quote:

Former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld fled France today..................... U.S. embassy officials whisked Rumsfeld away yesterday from a breakfast meeting in Paris

quote:

Anti-torture protesters in France believe that the defense secretary fled over the open border to Germany, where a war crimes case against Rumsfeld was dismissed by a federal court.

quote:

"Rumsfeld must be feeling how Saddam Hussein felt when U.S. forces were hunting him down," activist Tanguy Richard said. "He may never end up being hanged like his old friend, but he must learn that in the civilized world, war crime doesn't pay."

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

quote:

"Rumsfeld must be feeling how Saddam Hussein felt when U.S. forces were hunting him down," activist Tanguy Richard said. "He may never end up being hanged like his old friend, but he must learn that in the civilized world, war crime doesn't pay."

Whoa dood!!  Comparing him to Sadaam?  That simply diminishes Sadaam's massive accomplishments!  I don't remember Rumsfeld gassing anyone.  Hmm...


Philo, if you read this.. this highlights why I don't trust a World Court, even if this article only addresses one in France.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Regardless, it would seem that pinkme2's statement would hold.  To humor the apparently accepted view here, both Rumsfeld and Hussein are guilty of warcrimes; this is a comparison, yet perhaps not to such a complete extent, as pinkme2's point seemed to be.   Afterall, things aren't black and white; Rumsfeld may've held thousands of people in inhumane conditions for years in a zealous witch hunt, though Hilter slaughtered over seven million people in a deliberate attempt at genocide and led the world into history's bloodiest and most global war ever.  At the same time, you could say all three individuals commited war crimes.

Point being, just because you can label it "war crimes" doesn't make it the same thing, you know?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CollegeConundrum

Tried for war crimes in France and Germany. 

Fucking laughable.

Why are we wasting our time in the middle east, when we should be taking down uppity shits like France and Germany?

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

But let's get down to basics. The majority of lawyers that specialize in international law seem to think that the Iraqi invasion was illegal and should be tested as a war crime. This is backed up with evidence that the reason for the invasion was not the WND issue where there is a dispute as to whether another UN resolution was needed or not but the material fact that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle etc were advocating an Iraqi invasion well before any WMD issue was aired. Not only that, there has come to light reports that claim the Iraqi invasion was a seizure of oil resources so the US could break OPEC's hold on oil prices. All enough to suggest there is a case to be answered. Ass to the fact that an estimated figure of somewhere between 3-700,000 people died because of the invasion and 2 million were made refugees, there is adequate reason for this case to be tested in a court of law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

But let's get down to basics. The majority of lawyers that specialize in international law seem to think that the Iraqi invasion was illegal and should be tested as a war crime. This is backed up with evidence that the reason for the invasion was not the WND issue where there is a dispute as to whether another UN resolution was needed or not but the material fact that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle etc were advocating an Iraqi invasion well before any WMD issue was aired. Not only that, there has come to light reports that claim the Iraqi invasion was a seizure of oil resources so the US could break OPEC's hold on oil prices. All enough to suggest there is a case to be answered. Ass to the fact that an estimated figure of somewhere between 3-700,000 people died because of the invasion and 2 million were made refugees, there is adequate reason for this case to be tested in a court of law.

Four out of five Dentists recommend sugarless gum, for patients who chew gum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yChXGv_LVZ8 


I provided a source to back up my claim, can you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

But let's get down to basics. The majority of lawyers that specialize in international law seem to think that the Iraqi invasion was illegal and should be tested as a war crime. This is backed up with evidence that the reason for the invasion was not the WND issue where there is a dispute as to whether another UN resolution was needed or not but the material fact that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle etc were advocating an Iraqi invasion well before any WMD issue was aired. Not only that, there has come to light reports that claim the Iraqi invasion was a seizure of oil resources so the US could break OPEC's hold on oil prices. All enough to suggest there is a case to be answered. Ass to the fact that an estimated figure of somewhere between 3-700,000 people died because of the invasion and 2 million were made refugees, there is adequate reason for this case to be tested in a court of law.

Four out of five Dentists recommend sugarless gum, for patients who chew gum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yChXGv_LVZ8


I provided a source to back up my claim, can you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

Comparing him to Sadaam?  That simply diminishes Sadaam's massive accomplishments!  I don't remember Rumsfeld gassing anyone.  Hmm...


Philo, if you read this.. this highlights why I don't trust a World Court, even if this article only addresses one in France.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

Comparing him to Sadaam? That simply diminishes Sadaam's massive accomplishments! I don't remember Rumsfeld gassing anyone. Hmm...


Philo, if you read this.. this highlights why I don't trust a World Court, even if this article only addresses one in France.

........two points. Prosecuting a petty thief does not, in my mind, diminsh the crime of a rapist. They are both crimes and both subject to prosecution.
Second point.....Rumsfield might be found not guilty, but without some form of due process the jury is literally out. Just because a french court thinks there is grounds for prosecution does not mean automatic guilt.....it means there is sufficient evidence for a process to begin.
Question for you........are Americans abroad subject to the laws of the country they are in?

(edited to add that the last question ought to read 'are citizens of country A subject to the laws of country B if thats the country they are in?')

quote:

Question for you........are Americans abroad subject to the laws of the country they are in?

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Regardless, it would seem that pinkme2's statement would hold.  To humor the apparently accepted view here, both Rumsfeld and Hussein are guilty of warcrimes; this is a comparison, yet perhaps not to such a complete extent, as pinkme2's point seemed to be.   Afterall, things aren't black and white; Rumsfeld may've held thousands of people in inhumane conditions for years in a zealous witch hunt, though Hilter slaughtered over seven million people in a deliberate attempt at genocide and led the world into history's bloodiest and most global war ever.  At the same time, you could say all three individuals commited war crimes.

Point being, just because you can label it "war crimes" doesn't make it the same thing, you know?

Serial murder, murder and assault are all crimes. Just because assault isn't as bad as serial murder, you wouldn't expect the assailent to be patted on the head and told to bve a good boy next time.

But let's get down to basics. The majority of lawyers that specialize in international law seem to think that the Iraqi invasion was illegal and should be tested as a war crime. This is backed up with evidence that the reason for the invasion was not the WND issue where there is a dispute as to whether another UN resolution was needed or not but the material fact that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle etc were advocating an Iraqi invasion well before any WMD issue was aired. Not only that, there has come to light reports that claim the Iraqi invasion was a seizure of oil resources so the US could break OPEC's hold on oil prices. All enough to suggest there is a case to be answered. Ass to the fact that an estimated figure of somewhere between 3-700,000 people died because of the invasion and 2 million were made refugees, there is adequate reason for this case to be tested in a court of law.

Of course I don't hold my breath this will happen. The Nuremburg trials were obviously show trials and the countries that set them up only believe in the justice of the winners in war. If the US and allies really believed in international law there would have been quite a few people from the Johnson administration that would have gone on trial, especially Kissenger. US policy being responsible for the death of an estimated 15 million people. Israel daily commits war crimes and crimes against humanity and is protected by the US. Milosevic could go on trial because it was good politics in the west and Clinton and Blair could both be smug about bringing a war criminal to justice. Ironic that if the western politicians were held to the same standard Rumsfeld and probably Bush and Blair would be on trial.