Rumsfeld et al to face War Crimes prosecution?

Oh really? Is that how you want to play it?

I guess in your logic, the past few years went something like this:
Nothing could have happened to anyone in Iraq, just because of what some Politician in America said. America has no authority over Iraq. No-one enforced or recoginsed the decision to invade.

Hmm...Riight...
What makes America so high and mighty that they evade consequences for their actions, yet Iraq must suffer?

And by the way...

no one will enforce or recognizes this decision.

I guess your right. Although they issued warnings, the Geneva Convention and UN did little to stop America last time, but who is to say that the issue won't be evaded this time?
It's time to face the music.

[edit on 6-11-2006 by Gear]

heres what i find interesting. in a forum community where many are concerned about a NWO or "world government", there are so many in favor of a world court.

not saying nothing, just find it interesting.

It does not work that way, do you know what it means to be a head of state? Think it through, that goes to all of you. I'm not going to argue over dumb stuff, I'll just say it again, no court outside the US, even the ICC has authority or power over US elected officials. I find it comical we are even discussing this.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
It does not work that way, do you know what it means to be a head of state? Think it through, that goes to all of you. I'm not going to argue over dumb stuff, I'll just say it again, no court outside the US, even the ICC has authority or power over US elected officials. I find it comical we are even discussing this.

You're missinformed. Under International Treaty (International Law) the World Court DOES indeed have authority to prosecute Heads of State. Also, under International Law, The Executive Branch of the US Government, including the Commander in Chief, is completely responsible for any and all acts done in Iraq since the Declairation of War and the Invasion. Understand that this one is a Declaired War, and not a Police Action as was Vietnam. In that case, the Riules are quite different. Remember the Nuremberg Trials, and you will know why this regulation exists under International Law and why there is a World Court.

[edit on 6-11-2006 by Ed Littlefox]

[edit on 6-11-2006 by Ed Littlefox]

posted by GearAnd by the way...

no one will enforce or recognizes this decision.

I guess your right. Although they issued warnings, the Geneva Convention and UN did little to stop America last time, but who is to say that the issue won't be evaded this time?
It's time to face the music

Mossad would be the only one capable to enforce and carry out this decision, but will they? I doubt.

Until then let's dream about justice and a World Order, that'll be post-new.

Originally posted by Ed Littlefox
You're missinformed. Under International Treaty (International Law) the World Court DOES indeed have authority to prosecute Heads of State.

Only if they can enforce their decision, otherwise it's meaningless, who will prosecute Bush? And more importantly who will enforce this decision if the US is not a party of such a trail? Yeah, we can all talk in theory.

You ridicule this as a comical, dumb argument, yet you have no sense of direction.

Firstly, you failed to address my statement.
Secondly, what has "Head of State" have to do with anything?
It means nothing to international law. Even at that, Saddam was head of state in Iraq. He still got prosecuted. So again, Why does the fact that America is now 'under fire' make it any different?

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I'll just say it again, no court outside the US, even the ICC has authority or power over US elected officials. I find it comical we are even discussing this.

I too find it comical. Your blindness is astounding. US is NO different to any other country and is obliged to obey international law.

You clearly think that US either owns this world, or is not a part of this world. Because that's all the sense you seem to be making.

Originally posted by Gear
Secondly, what has "Head of State" have to do with anything?

Umm... you're a sovereign leader and if you do not recognize the authority of the ICC the only way they can enforce their authority over you is through war.

Originally posted by Gear
It means nothing to international law. Even at that, Saddam was head of state in Iraq. He still got prosecuted. So again, Why does the fact that America is now 'under fire' make it any different?

Again, in theory. The US went to war with Saddam, we captured him, and now put him on trial, he has no say in the matter. He lost the conflict and is now a prisoner, as such we have the means to enforce our decisions. Tell me, is Germany, or any other country for that matter, going to go to war with the US to capture Bush? Because that is the only way their decision can be enforced.

Originally posted by Gear
You clearly think that US either owns this world, or is not a part of this world. Because that's all the sense you seem to be making.

And you clearly do not realize that the US, just like any other country, cannot be forced (unless by armed conflict) to oblige by the ICC or any world body.

[edit on 6-11-2006 by WestPoint23]

Besides all that....if it can definately be proven that Rumsfeld ,or any other member of our government regardless of party affilation were found guilty of crimes against humanity...would you still object?

Grover, that would depend on who did the proving and what "Proof" they exposed. For one thing, Rumsfeld is only doing what has been authorized by the House and Senate.

Second, there are many, on here and elsewhere, that have already convicted him and the President of everything from War Crimes, to Perjury and the setting of bombs in New Orleans.

The amount and the extent that those that hate this administration will go has been well proven in the wild allegations, exaggerated postulations and out-right lies that have followed this man and his President.

And pawning this off as a German action is once again a ploy to deflect the real purpose here. To further attempt the defacement of this administration. Germany is only a convenient place to go as our country, though not in love with President Bush, is tired of all the lies.

I have seriously begun to hope that all of your dreams come true. That we elect all Democrats this time, that we run away from Iraq, that we go back to placating our enemies and hopefully, when we are attacked again, my relatives will not be at ground zero. Maybe this time all it will take is the complete destruction of 2000 lives instead of 3000 to convince us that we must have strong leadership. Or maybe it will be far worse and our Hate for the only man willing to stand up and fight, will cause the deaths of 10's of thousands on our soil. Who knows? Maybe being weak and ineffective is a more effective foreign policy.

Semper

Hey, Gear, don't you know what U.S.A. stands for?
United States of Arrogance!

Their fancied superiority the rest of us unfortunately have to live with. No one can force the US.

Like Michael Ledeen have said:
"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business"

Germany is nothing more than another "crappy little country".

Yankee Arrogance! Pheu...

We really don't have to abide by their findings here in The USA, this is true, but lets see if they do find them guilty and set foot outside of the country what would happen. If there was a warrant for their arrest the minute they step foot outside of their territory they can be snagged. An Israeli IDF Colonel went to Great Britain and found himself getting right back on his little plane and back to his safe little country once he was told that there was a warrant for his arrest for war crimes in Great Britain filed by Palestinian exiles. He won't be going back there for a while.

I guess as long as there is no need to ever step on foreign soil they would be safe under US protection.

Originally posted by khunmoon
Hey, Gear, don't you know what U.S.A. stands for?
United States of Arrogance!

How about you look at the map and see what U.S. of A. really stands for, unless you blamed it on the less qualified teacher that taught you that.

Their fancied superiority the rest of us unfortunately have to live with. No one can force the US.

Superiority? And how are we bragging about? I don't remember us calling ourselves superior to others. I do remember the Frenchies calling us the hyperpower for some reason.

"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business"

Those "little" countries are countries that we picked on when they picked on some other country or people. For example, Serbia decided to commit genocide against Albanian Muslims and we decided to kick some butt in 1999. Iraq invades Kuwait in 1990, we kicked their butts. North Korea invades South Korea, we kicked their butts. North Vietnam invades South Vietnam, they kicked our butts. They all may be small countries but they got large military forces.

Originally posted by Damocles
heres what i find interesting. in a forum community where many are concerned about a NWO or "world government", there are so many in favor of a world court.

not saying nothing, just find it interesting.

They want globalization? They got it baby, they got it.

Concerns about a NWO are always legitamate. But in terms of progress, may be inevitable too. To question the methods and motivations is a just and moral duty of those of us who care what the outcomes will be.

I am not sure who posted it, but good point. So many of us are against a world authority, yet we seem to want a world court.

I guess the thing is, when there are international crimes - you need an international body to address them. No one, regardless on what WP seems to delussion himself with, they can and will be held accountable. If not within the states, when they eventually leave the states.

Justice, if the civilised world is ever to regain itself, has to be carried out.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
It does not work that way, do you know what it means to be a head of state? Think it through, that goes to all of you. I'm not going to argue over dumb stuff, I'll just say it again, no court outside the US, even the ICC has authority or power over US elected officials. I find it comical we are even discussing this.

If that is true, WP, then that must be why Jr. and the VP aren't included in this. Or most of Congress for that matter.

But Rummy isn't ELECTED, he and Gonzo are both APPOINTED officials. And in their eyes, have commissioned, condoned, and supported international war crimes.

Personally, I'd like to see tomorrow's new Congress take on the rest of them by with impeachment finally taking on some serious talk. Even if it means that radical leftie from San Francisco WOMAN leading them to HER presidency. Better Nancy than Hil, imho. For starters, anyway.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

no court outside the US, even the ICC has authority or power over US elected officials.

Ever heard of the Nuremburg trials?

...The world tried the Nazis for war crimes. It's the precedent.

We're talkin Nuremburg Redux here.

Pie Man, read the "Hague Invasion Act", the US will free any public official or service member held against their will. Also, why are we still discussing this? It's beyond ridicules, Germany is going to arrest Bush when he goes there?

Originally posted by soficrow
Ever heard of the Nuremburg trials?

Ever heard of WWII? If the outcome had not been in our favor our generals and officials would have been the ones tired for war crimes. Like I said means to enforce your decisions, they lost and we captured them, different situation. You think it would have mattered to Roosevelt in 1942 if a court in Germany had found him guilty of crimes?


[edit on 6-11-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by rich23

The civilian leaders bear a grave responsibility. In recent years, Secretary Rumsfeld has failed to uphold that duty.

Wasn't that the whole idea when a civilian was put in charge of our defense (Secretary of Defense) so that they (military leaders) had to answer to somebody, who was not "military", to keep them in line so that the military did not just start running things themselves.

Isn't the Secretary of Defense suppose to (in my interpretation) keep all the Generals and/or militaries in line so that they don't "stray" or do things not in line with the countries (USA) beliefs/morals/standards/agenda. And I'm not sure here, but, doesn't he have the power to remove Generals or anybody else in the military who he deems is "misguided", or at least be able to curtail what is happening?

I'm not that well versed on the actual powers of the Secretary of Defense (I even Googled to try to find out the actual powers of the position and nothing relevant showed up), but I would believe this would be why this position was made. To put somebody in charge of our military who had the interests of the country foremost in their minds (including how "things" might be perceived of our country), to guide our miltary and to think about how the people he is representing (US tax payers/citizens) want our military to behave and be respected by other countries

If I am wrong, please let me know.


[edit on 6/11/06 by Keyhole]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Pie Man, read the "Hague Invasion Act", the US will free any public official or service member held against their will. Also, why are we still discussing this? It's beyond ridicules, Germany is going to arrest Bush when he goes there?

LMAO. OK, so the theory here is because of a nationalistic law, supercedes international law? R.r.r.reallly now.

How much is America willing to lose to defend obvious war crimes? Your reluctence to see this, is a rather poor showing. IMO of course.

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
LMAO. OK, so the theory here is because of a nationalistic law, supercedes international law? R.r.r.reallly now.

International law must be, of course, accepted and enforced by the international community or else it's toothless. Like I said who will enforce this, no answer yet? Our law has US backing.

[edit on 6-11-2006 by WestPoint23]