Germany wants to charge Rumsfield for prison abuse

www.time.com...

A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the former Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo

I will be honest, I dont know what to think of this.
Last time they tried this it was dismissed.
What does everyone else think?


EDIT: Mods, if I did the quote wrong, please U2 me and let me know, I think I did it right though

[edit on 10-11-2006 by lardo5150]

[edit on 10-11-2006 by lardo5150]

Rumsfeld et al to face War Crimes prosecution?

BTW German Officials do not want him. It is activists that want him tried there is a big difference.


[edit on 11/10/2006 by shots]

It's ok to have the same topic running in ATSNN and ATS.

Sorry I must have had an attack of sometimers

Title changed to reflect other info

I think this is a great thing; hopefully now the Bush Administration will reconsider their stance on the Geneva conventions and the use of torture.

Not to start a political commentary on this or anything, but I think its a great thing that the German Government is willing to stand up to the United States and protect the rights of citizens worldwide.

However, I am not sure why Rumsfield is the main person cited in this article, in my opinion, the real bad guy is Alberto Gonzalez, without whos authority, this whole fiasco would never have happened.

I would consider any attempt by a foreign power to arrest, try, or convict an official or former official of the United States government for simply exercizing their governmental duties to be an act of War against the United States and deserving every and/or any military response up to and including the use of nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I would consider any attempt by a foreign power to arrest, try, or convict an official or former official of the United States government for simply exercizing their governmental duties to be an act of War against the United States and deserving every and/or any military response up to and including the use of nuclear weapons.

....your kidding right? If not, you have seriously gone off the deep end. Nuclear weapons over one shady guys trial over possible war crimes? We charged nazis with warcrimes when we believed they did it, then we proved it in court. We believe he did it, thus time to prove it in court.

I honest hope they have all the evidence at hand and ready to go. If its like the US laws, once hes found innocent, they cant keep trying him for the same crime.

"Germany wants to charge Rumsfield for prison abuse"

Good!
Hope they waterboard his sadistic a$$.
Afterall,only way to get the truth out of him,right?

Afterall Karma is a mother...

Cheers to you Germany!

[edit on 10-11-2006 by Black_Fox]

Originally posted by grimreaper797
....your kidding right? If not, you have seriously gone off the deep end. Nuclear weapons over one shady guys trial over possible war crimes? We charged nazis with warcrimes when we believed they did it, then we proved it in court. We believe he did it, thus time to prove it in court.

No, I'm completely serious. Do I think the use of nuclear weapons would be good or the first and best course of action to take in such of an event? Of course not.

But I still think arresting an official or former official of the United States for simply conducting their duties would be an act of war and during war, nothing should be taken off the table.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
No, I'm completely serious. Do I think the use of nuclear weapons would be good or the first and best course of action to take in such of an event? Of course not.

But I still think arresting an official or former official of the United States for simply conducting their duties would be an act of war and during war, nothing should be taken off the table.

you are aware that a majority of the nazis were just following orders and doing their duties? They did what they were told to do. Does that make it right? Not at all, but when a government is doing wrong, and will not punish those who do wrong, who is left to stop them?

Maybe its best if he go to trial and face the charges. What difference does it make if a nazi commits a war crime or if an american does? In the eyes of the court, it shouldn't make any difference, and I hope it stands true. If they can connect him to the abuses and mistreatments, then off with his head I say. If our government is too corrupt to handle its own wrongdoers, Id rather have another country do it, then none at all.

When Germany or any other country can capture our country and march into Washington, then they can put our officials up for war crimes trials.

Until then no one can do that except the U.S. herself.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
When Germany or any other country can capture our country and march into Washington, then they can put our officials up for war crimes trials.

Until then no one can do that except the U.S. herself.

Id agree if the US actually did it, but it doesnt. At least not if they can pay there way out or weisel their way out. I guess we must deserve to be invaded and bombed then because we allow our leaders to go unchecked, which is a shame.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I would consider any attempt by a foreign power to arrest, try, or convict an official or former official of the United States government for simply exercizing their governmental duties to be an act of War against the United States and deserving every and/or any military response up to and including the use of nuclear weapons.

If thats the case, then apparently you have no idea how international law works. But whatever, stick with your hyper patriotism if thats what works for you.
I dont understand why it is so hard for some people to get that some of the tactics used by this administration are completly illegal.
I think to continue to ignore those facts and to continue to let them get away with it will do more damage to our country than the terrorists ever could.

If charges are filed, than Mr. Rumsfield, and everyone else indicted will receive a fair trial; if they are found guilty, then thats not an act of war - thats justice.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I would consider any attempt by a foreign power to arrest, try, or convict an official or former official of the United States government for simply exercizing their governmental duties to be an act of War against the United States and deserving every and/or any military response up to and including the use of nuclear weapons.

I wouldnt go far as to say and "former" official. however, If any of the ACTIVE members in our government were abducted, it would be an act of war.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I would consider any attempt by a foreign power to arrest, try, or convict an official or former official of the United States government for simply exercizing their governmental duties to be an act of War

Originally posted by grimreaper797
....your kidding right? If not, you have seriously gone off the deep end

He's not. As a matter of fact, his government shares his radical idea.

(New York, August 3, 2002)

U.S. President George Bush today signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which is intended to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands.

Source

Originally posted by Mdv2


He's not. As a matter of fact, his government shares his radical idea.

(New York, August 3, 2002)

U.S. President George Bush today signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which is intended to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands.

Maybe thats why they are going to do the trial in Germany? Its not the Hague.


Pie





[edit on 11-11-2006 by ThePieMaN]

I see theres a few extremists here that would like to see Germany Nuked for this " crime " you may be interested to know the group wanting to bring the Lawsuit are a US based group of Lawyers, obviously just taking advantage of Germanys laws, so maybe there offices in the US should be taken care of first hey ?

Numbercrusher, do you have any sources about that, would be interested to read it.

A US-based group of lawyers says it intends to bring the case against Mr Rumsfeld next week in Germany, a country which allows the prosecution of war crimes and related offences from anywhere in the world.

HERE

Originally posted by Mdv2

The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands.

Source

US law is not recognised outside the US, unless specifically agreed to by the foreign government concerned.

It would be considered an act of war, and most likely result in the US it's losing all of it's European allies, the explulsion of all US diplomats and intelligence personael, the closure or blockading of all it's European bases, the adoption of the Euro for all oil trading etc. The US would be totally isolated, a new Euro/US cold war would ensue, and the whole world would suffer.
I doubt anyone, even Rumsfeld, would be too important to throw to the wolves if it came to it.

In practice though, even if there was a warrant out for his arrest, the US would never extradite him in the first place. While he's a government official, he would be protected abroad US security people, but in retirement he would find his international travel options somewhat limited.