hypocritical aspects of US citizens.

1) Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. Sorry to have to use bolds and shouty capital letters, but you clearly don't get it, so I'll have to say it again with subtitles for the hard of thinking: Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

2) This fetishising of individual casualties merely demonstrates your whininess. The US has been responsible for, in Iraq alone, over half a million deaths in the three years since the invasion. Without the invasion, despite what a vile tyrant Saddam was, those deaths would not have happened. Can you name any of those people? Can you name any of the children who've had their limbs shredded? No. You sit in your comfortable little bubble and never subject yourself to the pictures - which are available - of the casualties which US policy creates in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over half a million casualties in three years. But they're just anonymous brown people who got what was coming to them, right? It doesn't matter to you whether they had anything to do with 9/11 just as long as SOMEONE gets hurt.

I am disgusted with the sheer hypocrisy and ignorance of that post.

And an addendum. I put this in another post, perhaps it deserves repeating.

In a country of 27 million people, over half a million have died as a result of the invasion and a further million have been turned into refugees. Translate that into a percentage of the US population (say 350 million) and you have fatalities of 8.4 million and almost 13 million refugees

[edit on 8-11-2006 by rich23]

Originally posted by MrMedic
Why have over 300,000 Iraqis signed up to be a part of the military and security in Iraq.

For a multitude of reasons. Some have signed up because there really isn't much else to do. Inflation and unemployment are very very high. In a nation with one of the largest oil reserves on earth, people are queueing for hours at petrol stations and paying way over the odds for what they can get. So finance is an issue.

Secondly, security is an issue. In a country where guns are routinely confiscated by US troops, but being without guns leaves your family defenceless against other Iraqis who are roaming around heavily armed, a legitimate reason to be armed has got to be attractive, even if it means you might become a target for the insurgency.

And of course there are all the sectarian militias who are infiltrating the police and armed forces.

One last thing: it's not necessarily a good thing that the US is training the police... one of the shadowy aspects of this is that ever since John Negroponte turned up in Iraq, death squads have been at work. He was one of the movers and shakers in setting up death squads in Central and South America. He shows up in Iraq and the reports of death squad actions begin. There's a surprise.

And to post that many Iraqis are willing to sacrifice their lives to prop up a puppet regime is hardly inspiring. More deaths, so their country can be asset-stripped by the US? You might be able to get all misty-eyed at that, but I can't.

As for the stuff about archaeological treasures... they would have been a lot safer if the country hadn't been plunged into anarchy in the first place.

]Iraqis and tourists are now able to freely visit this area, something they could not do under the oppression of Saddam Hussein, said Maj. Gen. Kurt A. Cichowski, Deputy Chief of Staff, Strategy, Plans and Assessment, Multi-National Force - Iraq.

I'm sorry, I'd want a source other than the US military to believe that statement. Why were Iraqis not allowed to visit the area under Saddam's rule? And I just can't wait to see your proof that tourists are just falling over themselves to visit a war zone where they run a real risk of dying in horrible random violence to check out these venerable archaeological treasures.

Where's that grip on reality you mentioned in your first post now?

No one said it was going to be easy in Iraq.

Source (the first one I clicked on - I'm not going to make a big effort here...)

Rumsfeld Doubts Iraq War Will Last Six Months. "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." [Town Hall Meeting at Aviano Airbase, 2/7/03]

Rumsfeld: Let’s Go Fly a Kite. AThink of the faces in Afghanistan when the people were liberated, when they moved out in the streets and they started singing and flying kites and women went to school and people were able to function and other countries were able to start interacting with them. That's what would happen in Iraq.@ [Media Roundtable, 9/13/02]

Cheney Says We Will Be Welcomed as Liberators. “The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.@ [Meet the Press, 3/16/03]

But having a constant pessimistic attitude will acheive nothing. It wasn't easy here in early America when we gained our independence either. I think you Brits need to remember the sacrifice America made for you in WWII. Germany never attacked us but we were right in there risking it all for you guys.

Yeah, we should remember... just like you guys remember all the help France gave you in your Revolution. I was in the States when the hate campaign against France took off and I was pretty revolted, I have to say. "Freedom fries"? Ludicrous. Just because they didn't want you to illegally invade a country that was no threat to you!

As for this self-serving guff about the US in WWII... well, the UK has only just paid off the Marshall Plan loans within the last year or so... plus, the negotiations that the US entered into for those loans crippled the UK as an economic power, as the favourable trading deals we had with what used to be the British Empire were systematically dismantled so the US could supplant them. So this is yet another attempt to view a rather more hard-nosed reality through ideological and rose-tinted glasses.

On a broader note, it's nice to see that the mid-terms have ended Rummy's Pentagon adventure. Too little too late, but at least he's out,

I think it is funny that everyone is gettin soo hot and bothered about this. Every country that has been in war has perpetrated some kind of war crime. Everyone keeps ranting about the Nuremburg trial. Guess what Roosevelt, Truman, Stalin, and Churchill all were probably responsible for some war crime.

Here is the simple explanation…The winners are immune from the laws they create and so are the most powerful. The world is not fair deal with it. No matter who is in office in the time of war they will be some how responsible for some war crime.

No one can or will enforce a trial against Rumsfield. The American people will not stand for some International body that the majority of the American people have no knowledge of come in here and imprison our leaders no matter what party they are from. It is a breach of sovereignty and that is why America is very careful about the treaties it signs and doesn’t sign. That is why we are no part of many big treaties because we don’t want other people telling us what to do. We are isolationist at heat when we want to be.

If we are at fault we govern our leaders and ourselves. If he is guilty of any war crimes I bet the democrats will try their hardest to get him convicted. But again it won’t happen.

So..

Go ahead try to convict him of war crimes and then try to get him. That is a quick way to lose all relations with the US and Germany, France, Russia, and the UK are not up for that I bet.

-QUICKSILVER-

Quicksilver, I suggest you read the entire thread. Westpoint has brought up those points - I have disposed of them. It is already a law - the US has signed it - the War was illegal.

Now, maybe it is true that no one will enter the US to get him - but the second he leaves that country he will be, if there is any justice, arrested and put on the rightful trial he deserves. He'll even be able to plead his case - which is more than we can say he gave to the Iraqi's isn't it?

In the end it won't matter. Cheny, Rummy and Bush will be under house arrest either way.

No matter how strong you beleive the US is, simply put. Germany, ENgland and all your old allies have had it with you - to put it kindly. The only reason it got as far as it did was most couldn't beleive the US would illegally invade a country, Ignore international calls to stop, Villianize the UN and anyone that would question the rightousness of Bush's god spoken plan, open up secret prisons and torture non-charged people. Simply put - most thought the US was smart enough not to let that happen. We were wrong. Apparently the dumbing down of America was a lot further along than we thought and judging from some of the posts in this thread continues today.

PS - Why is it everytime I turn around I always have Rich as backup? Thanks big guy. Sooner or later they will see the light.

I have fought the good fight
I have finished the course
I have kept the faith

Timothy 4:7

Originally posted by QuicksilverThat is why we are no part of many big treaties because we don’t want other people telling us what to do. We are isolationist at heart when we want to be.

If he is guilty of any war crimes I bet the democrats will try their hardest to get him convicted. But again it won’t happen.

The reason the US wants no part of any big treaties is that it's not prepared to compromise, ever, or to accommodate other countries' interests. It wants its interests paramount. Whether anyone likes it or not, that's exactly the attitude that Nazi Germany took: the rest of Europe had to give it lebensraum and help it achieve its economic goals. Mussolini said that fascism is more properly called corporatism, marking as it does the merger of state and corporate power. Well, the ultimate corporatist state is the US.

And I doubt that the Democrats will do any such thing. I could be wrong, but it would open the way for reappraising the records of every single president back to the first world war, and each one of them has been guilty of war crimes. I'm sure that plenty of people on this thread will gasp and clutch their heads at this simple assertion of verifiable historical fact and dismiss me as... oh, take your pick. It is, nonetheless, true.

I remember when some plucky UK coppers arrested Pinochet (whom, let it be remembered, the US supported all through his regime of torture and mass disappearances) on a visit to this country. For a little while, I danced a merry little dance of triumph... and then, there was an ominous quiet and you could smell the cigar smoke from the back rooms where shady deals are done. (This under "ethical foreign policy" New Labour, mark you. Mere words are not enough to express my contempt for these globalist puppets)

Sure enough, Ol' Augusto got a secret sick note which only a high court judge was allowed to look at, and was able to slink out of the country without paying the price for his crimes against humanity. But his own country has now caught up with him and there's a political struggle to make sure he gets his just desserts.

I can't be bothered to dig it up, but I saw a hilarious story about how Rumsfeld is no longer welcome visiting his German relatives, who took a dim view on his prosecuting the war in Iraq. But if he ever patches things up with them, and briefly forgets himself enough to go and visit, perhaps, as Waiting2Awake (right back at you, thanks!) says, he'll get arrested. One can only nurse a tiny candle of hope in one's heart that, eventually, justice will prevail. It doesn't always happen, but once in a while, it does.

And W2A - thanks for your contributions to this thread, although I doubt that many of the opposing voices will ever really get it because they're just part of the 23 pecent!

Mostly, I'm just here to make the arguments that are needed. I don't really hold out any hope of changing people's minds. And occasionally, my own opinion on something is modified, and I see this as healthy.

lock him up in Abu Graib with some of the ones who have been tortured there, or Gitmo and throw away the key.

What is this?

Rumsfeld Fears War Crimes Charges in Germany

Abu Ghraib-related; Tried to Resign Twice

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld conceded yesterday that fears he could be charged as a war criminal may keep him from a conference in Germany set for next week.

A lawsuit filed by the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights with German prosecutors accuses Rumsfeld and other senior U.S. officials with war crimes for their part in the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal.

German law allows charges to be laid in war crimes and human rights cases regardless of the nationality of the accused, but because the United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court, charges cannot be laid in this country.

Center president Michael Ratner said Rumsfeld's threats not to attend the conference are merely a bid to bully the Germans into dropping the case.

"We believe that Donald Rumsfeld cannot escape accountability for his alleged crimes," he said.

Well, They belive that Rummy cannot escape for his alleged crimes.

What do You think?

In fact, have we ever seen a single Ameican Politician guilty of War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and other "Law Stuff" in the International Court of Law?

We could start with mister Kissinger - responsible for Millions of Deaths.

But these kind of people never shall see the inside of a Courthouse.

When does he get picked up?

Nah, he's probably got land right along with the Bush's in Paraguay where they cant touch them.

Too bad.

Like I said Tuesday morning,

Let's see what happens at the polls today.

Looks like a lot is starting to happen. How much of their newly acquired muscle will the Dems try to flex, and how soon? I wonder what that conversation between Bush and Pelosi was really like.

The rapid departure for Rumsfeld on the heals of the election losses may just be a diversion, something to slow the Dems down a little at first, with confirmation hearings for Gates and all. I was pretty sure Rummy was out soon, they are just trying to make the timing advantageous to them.

Will the Dems start inquiries and investigations into things like Cheney's energy committee, Halliburton's no-bid contracts, the President's lies about rendition and torture? Do they have enough votes now to pull the whole thing off? I don't think so.

Quote : Will the Dems start inquiries and investigations into things like Cheney's energy committee, Halliburton's no-bid contracts, the President's lies about rendition and torture? Do they have enough votes now to pull the whole thing off? I don't think so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Dems need to not waste money on all of that and start fixing the U.S. They'll drag their feet on that for a couple of years and then start pretending that they are trying to fix our problems. Let the UN or Germany worry about trying him as a "war criminal" and let us worry about the U.S.

[edit on 11/9/2006 by Ninja1]

[edit on 11/9/2006 by Ninja1]