Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest

Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Real0ne -> Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest (10/29/2007 6:39:07 PM)
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.

popeye1250 -> RE: Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest (10/29/2007 7:16:42 PM)
Funny, I'm watching a program right now on The History Channel about "Dracula", "Vlad the Impaler" who tortured and impaled hundreds of thousands and people celebrate his life!

Termyn8or -> RE: Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest (10/30/2007 10:17:07 PM)
Hey a popeye, I get this idea every onct in a while. People celebratated Vlad the Impaler ? Well I have come to some conclusions in my 47 years, and with a statement like that I say, I bet they had it coming. Like they had pogroms in damnear every European contry, yet the people who got expelled were always completely innocent. Fat chance. You think popular support for Hitler was borne out of good economic and social conditions ? If so, what planet is this ? I don't really know how anybody else in here understands life, but whe you get power, you help your friends and hurt you enemies. It has been this way since the dawn on time, but the bigger players now cheat us out of the opportunity to do this. And, I wish they would've caught Rummy. I am not kidding. I would like to see the whole crowd called to account for their actions. I want to hear their answers, lies that they may be. They probably don't remember them anyway. The lie of the day is the lie of the day, whatever it takes. My whole take on life, indeed my whole understanding of it, is way different. I will let it out as I see fit. You agree or not, but I think in time, CM members might be ruling the world. You see there is one little thing about real people that the politicians don't want to talk about. And I know what it is. I know it, and a few things more. For example I get stopped by the cops with a half a thirty pack in my car. Peeling tires, open beer, no seatbelt, the works. I took a drink of my beer right in fromt of the cop, and I was not charged with DUI. You see the lack of the fear factor makes them think you are their freind. This is an important thing to know, my Dad taught me. I had five warrants then, and I have seven more now, but somehow they were not found, and I even got another one. But they did not lock me up. I know how things work, I have made a life out of figuring out how things work. I make a living because I know how things work.This is life, and if Rummy gets busted, GOOD. That MF did things that were not nice. HEY, I never started attacking people in a foriegn country, I never lied to the American public and the President (yeah, supposedly). I never did alot of things. You know I CHOSE to work the way I work, make a couple grand a month and not fuck wi6th people.I tried to take the high road. I tried to get along. I tried to be the best Man that I can, both by achievement and demeanor. I have done my best and I can say that it simply doesn't work. You just do not know how much of a son of a bitch I used tio be, but I always had plenty of fucking money when I was. I do not want to go back to that, but I will if things get too bad. Self preservation kicks in. When I didn't care about anything and just did what I did, I did well. Careing about people is what put a stop to it. I started to care. That was my downfall. Why is this germaine to this thread ? Because Rummy doesn't care. No matter what education he has, he has never learned to care. I care and while this can make me the most impotent person here, it can also make me the most dangerous. Actually I wish they woud've caught Rummy's ass, then the thread would be titled "Rumsfield on trial for war crimes in France, by People's decree". Tell you this much, I bet it would result in less terrorism. We are going to see this administration, which is about to become a former administration, unwelcome in alot of countries.What does that say about us in the US ? You are going to see more and more of this, and I will not use the word shit, because it is not. People have a real grievance here, and I am possibly the last pereson on Earth who would ever attempt to quell it, even though I live in the US. You were saying ? T

pinkme2 -> RE: Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest (10/30/2007 11:00:13 PM)
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 Did he flee or was he whisked away? Which was it? I'm so confused. 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. Oh... wait, now they're not sure. 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.

CollegeConundrum -> RE: Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest (10/30/2007 11:11:27 PM)
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?

popeye1250 -> RE: Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest (10/30/2007 11:12:44 PM)
Termyn8tor, what was your question?

Termyn8or -> RE: Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest (10/30/2007 11:39:07 PM)
maybe it wasn't popeye, maybe it was just some shit I said. Whatever, it is late. T

meatcleaver -> RE: Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest (10/31/2007 1:29:24 AM)
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. I don't remember Hitler gassing anyone but if you should read up on your war crimes such as in the Geneva Convention, US policy has certainly a case to answer and the man in charge of a policy is the man to do the answering which I think is Rumsfeld. "Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, ...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." The reason the US administration wanted Saddam tried in Iraq and on limited charges was because to have him tried for war crimes would open up US foreign policy to judicial scrutiny, particularly their giving material help to a war criminal ie. Saddam. Of course you wouldn't trust an international court, what country that breaks international law would trust the court that tries them. All criminals claim the court that tries them is biased.

CuriousLord -> RE: Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest (10/31/2007 1:37:05 AM)
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?

CuriousLord -> RE: Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest (10/31/2007 1:39:34 AM)
"Remsfeld Flees France, Fearing Bad Publicity" might be a bit more accurate. A French attempt at arrest would likely cause tensions to sore, but I doubt it'd be very successful.

meatcleaver -> RE: Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest (10/31/2007 1:58:42 AM)
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.

LadyEllen -> RE: Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest (10/31/2007 4:19:10 AM)
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? So, get your helmet and your gun, and go teach them a lesson? Given other commitments for US forces, it'll require you college lads to go and do the job. Five minutes with a French paratrooper - and he'll come unarmed, and I think it might be you that was taken down a peg or two m'dear. Also worth bearing in mind, that those "uppity shits" counselled against the US and UK getting mired in exactly the situation we now find ourselves in, and as a result of which our leadership might not be exculpated at any eventual trial. E

subrob1967 -> RE: Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest (10/31/2007 4:33:42 AM)
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?

LadyEllen -> RE: Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest (10/31/2007 4:40:15 AM)
Hang on a mo Rob. I'll be a half hour filming and uploading to that cradle of veracity - "youtube". Whilst I would agree that there likely isnt a reliable source to back MC up, it is pretty well known that of those international law specialists who have spoken out on this subject, the majority have told us that there are serious concerns at the least. Maybe the silence of the majority (should the majority have no such concerns) is then a little strange? Most strange of all is that the legal adviser to Tony Blair changed his legal advice halfway through the process - first he raised the same concerns which the rest mention, then he changed his views to say that the attack was legal. Suspicious? Not a bit of it! E

meatcleaver -> RE: Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest (10/31/2007 4:53:45 AM)
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? As for the illegality of the invasion, how about the horse's mouth? http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing." But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1114-04.htm http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0525warillegal.htm http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0131lawyergrap.htm Make your own mind up but we know what that would be anyway. However there is little doubt there is a case to be answered and that is what needs to be done before someone is found innocent or guilty.

meatcleaver -> RE: Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest (10/31/2007 5:14:39 AM)
Hey subrob, it was your super hero Bush that said the war on terror was a fight for civilisation. Obviously civilisation to Bush doesn't include the rule of law. That simple fact makes me glad it is you that lives in America and not me.

farglebargle -> RE: Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest (10/31/2007 8:10:05 AM)
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? Well, it's pretty damn clear that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, et. al. violated 18 USC 371, a felony, in committing the intentional fraud to get Congress to sign the AUMF-Iraq. That's "Illegal". I dunno about War Crimes. I guess they can answer any charges from The Hague after they've served their prison sentences here first.

philosophy -> RE: Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest (10/31/2007 8:34:00 AM)
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?')

farglebargle -> RE: Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest (10/31/2007 9:06:22 AM)
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? YES. They say it all the time, don't get caught buying hash, b/c if you get caught the US Embassy isn't going to help you. Which is related to, but materially different than, "Are US Officers, Troops and Agents always bound by their oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States, and obey it's laws, regardless of THEIR location?" ( Which is, again, yes. Your oath doesn't end a the border. )

popeye1250 -> RE: Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest (10/31/2007 9:34:23 AM)
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. I don't like "International" anything. Funny but I'll bet the lawyers who specialise in "international law" would prefer that their paychecks come from Western countries! "Ok, you can practise international law but you'll have to bill Nigeria or the "U.N." "Whoa, whoa, wait a minute!" lol Wait till they don't get paid for a year and see just how "international" they really are then!

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125