Just days after his resignation, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
How far can this possibly go? I mean, has this sort of thing (a high-ranking U.S. official, current or former, accused of war crimes) ever happened before?
"That's the thing: Maybe he'll be up and down this season, but when he's up, is there another center in the league quite like him? He protects the rim, passes out of double teams, has great hands around the basket, up-fakes on his jump-hooks, rebounds in traffic, even has a motor that keeps going and going (unlike a stiff like Eddy Curry). I'm not sure what's missing here. This is stunning. This is startling. There's almost no precedent for it. Just what the Lakers needed: More obscenely good luck. Meanwhile, I have to watch Al Jefferson whip jump-hooks off the front of the rim for the third straight season. I will now pour scalding hot water down my pants." -Bill Simmons on Andrew Bynum (11/08/06)
What right did the allied powers have in enacting the Nuremberg Trials following WW2?
War crimes are punishable under international law. There is an International Criminal Court for the prosecution of war crimes. However, the United States has refused to participate in it, so any US citizens would be safe as long as they stayed here in America.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I'm certainly no fan of Rumsfeld, Tenet or any of the other various cronies who have, in my opinion, proven to be fairly incompetent. And certainly they bear a level of responsibilities for the abuses that have gone on in their name at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.
On the other hand, this just makes me roll my eyes. Somebody in Germany, it seems to me, is using the very unpopular Americans as some sort of political football to score points with the anti-war German people. It just seems stupid and unnecessary and essentially an attempt to piss off Bush and give him the finger. Which kind of sucks, as things had kind of settled down for a while on the bad international relations front, as far as I could tell.
I can't imagine Rumsfeld being afraid to leave the country. I'm sure he's well guarded when he travels. Would we have some sort of pitched gun battle if the Germans tried to have him arrested in, say, Jerusalem or even in their own country? I'd like to think not.
I don't know. I understand the reasoning behind it, but it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
By the way, the Nuremberg trials were performed on the defeated soldiers and leaders of an army that had not only waged an aggressive war, but had committed mass genocide and attempted to conquer the world. Putting guys in naked pyramids and flushing Qurans, even a spot of torture, while certainly wrong, aren't in the same category as the Holocaust. I will also re-iterate the common courtesy of not comparing anybody modern with the Nazis. Paraphrasing Jon Stewart, Hitler worked too long at being too evil to be treated that way. It's insulting to Runsfeld, it's insulting to history, let's just not go there, 'kay?
"Never piss off a hawk with a blowgun" - Conan O'Brien
I wasn't comparing Rumsfeld to the Nazis. I was just pointing out that there is a precedent for an international coalition trying government officials of another country for war crimes. I could have brought up Slobodan Milosevic, or General Asaka Yasuhiko of Japan, or Frans van Anraat. The Nuremberg Trials are just the best-known example.
Originally posted by Mr. BoffoWhat right did the allied powers have in enacting the Nuremberg Trials following WW2
(edited by Mr. Boffo on 12.11.06 1810)
Simply put, we won.
And Stalin liked holding trials before executing people. Usually show trials, but trials none the less.
True, Stalin was even worse than Hitler in many ways. Remember though that no all defendants tried by the Allies were found guilty (most were) and not all sentenced to death even if high up (see Albert Speer).
It was a good speech and he didn't take the easy way out but he only gave it because he had to put out the fire. I guess he is brave but the bravest thing would be to totally disassociate himself from the church.