Rumsfeld to be tried for war crimes in Germany!!!

It didn't surprise me that some people wanted to try Rumsfeld for war crimes for inhumane treatement of detainees... but I was surprised when an american soldier said she would testify against rumsfeld...

I do wonder where this will lead...

AAC



news.yahoo.com...

An interesting tidbit -

www.wric.com...

PENTAGON Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld won't be heading to Europe with President Bush this month as planned.

A Pentagon spokesman says Rumsfeld has changed his schedule in light of his resignation. Rumsfeld was due to meet with Germany's defense minister in Latvia at the end of the month.

So - even though Rumsfeld is staying at his position until his replacement is confirmed, he's bailing on this meeting with Germany's defense minister...

how curious.

Man I doubt they would be brave enough to apprehend him, but damn would that make for some exciting news. I'm with you on the curious escape from foriegn exposure...

Let the indictments begin democrats...

Rumsfeld. Cheney. Rove. Wolfowitz. Bush's. and all their constituents... I wish you much scrutiny.

AAC

These things are typically rhetorical and if anything does actually get accomplished (slim to none) it would end up being a "conviction in principle" because there is absolutely zero chance that any US government official, current, outgoing, or former is going to actually travel to Germany and stand trial.

From the article:

The reason the groups have filed the suit in Karlsruhe is that Germany can prosecute foreign violations of international law under its 2002 universal jurisdiction law.

Ummm...

Isn't this old news? I swear I read a thread where the admin negotiated the charges to be dropped. Before an earlier visit.

Here's some more details -

oraclesyndicate.twoday.net...

...snip...

The complaint alleges that the defendants “ordered” war crimes, “aided or abetted” war crimes, or “failed, as civilian superiors or military commanders, to prevent their commission by subordinates, or to punish their subordinates,” actions that are explicitly criminalized by German law. The U.S. administration has treated hundreds if not thousands of detainees in a coercive manner, in accordance with “harsh interrogation techniques” ordered by Secretary Rumsfeld himself that legally constitute torture and/or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, in blatant violation of the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1984 Convention Against Torture and the 1977 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – to all of which the United States is a party. Under international humanitarian treaty and customary law, and as re-stated in German law, these acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment constitute war crimes.

...snip...

Why Germany?
The complaint is being filed under the Code of Crimes against International Law (CCIL), enacted by Germany in compliance with the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court in 2002, which Germany ratified. The CCIL provides for “universal jurisdiction” for war crimes, crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity. It enables the German Federal Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute crimes constituting a violation of the CCIL, irrespective of the location of the defendant or plaintiff, the place where the crime was carried out, or the nationality of the persons involved.

So there is the "how" and the "why" - now for this interesting tidbit - the "who"

The complaint is being filed on behalf of 11 Iraqi citizens who were victims of gruesome crimes at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison. They were severely beaten, deprived of sleep and food, sexually abused, stripped naked and hooded, and exposed to extreme temperatures.

Please see the link for the complete story - there's far more detail than i can squeeze into just this post.



[edit on 14-11-2006 by negativenihil]

The link was very informative...thank you. I'm wondering if there would be a way to have him stand trial for this. I doubt it, but at least these people will have their stories heard!

I found this interesting:

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

I think more than Donald should have to answer for some of the choices made concerning treatment of detainies, as well as the way wars have been initiated and carried out since 9-11. at least explain how every service member of the armed forces took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states of america against all enemies foreign and domestic, while the entire government dissregarded the constitution in the way war was implemented. Do i think Donald should explain some? yes. Is he the reason why things happened the way they did? no, he is not where all the blame lies, in my opinion.

Some interesting information i recieved while in Iraq earlier this year, i thought i would share:

I was stationed about 40 miles north of bagdad. there was a New York City firefighter (who was called to active duty through the guard or reserves) there at my base taking an emt class. he was serving in some capacity at Abu Ghraib. He told me that he had not had any air conditioning in his tent for over 2 months, and he thought his living conditions could use some improvements. he also told me that if anything breaks in the prisoners' living quarters it was always fixed the same day. he explained how they had large screen tv's in general areas along with other forms of entertainment for them. essentially he said that the inmates were living far better than the guards or the other people who worked there.

take it for what it is worth, believe it or not. i did not see it with my own eyes, but i see no reason why this guy would have lied to me.

thanks,
john

Should a nation want to try rummsfield,
and he did attend a meeting there..
what would hapen if he was detained and held for trial.

Theoretical.. now please people.. dont make a huge rukkas here..
This is a THEORETICAL SCENARIO!!!!!!!!!!!


Should germany detain rummsfield and try him for war crimes, would the USA take action to foreceably free him?

The Americans detained German officials after ww2 and tried them, fair enough there wasnt anything left of GERMAN forces..... but even so.

Even the democrats..
There's sime rumours of impeachment coming out lately..


should bush be impeached, what would happen if he refused to attend?

The president borders himself up in the whitehouse, has the secret service on guard protecting him and so forth...

How I would love to see this administartion be tried for crimes gainst humanity, sadly though.. I dont think anyones got the guts.

Its like the SEPT11 questions.


Bush REFUSED to be questioned UNDER OATH!

HE said he'd come by and have a CHAT.. but he would ne be available for questioning under OATH.
Does this sound like a innocment man whom has nothing to hide?

Bush REFUSED to be questioned UNDER OATH!

and so did Rumsfeld, oath is something that these kind of guys take seriously..
But they dont give a f* about telling lies on national television.
Remember the Pentagon official who testified under oath in front of the 9/11 commission that Rumsfeld was informed on the ET of the pentagon plane impact? that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[edit on 15-11-2006 by 137]

Rumsfeld is not being tried. Some citizens have requested that he be tried.

There's a HUGE difference.

There are two chances that Donald Rumsfeld will be tried by anyone for anything:

slim and none.

He could be tried by the american people through impeachment processes. Also, they won't speak under oath for a couple reasons... First they know that that is the fasted way to indictment. Also, they know that their are smoking guns to their lies that if ever outed their words could be used against them, before they have a chance to make an alibi.

AAC

He could be tried by the american people through impeachment processes.

Or if people in the street get him when he's walking in the street, get him, don't give a crap about the Bush whinning, and won't work nor pay taxes nor anything until they are tried to the people will.

[edit on 15-11-2006 by Vitchilo]

Well, if they get what they want, it would make Rumy under house arrest. Even if the US decides not to try him, every other nation would have an obligation, should he set foot in their country, to deport him to Germany to stand trial. So DR would end up having to stay confined to the US.

To play hypothetical, should Germany get Rummy; I'd like to think that the US would recgonize the rule of law and provide reasonable defense for him and allow international courts to do what they were designed to do. However, I am naive. More likely scenerio would be that Rumy will get publically lambasted for this, but privately be cleared because he is who he is...

More likely scenerio would be that Rumy will get publically lambasted for this, but privately be cleared because he is who he is...

Wasn't this country built on the principes of egality in rights?

This country is dead... let's revive it!

Don't forget... Bush & Company refused to join the internation court system. So they won't allow that anytime soon...

AAC

Originally posted by Vitchilo

More likely scenerio would be that Rumy will get publically lambasted for this, but privately be cleared because he is who he is...

Wasn't this country built on the principes of egality in rights?

This country is dead... let's revive it!

Buddy, you are preaching to the choir! Heck, I'm a Canuck and I'd like to revive it. Ultimately though it will come done to the will of the Americans. I simply don't know if enough of them even know what is going on, and out of those how many are against it, and out of those who are against it, how many have the will to stand up and take the required lumps it will take to revive it?

Remember, the first time a mass of people stand up, they will be violently, harshly and quickly cut down(to stop any other wise guys from doing the same). The government(any government) used to get their power from the people, but once power is given from the people, the government derives their power not from the people, but from the point of a gun. Only when enough people are willing to stand against that point - that whole "give me liberty or give me death" mentality that made the US a great thing - does the government actually start to listen more than just symbolically.

To revive it, you must be willing to die for it. Sadly, I just don't think the average America(Or any western people anymore) care enough about the issue to miss their favourite TV show, let alone die for something so nebulus as freedom.

As it was said shortly after WW2, when asked about how long our freedom was going to last "You will not lose your freedom from some invading army marching over the hills. You will lose it one right at a time through ignorance and apathy".. Prophetic words if I have ever heard them.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Don't forget... Bush & Company refused to join the internation court system. So they won't allow that anytime soon...

AAC

Just as your agreements, and words seem to matter little to you - what makes you think any American law matters to anyone outside of the US? Maybe Rummy won't be charged - but he better stay in his own country to be sure..

To revive it, you must be willing to die for it. Sadly, I just don't think the average America(Or any western people anymore) care enough about the issue to miss their favourite TV show, let alone die for something so nebulus as freedom.

Do you? I do. I know a lot of people who would. Just an example, I think Alex Jones and all his fans would fight for and die for, when some groups starts fighting, I'm guessing a lot more people will understand what's going on and join the fight. I'm also guessing that a good part here on ATS would also and a lot of George Noory public too.

(or i'm a dreamer)

So just like that we are... about 100.000? Add all those we don't know, I would bet there's at least 1% of USA that would fight, and that's 3 millions...

In Illinois today, the feds took guns from people forcefully... just wait till it happen on a large scale what will happen to those traitors in the white house...

[edit on 15-11-2006 by Vitchilo]