Forums | MacLife

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

There's a matter of national sovereignty here - and while I do think he strategically messed up in Iraq, he's not guilty of a war crime - and the accusation is nothing less than a blatant abuse of the world court system, the kind of abuse that ultimately will result in its complete dismantling so that it doesn't even exist anymore when it is needed.

....so what's it for?

If Rumsfeld did sanction the use of torture...then isn't that a crime under international law?

There is no law without law enforcement.
In a very real way, the police and the prison system are more important than the courts and lawyers.

Farmerkev wrote:

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

There's a matter of national sovereignty here - and while I do think he strategically messed up in Iraq, he's not guilty of a war crime - and the accusation is nothing less than a blatant abuse of the world court system, the kind of abuse that ultimately will result in its complete dismantling so that it doesn't even exist anymore when it is needed.

....so what's it for?

If Rumsfeld did sanction the use of torture...then isn't that a crime under international law?

There is no law without law enforcement.
In a very real way, the police and the prison system are more important than the courts and lawyers.

I don't see how that follows from what I asked.

Res seems to be suggesting that the "World Court System" has some sort of legitimate use, and I'm wondering what he thinks that is.

. . . so bring 'em on.

Make no mistake, I'd have cheered if the US would have sent a special forces operation to asassinate Saddam, done it, and then got the hell out. Saddam was evil. He deserves to die.

. . . legalism, we can't assasinate a "leader" but we sure can wage war and kill a coupla hunnert thousand civilians. . . and we wonder why civilians can't get out from under their "leaders".

bedstuy wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Here's a serious question, though -- if this is an illegal proceeding, does that mean the Nuremburg trials were too? And if they were, doesn't that mean we illegally executed the (former) leaders of a soveriegn nation over whom we had no legal jurisdiction?

War crimes indictments are a political act.  They are only feasibly done on the vanquished and emasculated.

But I would think as a matter strictly of law, certain things fall under the Nuremberg Principles which formed part of the UN charter which the US ratified and as such is as binding on us as any other law.

Point is, if US officials are somehow exempt, I know some Yugoslavs and Rwandans who need to go free.

bedstuy wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

War crimes indictments are a political act.  They are only feasibly done on the vanquished and emasculated.

But I would think as a matter strictly of law, certain things fall under the Nuremberg Principles which formed part of the UN charter which the US ratified and as such is as binding on us as any other law.

Point is, if US officials are somehow exempt, I know some Yugoslavs and Rwandans who need to go free.

Well, yes of course.  But they're weak so they can't go free!  It's like a school ground bully who decides to make up do-gooder laws but then refuses to comply by them himself.  None of the other kids can do anything because the bully is strong.  Of course, the bully sits around and wonders why everyone despises him but I digress...

You're right, the other kids can only wait till the bully grows tired or bored and goes home.

jerwin wrote:

I. for one, can't wait for Rockstar Games to come out with its simulation of international intrigue.

For true?

isaly wrote:

Make no mistake, I'd have cheered if the US would have sent a special forces operation to asassinate Saddam, done it, and then got the hell out.

The bloodbath would be worse than it is now.

resedit wrote:

I never said US officials are somehow exempt.
Rummy did not order the travesty that happened, and that travesty was against US policy. The soldiers responsible were not acting in accordance with US policy, or with what Rumsfeld requested that they do.

To then accuse Rummy of a war crime is politicking, and to demand he stand trial is a violation of our sovereignty.

This is what the complaint alleges:

The complaint alleges that the defendants “ordered” war crimes, “aided or abetted” war crimes, or “failed, as civilian superiors or military commanders, to prevent their commission by subordinates, or to punish their subordinates.”

Are you claiming to know for a fact that none of this applies to Rumsfeld or other U.S. officials?

Link.

Based upon the evidence available - Rumsfeld is clean.
Do you know of a secret memo Rummy sent? Maybe he sent that chick an e-mail saying he thought it would be hot if she posed with a naked iraqi on a leash?

This is politically motivated. That is crystal clear. It's an abuse of the world court system.

Last edited by resedit (2006-11-13 8:40 pm)

resedit wrote:

Based upon the evidence available - Rumsfeld is clean.
Do you know of a secret memo Rummy sent? Maybe he sent that chick an e-mail saying he thought it would be hot if she posed with a naked iraqi on a leash?

Note that I'm not claiming to know anything, definitively.  I'm simply questioning why you keep speaking as if the complete 'truth' is known to you.

There is this, however:

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was personally involved in the late 2002 interrogation of a high-value al-Qaida detainee known in intelligence circles as "the 20th hijacker." He also communicated weekly with the man in charge of the interrogation, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the controversial commander of the Guantánamo Bay detention center.

During the same period, detainee Mohammed al-Kahtani suffered from what Army investigators have called "degrading and abusive" treatment by soldiers who were following the interrogation plan Rumsfeld had approved. Kahtani was forced to stand naked in front of a female interrogator, was accused of being a homosexual, and was forced to wear women's underwear and to perform "dog tricks" on a leash. He received 18-to-20-hour interrogations during 48 of 54 days.

Little more than two years later, during an investigation into the mistreatment of prisoners at Guantánamo, Rumsfeld expressed puzzlement at the notion that his policies had caused the abuse. "He was going, 'My God, you know, did I authorize putting a bra and underwear on this guy's head?'" recalled Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt, an investigator who interviewed Rumsfeld twice in early 2005.

These disclosures are contained in a Dec. 20, 2005, Army inspector general's report on Miller's conduct, which was obtained this week by Salon through the Freedom of Information Act. The 391-page document -- which has long passages blacked out by the government -- concludes that Miller should not be punished for his oversight role in detainee operations, a fact that was reported last month by Time magazine. But the never-before-released full report also includes the transcripts of interviews with high-ranking military officials that shed new light on the role that Rumsfeld and Miller played in the harsh treatment of Kahtani, who had met with Osama bin Laden on several occasions and received terrorist training in al-Qaida camps.

In a sworn statement to the inspector general, Schmidt described Rumsfeld as "personally involved" in the interrogation and said that the defense secretary was "talking weekly" with Miller. Schmidt said he concluded that Rumsfeld did not specifically prescribe the more "creative" interrogation methods used on Kahtani. But he added that the open-ended policies Rumsfeld approved, and that the apparent lack of supervision of day-to-day interrogations permitted the abusive conduct to take place. "Where is the throttle on this stuff?" asked Schmidt, an Air Force fighter pilot, who said in his interview under oath with the inspector general that he had concerns about the length and repetition of the harsh interrogation methods. "There were no limits."

...

On Dec. 2, 2002, Rumsfeld approved 16 harsher interrogation strategies for use against Kahtani, including the use of forced nudity, stress positions and the removal of religious items. In public statements, however, Rumsfeld has maintained that none of the policies at Guantánamo led to "inhumane" treatment of detainees. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, told Salon Thursday that Kahtani was an al-Qaida terrorist who provided a "treasure trove" of still-classified information during his interrogation. "Al-Kahtani's interrogation was guided by a very detailed plan, conducted by trained professionals in a controlled environment, and with active supervision and oversight," Gordon said in an e-mail statement. "Nothing was done randomly."

...

According to Hill's account of that call, Miller advised that the harsh interrogation of Kahtani should continue, using the techniques Rumsfeld had previously approved. "We think we're right on the verge of making a breakthrough," Hill remembered Miller saying. Hill said he called Rumsfeld back with the news. "The secretary said, 'Fine,'" Hill remembered.

Nonetheless, several days later Rumsfeld revoked the harsher interrogation methods, apparently responding to military lawyers who had raised concerns that they may constitute cruel and unusual punishment or torture.

Link.

bratboy wrote:

Were any higher-ups charged or punished for the events at Abu Ghraib?  I find it impossible to believe that all that went on occurred without any knowledge by military leaders at the site.

Bush BASIC
10 print "bad apples"
20 goto 10

Why would he need to be "at the site"?