Germany seeking indictment of Rummy on war crimes.

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:31 pm

I'm in the dark here. If the German prosecutor suceeds in getting the indictment, is there a way the duffer Donald can be forced to defend himself in a German court? Can Rummy be declared a world criminal like the Nazis who hid in South America after WWII? Will he be turned over by our government?
What are the extradition laws?

Cappster · Post by **Cappster** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:05 am

Not a chance

dnpmakkah · Post by **dnpmakkah** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:17 am

America will not allow this to happen. They are too arogant and only see crime outside of their own boundaries. Just look at some of the posters here who seem to think nothing America does is wrong.

Good for Germany for standing up stating the facts. Puzzle pieces....everything is just puzzle pieces and its all falling into place.

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:51 am

TincoSkin · Post by **TincoSkin** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:39 pm

dnpmakkah wrote:America will not allow this to happen. They are too arogant and only see crime outside of their own boundaries. Just look at some of the posters here who seem to think nothing America does is wrong.

Good for Germany for standing up stating the facts. Puzzle pieces....everything is just puzzle pieces and its all falling into place.

none of what you said is a reason for or against anything happening to rumy

TincoSkin · Post by **TincoSkin** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:40 pm

i cant believe this, i wonder whats going to happen. to our relationship with the germans.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:02 pm

America will not allow this to happen. They are too arogant

Ahhhh... glad to see that you are continuing to "not" complain about the country that provides you shelter.

:lol:

0421kidwell · Post by **0421kidwell** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:24 am

runsfeld is not a criminal, oh the germans [edited]

germany talking trash oh well i guess the us army can take care of that sorry country agains then rebuild it and run that for 50 more years!!!

hahahaha

america is #!

dnpmakkah · Post by **dnpmakkah** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:10 am

Countertrey wrote:Ahhhh... glad to see that you are continuing to "not" complain about the country that provides you shelter.

Your adminstration has been a failure. So jokes on you. I'm just sitting back and basking in the glory of "I told you so" while you're gasping for air. HAHAHAHAHA.

ii7-V7 · Post by **ii7-V7** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:58 am

Here is the link to the article.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 42,00.html

This isn't the German's it's former war prisoners using the German courts. Should people who don't live in Germany be able to sue people who aren't German citizens under German laws which they aren't subject too?

Here is a quote from the article.

The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called "20th hijacker" and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a "special interrogation plan," personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.

"Prolonged stress positions" sure beats a hammer to the knuckles.

If you don't think that this is political.......

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:11 am

kidwell, check your private messages.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:55 am

chaddukes wrote:Here is the link to the article.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 42,00.html

This isn't the German's it's former war prisoners using the German courts. Should people who don't live in Germany be able to sue people who aren't German citizens under German laws which they aren't subject too?

Here is a quote from the article.

The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called "20th hijacker" and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a "special interrogation plan," personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.

"Prolonged stress positions" sure beats a hammer to the knuckles.

If you don't think that this is political.......

No I don't think it's political for those that were tortured. Have you ever been held in prolonged stress positions? You might be asking for a hammer to the knuckles instead. Also, I find it interesting that the article only mentions the lighter methods of torture, and then refers to "other controversial interrogation techniques." Waterboarding, anyone?

ii7-V7 · Post by **ii7-V7** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:39 pm

JSPB22 wrote:I don't think it's political for those that were tortured, no. Have you ever been held in prolonged stress positions? You might be asking for a hammer to the knuckles instead.

Yes, for four years in the Army.

Seriously, I'm sure that Gitmo wasn't fun.....its a war prison after all. But without something more tangible, I just don't think of making people stand nude as being a war crime. Gassing people in ovens is a war crime. Shooting all the men in a village is a war crime. raping someone is a war crime. And if those soldiers who are accused of rape are found guilty (weren't they already?) then they should receive the most severe punishment. But Rumsfeld didn't order them to rape a woman. And I don't think that Religious humiliation is enough to warrant a conviction on war crimes.

The people who are filing this case are doing so to make a story. I don't know if there case has merit or not, I'm not privy to the info. But they know that there is no way that Rumsfeld will ever stand up in a German court and recieve punishment.

You will see more people who dont live in Germany or England using there courts to sue American's......its a way to get your publicity for your plight.....but there is no way that we are ever extradicting someone for these cases.

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:37 pm

0421kidwell wrote:runsfeld is not a criminal, oh the germans [edited]

germany talking trash oh well i guess the us army can take care of that sorry country agains then rebuild it and run that for 50 more years!!!

hahahaha

america is #!

If you don't think Rummy's a war criminal, try reading the Geneva Conventions for yourself, instead of reading just what the administration's spokemen say the Conventions say. The case against Rummy is open and shut. He personally witnessed the torturing of a prisoner at Gitmo and worked with General Clark in deciding what torture techniques to use. These were techniques specifically outlawed by the conventions.

ii7-V7 · Post by **ii7-V7** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:13 am

I have read the Geneva Conventions and Nudity and Stress Positions aren't specifially designated as Torture.

dnpmakkah · Post by **dnpmakkah** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:48 pm

chaddukes wrote:I have read the Geneva Conventions and Nudity and Stress Positions aren't specifially designated as Torture.

Leave it up to certain nations to find loopholes to satisfy their cravings.

Is it against the Geneva Conventions to show pictures of captured or dead militants?

dnpmakkah · Post by **dnpmakkah** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:59 pm

Civil rights groups filed a suit with German prosecutors on Tuesday seeking war crimes charges against outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for alleged abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons.

Former U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who ran the Abu Ghraib prison at the time photographs depicting the abuse of prisoners were widely published, said she was willing to testify against her former boss Rumsfeld.

Karpinski, who was blamed for Abu Ghraib, said the abuse was directed by military intelligence, over which she had no say.

"When I look back at it now, when I see the footage, when I see the Iraqi people I see a loss of hope in their faces. I see desperation in their faces and I know that we in many ways contributed to this situation," she told Reuters Television.
LINK HERE

LMFAO this is great. I'm so happy that there are people out there who have the capabilities to do something about this and are actually doing it. It takes a courageous person/group of people to speak up when need be. Rumsfield deserves this. He has hurt too many people and must go through suffering himself. God always has a way of humiliating those who deserves it and he is no different. Sooner or later everyones time will come.

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:36 pm

chaddukes wrote:I have read the Geneva Conventions and Nudity and Stress Positions aren't specifially designated as Torture.

The Geneva Conventions outlaws humiliating prisoners and "stress positions" is a latter day term not in the conventions by that term but all over the Conventions in other language. Semantic spinning won't work, except for those who live in the Bush netherworld. What is really bad for the WH crew is that the CIA announced a couple of hours ago that they were authorized to "torture" prisoners in Gitmo and in Iraq and other places by Presidential order. This administration is finished.

ii7-V7 · Post by **ii7-V7** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:17 am

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not even opposed to Rumsfeld standing up and defending himself......it’s not going to happen in a German court though.......I think that we should account for what has been done. And if it is in violation of the Geneva Convention then we should be rightly condemned. However the Geneva Convention has its issues as well. Specifically considering most of the world hasn't signed it, and they definitely don't abide by it. I wonder what jurisdiction the convention really has when you are fighting people who are not a member of an official military unit from a foreign country, but instead of a terrorist organization.

Anyway, I digress. I believe that America shouldn't be torturing prisoners, but I also think that we shouldn't be providing war prisoners room service and a mint on their pillows at night. I think that we have every right to gain information from them in every conceivable way that is not specifically forbidden in the Geneva Conventions.

You all know that I'm a republican and that I stand up for the administration the majority of the time. I think that if there is a compelling case against Rumsfeld then he should be called to defend his actions. I don't however think that the case should be prosecuted in the media, or in the political realm, where we will never know what really happened....only what the opponents of Rummy want us to think happened. And I don't think that Stress Positions and nudity equates to a "war crime."

Yes, I've read the Geneva Conventions. I had to. But I don't recall everything that was in them. It is an outdated document that really doesn't address how the rules have changed in current conflicts, where the combatants are not foreign nationals, are not in uniform....use children as bombs, etc. If anyone expects the article sto be taken seriously then there needs to be a serious update! The humiliation thing is pretty ridiculous too. How do you objectively evaluate that? I'm sure for the terrorist in Gitmo, just being there with "American pig dogs" watching over them was a form or religious humiliation....should we have let them go because they were Allah's chosen people? Of course not! Should we have been pissing on the Koran in front of them? That’s open for discussion......

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:26 pm

chaddukes wrote:Don't misunderstand me. I'm not even opposed to Rumsfeld standing up and defending himself......it’s not going to happen in a German court though.......I think that we should account for what has been done. And if it is in violation of the Geneva Convention then we should be rightly condemned. However the Geneva Convention has its issues as well. Specifically considering most of the world hasn't signed it, and they definitely don't abide by it. I wonder what jurisdiction the convention really has when you are fighting people who are not a member of an official military unit from a foreign country, but instead of a terrorist organization.

Anyway, I digress. I believe that America shouldn't be torturing prisoners, but I also think that we shouldn't be providing war prisoners room service and a mint on their pillows at night. I think that we have every right to gain information from them in every conceivable way that is not specifically forbidden in the Geneva Conventions.

You all know that I'm a republican and that I stand up for the administration the majority of the time. I think that if there is a compelling case against Rumsfeld then he should be called to defend his actions. I don't however think that the case should be prosecuted in the media, or in the political realm, where we will never know what really happened....only what the opponents of Rummy want us to think happened. And I don't think that Stress Positions and nudity equates to a "war crime."

Yes, I've read the Geneva Conventions. I had to. But I don't recall everything that was in them. It is an outdated document that really doesn't address how the rules have changed in current conflicts, where the combatants are not foreign nationals, are not in uniform....use children as bombs, etc. If anyone expects the article sto be taken seriously then there needs to be a serious update! The humiliation thing is pretty ridiculous too. How do you objectively evaluate that? I'm sure for the terrorist in Gitmo, just being there with "American pig dogs" watching over them was a form or religious humiliation....should we have let them go because they were Allah's chosen people? Of course not! Should we have been pissing on the Koran in front of them? That’s open for discussion......

Just to clarify a point, not to disagree... The Conventions were deliberately written to be vague. The purpose was to stop all torture, in any form, and for all people, regardless of classifications such as combatant and non-combatant. It was realized at the time that if specific acts were outlawed, those who would torture could introduce new tortures indefinately.

Classifications were made to address other matters, such as who could be detained without trials by neutral governments, and who could not. In relation to criminals (terrorists) for instance, there must be fair trials by neutral governments to determine if the accused is actually a terrorist or not before he is punished. If such a person is convicted of murder or terrorism, for instance, he can be put to death. He cannot, however, be tortured.

No person can be made an "official" terrorist without a fair trial conducted by a neutral government.

The Conventions flat out disallow any torture whatever, or humiliation, or anything less than good treatment of any prisoner of any kind at any time, even if the prisoner is from a country that did not sign the Conventions, or awaiting execution as a convicted terrrorist. The framers wanted to banish the practice from the earth, and the U.S. signed on.

In point of fact, even if the U.S. hadn't signed on, war criminals from the United States can be apprehended and punished by any foreign court. The United States cannot suspend the Conventions or nullify foreign courts and laws.

Gonzales saying the laws are outdated and quaint does nothing to nullify them. International law and the German courts could hardly care less about what Gonzales thinks or what laws have been passed by our congress. Such considerations would be laughed out of court.

To continue...Even though the Conventions make clear that a lawful combatant must have some identifying uniform or carry some kind of banner, the distinction between lawful combatant or unlawful combatant or insurgent or whatever has absolutely nothing to do with the universal prohibition of terror. As I said before, such distinctions are made for other reasons.

If the CIA's statement is true that it tortured under the authority of a Presidental order, there is no doubt that Bush and other administrators will be convicted by the German court and other international courts of war crimes. The U.S. can then refuse to deliver them to the court or courts for trial and punishment, but they'll have to be careful of where they travel for the rest of their lives and, even in the U.S., will be subject to kidnapping for delivery to foreign courts for trial and punishment.

ii7-V7 · Post by **ii7-V7** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:09 am

crazyhorse1 wrote:If the CIA's statement is true that it tortured under the authority of a Presidental order, there is no doubt that Bush and other administrators will be convicted by the German court and other international courts of war crimes. The U.S. can then refuse to deliver them to the court or courts for trial and punishment, but they'll have to be careful of where they travel for the rest of their lives and, even in the U.S., will be subject to kidnapping for delivery to foreign courts for trial and punishment.

It will be interesting to see what happens in that case!

Can you provide me with some reading material regarding the CIA statement? I don't recall hearing about that.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:22 am

The U.S. can then refuse to deliver them to the court or courts for trial and punishment, but they'll have to be careful of where they travel for the rest of their lives and, even in the U.S., will be subject to kidnapping for delivery to foreign courts for trial and punishment.

That is ludicrous. Such a conviction would not be acknowledged by any American administration, whether Republican, Democrat or Martian, and any attempt to enforce it would be viewed as a hostile, war-like, act.

There would soon follow, attempts to hold Clinton accountable in international court, for the "illegal destruction of a pharmaceutical plant" (and resulting death) in the Sudan.

Perhaps Saddam Husein's plot to assassinate Bush 41 was merely an attempt to enforce Iraqi justice for war crimes committed during Desert Storm.

The next administration is (rightly) going to reserve the right to use military force as they see necessary. And someone else won't like it.

The German SG9, an elite anti-terror force, frequently operates outside German borders, and sometimes in a clandestine manner. The German justice system needs to be careful what they wish.

It's always good to follow a thought through to it's logical conclusion. Open a can of worms, and you get a bit of a mess. Every "legitimate military action" is someone else's criminal act. You know... who's ox is being gored?

Yeah... that's it.

ii7-V7 · Post by **ii7-V7** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:27 am

Countertrey wrote: Every "legitimate military action" is someone else's criminal act. You know...

Which is a large part of why the "humilitation" thing is so ludicrous. Just being a prisoner of war is humiliating.

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:35 am

chaddukes wrote:
crazyhorse1 wrote:If the CIA's statement is true that it tortured under the authority of a Presidental order, there is no doubt that Bush and other administrators will be convicted by the German court and other international courts of war crimes. The U.S. can then refuse to deliver them to the court or courts for trial and punishment, but they'll have to be careful of where they travel for the rest of their lives and, even in the U.S., will be subject to kidnapping for delivery to foreign courts for trial and punishment.

It will be interesting to see what happens in that case!

Can you provide me with some reading material regarding the CIA statement? I don't recall hearing about that.

It hit cable news last night on MSNBC, the K. 0. ahow. The following are excerpts from coverage on Raw Story:

CIA acknowledges existence of presidential order authorizing it to detain, interrogate terror suspects overseas

RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday November 14, 2006

In response to an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit, the CIA has finally acknowledged the existence of a presidential order authorizing the agency to detain and interrogate terror suspects overseas.

Along with a memorandum written by President Bush to the agency's director, the CIA also referred to a Justice Department legal analysis sent to the CIA's general counsel which specified interrogation methods which could be used against top Al-Qaeda members.

However, the CIA wouldn't release either of the documents.

"The documents are withheld in their entirety because there is no meaningful non-exempt information that can be reasonably segregated from the exempt information," said the CIA letter signed by Associate General Counsel John L. McPherson (which can be read in full at this pdf link).

"The CIA’s sudden reversal on these secret directives is yet more evidence that the Bush administration is misusing claims of national security to avoid public scrutiny," ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero stated in the press release. "Confusion about whether such a presidential order existed certainly led to the torture and abuse scandal that embarrassed America."

Romeros argues that "with a new Congress and renewed subpoena power, we now need to look up the chain of command."

The ACLU intends to keep pressing until both documents are released in full.

"If President Bush and the Justice Department authorized the CIA to torture its prisoners, the public has a right to know," ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer stated.

.

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 2:29 pm

Countertrey wrote:
The U.S. can then refuse to deliver them to the court or courts for trial and punishment, but they'll have to be careful of where they travel for the rest of their lives and, even in the U.S., will be subject to kidnapping for delivery to foreign courts for trial and punishment.

That is ludicrous. Such a conviction would not be acknowledged by any American administration, whether Republican, Democrat or Martian, and any attempt to enforce it would be viewed as a hostile, war-like, act.

There would soon follow, attempts to hold Clinton accountable in international court, for the "illegal destruction of a pharmaceutical plant" (and resulting death) in the Sudan.

Perhaps Saddam Husein's plot to assassinate Bush 41 was merely an attempt to enforce Iraqi justice for war crimes committed during Desert Storm.

The next administration is (rightly) going to reserve the right to use military force as they see necessary. And someone else won't like it.

The German SG9, an elite anti-terror force, frequently operates outside German borders, and sometimes in a clandestine manner. The German justice system needs to be careful what they wish.

It's always good to follow a thought through to it's logical conclusion. Open a can of worms, and you get a bit of a mess. Every "legitimate military action" is someone else's criminal act. You know... who's ox is being gored?

Yeah... that's it.

I would turn the Bush boys over to any government that wanted to try them in a New York second. Trying to establish the U.S. as above international law is the height of arrogance and would unite the world against us even more than it already is.