Rumsfeld Indicted in Germany

[mydo]

Rumsfeld and other have been indicted in Germany for their actions in Abu Ghraib.


Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html)

I guess the Germans are going to do what we don't have the balls for.

[Bergermeister]

Way to go! Why stop with Rummy when you could go even higher?
:D

By the way, Time is probably a banned source, and the article is obviously hearsay, so be prepared to defend yourself.

8)

Our own government lets these guys walk free; it is up to other countries to enforce law.::err:

[trumptman]

I agree with both of you. Historically the Germans really know their war crimes.

Nick

[Bergermeister]

Ooooooohhh!

I don't care who tries them, somebody needs to hold them to account, and heck, the Germans have come to grips with their past mistakes far better than the US has; we're still living with ours and denying them.

[SpamSandwich]

Ooooooohhh!

I don't care who tries them, somebody needs to hold them to account, and heck, the Germans have come to grips with their past mistakes far better than the US has; we're still living with ours and denying them.

Whaddya mean "we", white man? :lol:

[Hassan i Sabbah]

I agree with both of you. Historically the Germans really know their war crimes.

Nick
Quite right, actually, which is why Germany's quite big on trying people like Rumsfeld.

I hope they convict this disgusting sellout. I don't know how any patriotic American can defend him.

[gregmightdothat]

If he is convicted, though, what really can Germany do?

How would this affect anything other than any future plans of his to visit Europe?

[Bergermeister]

If he is convicted, though, what really can Germany do?

How would this affect anything other than any future plans of his to visit Europe?

That would be a good start, and would send a pretty nice message.

"Former US Sec of Defence not permitted to enter EU." That would hurt.

[trumptman]

Ooooooohhh!

I don't care who tries them, somebody needs to hold them to account, and heck, the Germans have come to grips with their past mistakes far better than the US has; we're still living with ours and denying them.

What a load of bull!

To sit there and say with a straight face that the Germans have come to grip with their past while noting that they believe they have the power of "universal jurisdiction" is just ridiculously ironic. It is akin to them saying that they didn't conquer the world, but they can pass laws saying they did anyway.

Nick

[trumptman]

Quite right, actually, which is why Germany's quite big on trying people like Rumsfeld.

I hope they convict this disgusting sellout. I don't know how any patriotic American can defend him.

With a belief that they have universal jurisdiction, German's are quite big on believing they run and control the planet.

Nick

[AsLan^]

Proceedings for the International Criminal Court may be held anywhere.

The suit was brought against rumsfeld by expatriate Iraqis in Germany.

Unfortunately, unlike other developed nations, the US is not a member of the ICC.

[jimmac]

What a load of bull!

To sit there and say with a straight face that the Germans have come to grip with their past while noting that they believe they have the power of "universal jurisdiction" is just ridiculously ironic. It is akin to them saying that they didn't conquer the world, but they can pass laws saying they did anyway.

Nick

Who are you comparing them to? If it's us we also have a very dark past. We broke every treaty with the indians that we made and they were here first. All but obliterated their culture. I'm not very proud of that one are you? There are other things also. All one has to do is take an unbiased look at history. So who are you comparing them to?

[Bergermeister]

With a belief that they have universal jurisdiction, German's are quite big on believing they run and control the planet.

Nick

CIA... secret prisons... Guantánamo Bay...

Who thinks they have universal jurisdiction?

[SDW2001]

[polarized glasses on]

OK, I can see jimmac, berg and hassan now.

[trumptman]

Who are you comparing them to? If it's us we also have a very dark past. We broke every treaty with the indians that we made and they were here first. All but obliterated their culture. I'm not very proud of that one are you? There are other things also. All one has to do is take an unbiased look at history. So who are you comparing them to?

Jimmac, it is not often that I laugh out loud at such pure ignorance.

Our past is so dark because the basis of it is European. It is also "dark" in that in getting their asses kicked for a few thousand years, Europeans turned to a model of thought that allowed them to what they did in terms of empire building, law and warfare.

Also when did "being there first" ever make someone right? How much land does it allow one to claim?

I live SURROUNDED by Indian reservations. I've also visited artifacts, museums, etc thoughout the Western United States. Some aspects of their cultures are very neat. The land/mysticism aspect really gets played up tons. Taken as a whole (there were of course exceptions) most Indian culture failed to advance beyond hunter-gatherer models and seldom had abilities to do something as basic as manipulate metal. The main means of "slaughtering" Indians was disease. There is nothing the Europeans could do about that. They didn't have an understanding of germs or how to inoculate when they met the Indian peoples.

It also reflects a double standard because we don't go around assigning the plagues of Europe to cultures or certain peoples as if they were weapons of war. Do you want to go claim that Asia killed 75% per of all of Europe in a genocidal war campaign called the Black Death? I mean sure it killed 75% people in Asia and the Middle East as well... but really it is about who was where first, and who started it and who brought it to who right?

:no:
Nick

[Harald]

With a belief that they have universal jurisdiction, German's are quite big on believing they run and control the planet.

Nick
Er... Germany thinks it runs the planet right now. Gotcha.

[Bergermeister]

Wow, Nick, have you read your history recently? The US repeatedly attacked the Indians militarily and enacted laws to allow for the displacement of the Indians.

Remember the western expansion?


Look up:
Sullivan Expedition
Indian Removal Act
Trail of Tears
Indan Wars
Wounded Knee
January 31, 1876: All Indians were ordered to reservations

What about the black members of our great nation, under God? How have they been treated throughout history? Favorably? Not exactly... What about other non-whites? Remember the recent "macaca" incident?

[trumptman]

Wow, Nick, have you read your history recently? The US repeatedly attacked the Indians militarily and enacted laws to allow for the displacement of the Indians.

Remember the western expansion?


Look up:
Sullivan Expedition
Indian Removal Act
Trail of Tears
Indan Wars
Wounded Knee
January 31, 1876: All Indians were ordered to reservations

What about the black members of our great nation, under God? How have they been treated throughout history? Favorably? Not exactly... What about other non-whites? Remember the recent "macaca" incident?

I've never argued that our history is without problems. I've simply stated that the U.S. is merely a branch while Europe is the tree and even the root of such actions.

You can't declare the U.S. less capable of dealing with certain matters because of it's "dark past" regarding western expansion when the party attempting to try for war crimes was guilty of attempting worldwide control multiple times. Europe didn't practice western colonialism. They practiced worldwide colonialism. If the U.S. bears the "original sin" of slavery and western expansion, what sort of sin is Europe yoking under?

Simply put, perhaps the U.S. is apple that hasn't fallen far from the tree, but Europe and most specifically Germany must surely be the tree.

Nick

[trumptman]

Er... Germany thinks it runs the planet right now. Gotcha.

Europe's pissed any time the world doesn't consider it the first and most authoritative voice on any matter.

Nick

[Gilsch]

Europe's pissed any time the world doesn't consider it the first and most authoritative voice on any matter. Yeah. Old Europe right? :D

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Europe's pissed any time the world doesn't consider it the first and most authoritative voice on any matter.

Nick
'Europe' is pissed? So Germany represents the whole of Europe now? It speaks for Portugal, France, Denmark, Ireland, the UK, the whole shebang and everyone here is pissed off when some Americans dare to suggest that Germany might have ideas above its station?

What fucking universe do you actually live in?

[jamac]

Rumsfeld is a very German name. A guy with a name like that could have easily been in the SS without ever being second guessed. Bush (Busch) is also of German origin and everybody knows how much is grand daddy loved Adolf's money. Blood is thicker..... For all I care the Germans can have both of them back.

Dem Rumsfeld werden die Deutschen jetzt anständig den Arsch aufreißen.

[thuh Freak]

I think it'd be grand if Rummy got tried, or anyone high up in the administration. But this is pretty ridiculous. Germany clearly doesn't have any jurisdiction for the alleged crimes Rumsfeld done did. I read that they indicted him before, and he almost had to cancel his trip to Germania; but they let the charges go, so he could go on his trip and assuming that the US authorities would do something about his alleged crimes. But for Abu Ghraib, I severely doubt he really knew about it, he would have to be a really sick fuck.

[Placebo]

I agree with both of you. Historically the Germans really know their war crimes.

Nick
How is Germany today influenced by Nazi Germany?

[Placebo]

How would this affect anything other than any future plans of his to visit Europe?
Yeah, who goes there anyways. :???:

[MacRR]

Perhaps true to an extent, but what about the stories of invading powers engaging in chemical warfare by distributing blankets deliberately contaminated with smallpox? I know I read that somewhere. Was that debunked at all?
That would be biological warfare :).

[MacRR]

Yeah, who goes there anyways. :???:
I can't help but feel sorry for people who say shit like- Europe!? Who needs Europe!!? We have everything right here in the US of A!

[trumptman]

'Europe' is pissed?

Indeed it is.

So Germany represents the whole of Europe now?

Since this is even capable of done thanks to the ICC, we have to include all members in the accountability.

It speaks for Portugal

ICC member

France

ICC member

Denmark

ICC member

Ireland

ICC member

the UK

ICC member

the whole shebang and everyone here is pissed off when some Americans dare to suggest that Germany might have ideas above its station?

Silly rabbit. No one is pissed because Germany might have some ideals above their station. Germany and most of Europe is pissed because often the world could really give a crap about them declaring themselves to be the determiner of everyone else's station. You look at that list of ICC countries and find most of Europe on there. Of course most of Asia and of course the United States are not on there. So yes, it absolutely represents Europe throwing a fit because the rest of the world won't bow down to their supposed moral authority.

Nick

[trumptman]

Oh?

Germany apparently has "universal jurisdiction" and Rumsfeld is no longer covered by diplomatic immunity. I don't know much about international law, so I'm basing that on the article someone linked to. What are you basing your conclusion on?

Actually I have universal jurisdiction. I've declared it and thus it must be so. I'll see them one better than that. I've got galactic jurisdiction. My minions on other planet, many more sentient beings than those pitiful 100 countries of the ICC represent, have named me judge of the Milky Way.

I sentence Germany to finally see past the end of their own nose. It is the worst punishment possible in their view.

How is Germany today influenced by Nazi Germany?

Well we still read articles like this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2447784,00.html) fairly often. We could also note that Germany has failed to implement EU laws prohibiting racial discrimination. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany_%28NPD%29) still has fascism within its own borders.

Nick

[trumptman]

Perhaps true to an extent, but what about the stories of invading powers engaging in chemical warfare by distributing blankets deliberately contaminated with smallpox? I know I read that somewhere. Was that debunked at all?

First to do that, wouldn't the have to know the nature of it being a germ?

Second it was a fabricated claim made by Ward Churchill.

Nick

[addabox]

Look, if you don't like the indictment, why not just say "I don't think Germans have a legitimate case" or something?

Why must matters of disagreeing with European nations always excite this infantile ranting about how they think they're all that, but, like, they are totally not all that because all the cool kids know the good ole US of A is really all that?

Germany "thinks it rules the world"? Is uniquely suited to judging war crimes (wink wink)?

What kind of stone ignorant shit is that? Thank God it wasn't the French or you would have thrown a rod.

[icfireball]

Bush only replaced Rumsfeld because he know congress/senate would do it for him anyways. And because the Repubs were hurting after the election, so doing what many Repubs and many Demos wanted was probably a smart thing.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Indeed it is.



Since this is even capable of done thanks to the ICC, we have to include all members in the accountability.

snip: some nonsense

d find most of Europe on there. Of course most of Asia and of course the United States are not on there. So yes, it absolutely represents Europe throwing a fit because the rest of the world won't bow down to their supposed moral authority.

Nick
Imagine the scene.

A dark room somewhere in Europe. A representative from every nation in Europe present.

"How can we piss America off?" begins the Portuguese representative.

"We must! We must!" cries the Swiss delegate in his sinister Franco-German accent.

"The Switzer speaks sooth," adds the Irish delegate in his sing-song European accent.

The Hungarian representative puts down his European beer and nudges the Spanish candidate, who has fallen asleep over a bowl of European tapas.

"Piss America off!" he cries as he wakes up, spilling a bowl of deep-fried squid on the European carpet.

The German delegate stands up, brushing invisible dust from his uniform, his jaw clenched. He removes his peaked cap and mechanically tucks it under his arm.

"Chermany," he says, in his harsh, European accent, "Vill indict the Chewish svine Rumzveld and PISS AMERICA OVV!"


Which is to say, Nick, that what you think Europe is actually has fuck all to do the place I know and live in and a lot to do with what you've picked up, apparently, from propaganda posted on right wing blogs.

[Gilsch]

Why must matters of disagreeing with European nations always excite this infantile ranting about how they think they're all that, but, like, they are totally not all that because all the cool kids know the good ole US of A is really all that?

Germany "thinks it rules the world"? Is uniquely suited to judging war crimes (wink wink)?

What kind of stone ignorant shit is that? Thank God it wasn't the French or you would have thrown a rod. Well...but...but....thank God every day that you're not speaking German now bitch!

Infantile ranting is a good description Addabox. Might even be too nice actually.

Gilsch (gonna start "signing" my posts from now on so you guys really know it's me posting.):p

[Gilsch]

I honestly don't know much about international law and haven't read much on the subject related to the topic. I won't be losing much sleep if Rumsfeld et al are tried. I do remember reading that years ago, right before the Iraq invasion, while he was in Germany he visited some German relatives. It was on that trip that he made the now famous or infamous "old Europe" comment.

Gilsch

[trumptman]

Look, if you don't like the indictment, why not just say "I don't think Germans have a legitimate case" or something?

Because the supposition there is that the German's even have the right to bring and judge the case regardless of the merits.

Why must matters of disagreeing with European nations always excite this infantile ranting about how they think they're all that, but, like, they are totally not all that because all the cool kids know the good ole US of A is really all that?

I've not said anything about the U.S. being "all that." The U.S. isn't attempting to indict foreign officials claiming their own courts hold jurisdiction for the world.

Think about it this way Addabox. You most certainly get pissed off when the U.S. thinks it should go around and be the cop for the world. Why aren't you pissed off that Germany via the ICC thinks it should go around and be the judge for the world?

In fact I wouldn't mind any party defending the claim by Germany of universal jurisdiction to answer that question.

What kind of stone ignorant shit is that? Thank God it wasn't the French or you would have thrown a rod.

The French are members of the ICC and you prefer to discuss me instead of the matter at hand. A Eurocentric body has declared itself court for the world. It has done so not with the backing of the world, but with the backing of itself.

Again I'll bring this question. Many of the countries in Europe are no bigger than states within the United States. The EU is a direct response to creating markets, regulations, etc that match the United States. If the United States under the authority of the and with signed agreements from the 50 different governments of its states decided it now was the court for the world, would you grant it authority?

That is exactly what has happened with the ICC. It is a "world" court that just happens to include Europe and not the U.S. The many of the countries outside of Europe are former colonies and so their independence is about as authoritative as Puerto Rico claiming it can stand up to the U.S. in my view.

Simply put, if you claim to be a world court and you don't have say.. the U.S., China, Japan, Russia for example.. then you aren't a world court. You're a European court claiming to be a world court.

Nick

[Bergermeister]

The U.S. isn't attempting to indict foreign officials claiming their own courts hold jurisdiction for the world.


That's true... we just leave it up to the president.:lol: Saddam was as guilty as they get! No trial necessary! (But the results coming right before the election can't hurt. - CNN asked SnowBoy -aka HeadBanger - about this very point...)

Think of all those prisoners in the CIA jails and Guantanomo Bay who have NEVER BEEN TRIED but are being held indefinitely, denied FREEDOM, because soemone in our government thinks they are guilty. Some are eventually released wihthou ever having been charged and with no apology; think about howtheir lives have been ruined.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1275560,00.html

Paid for with your tax dollars!

Case in point: if we can do it, others have the right, too. (Unless we are in preschool where we can make all the rules.)

---

I'm certain that there have been "mock" trials in the US against officials of other countries without them present, etc. Anyone know of any?

[Bergermeister]

It is possible for victims of terrorism to sue the state supposedly responsible, if its name appears on a special list.

http://www.stormingmedia.us/48/4874/A487444.html

The accused country of course doesn't show, is therefore guilty by default, and money is awarded; congress tries to find ways to get the money.

[Bergermeister]

What is the problem with the ICC?

ICC compared to the US Constitution:

http://www.amicc.org/docs/Rome%20Statute%20and%20US%20Constitution.pdf

Check out the 139 signatories to the ICC:
http://www.mindfully.org/WTO/2003/Rome-Statute-ICC-Ratifications7jun03.htm
The US is one of them, but has not ratified it yet. Hmmm.

This is interesting:
http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh87.htm

Bush is the one who tried to get the US out of it, after 9/11. There is an interesting name in the article as the primary mover: Bolton. Granted, Clinton had his concerns...

And this written by Bolton himself:
http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/25818.htm

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Simply put, if you claim to be a world court and you don't have say.. the U.S., China, Japan, Russia for example.. then you aren't a world court. You're a European court claiming to be a world court.

Nick
Why yes, Nick. If you count out all of South America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and nearly all of Africa.

You're in good company with your refusing to join, by the way. China, Yemen, pre-reformation Libya. Good going.

[trumptman]

What is the problem with the ICC?

ICC compared to the US Constitution:

http://www.amicc.org/docs/Rome%20Statute%20and%20US%20Constitution.pdf

It is still people that must follow the words. Even with our Constitution, as people have noted here, our history of meeting those principles is far from perfect. You add to this mix an international community that seems to vacillate between paralysis and vendettas in terms of actions and you see how it could be terrible. Additionally in international matters without the veto that Clinton had sought much like the Security Council has, you can have the same sort of ridiculous scenario we are discussing here in the first place only times a thousand. The court will make it possible to criminalize the work of the U.S. soldiers.

Check out the 139 signatories to the ICC:
http://www.mindfully.org/WTO/2003/Ro...ions7jun03.htm
The US is one of them, but has not ratified it yet. Hmmm.

Hmmm... indeed. Clinton sought the veto, did not get it and then signed on his way out the door on December 31, 2000. Hmmm...indeed. Clinton can sign and then leave Bush to clean up the mess of negotiating the veto and keeping U.S. troops from being indicted and charged out of existence.

Bush is the one who tried to get the US out of it, after 9/11. There is an interesting name in the article as the primary mover: Bolton. Granted, Clinton had his concerns...


I don't call allowing U.S. courts to have jurisdiction over crime possibly committed by their own soldiers instead of the ICC to be a "concern." I consider it a serious matter.

And this written by Bolton himself:

I think Bolton sums it up well. I think the fact that he also notes that the EU is strong arming people into accepting or denying certain agreements again shows the danger of this "permanent tribunal."

This paragraph puts it best from Bolton.

What the United States is basically seeking, through Article 98 agreements, is nothing more than what States Parties to the Rome Statute claim they already have. If someone were to assert that the American judicial system was corrupt, incompetent or tolerant of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and therefore amounted to the kind of “failed state” for whose judicial system the ICC was intended to substitute, that would be one thing. We would, I can assure you, certainly be prepared to contest those assertions. Not surprisingly, however, no one seriously makes this argument. No one contends, openly at least, that the American judicial system would not, properly and diligently, perform its function in appropriate circumstances. Nor could they. As Secretary Powell has said: “We have the highest standards of accountability of any nation on the face of the earth.”

The claim is that these parties are using the ICC because the entire U.S. criminal justice system is nothing more than a Kangaroo court. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is being filed in Germany because the claim of "universal jurisdiction" will allow anyone with a grudge to roll their dice against the entire U.S. military and hope they get lucky on their roll.

Nick

[trumptman]

I'm clear on that Shawn. People were mentioning the ICC as a way of justifying the "universal jurisdiction" claim of Germany in the first place. I probably should just ignore them on that claim. The claim the German courts can have jurisdiction everywhere is already ridiculous enough on its own.

Nick

[Placebo]

Well we still read articles like this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2447784,00.html) fairly often. We could also note that Germany has failed to implement EU laws prohibiting racial discrimination. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany_%28NPD%29) still has fascism within its own borders.

Nick
First link: not the sentiments of the majority of Germans or their politicians, I'm sure.

Second link: we've seen such laws abused in the United States.

Third link: We have dozens of such fringe parties in the United States that never get on the ballot.

[thuh Freak]

Oh?

Germany apparently has "universal jurisdiction" and Rumsfeld is no longer covered by diplomatic immunity. I don't know much about international law, so I'm basing that on the article someone linked to. What are you basing your conclusion on?

Common sense. ;) "Universal jurisdiction" is ridiculous, and should be laughed at. I'm gonna read some more on this, but in order for me to accept jurisdiction that crosses international borders I would think that the nations crossed would have to be party to the agreements enforcing that jurisdiction. I would hope it comes from the UN. But lemme read some more about this.

Nick-- one more thing to clear up.

The ICC has nothing to do with this case. That's an international tribunal under international law using, you guessed it, international judges. Plaintiffs in this case filed in Germany under that nation's "universal jurisdiction." It will be completely a German affair with that nation's judges and prosecutors (if they decide to hear the case).
German courts declare they have jurisdiction over crimes supposedly committed in foreign nations? This isn't lol funny?

[trumptman]

Shawn,

Should a trial without being represented (without his presence) raise some red flags?

Nick

[thuh Freak]

German law clearly allows universal jurisdiction.
You see, this is the scary part. You don't even seem to question that part. I think that idea is laughable, the same as a 'hattan judge attempting to step in on an LA murder. Whats the point of jurisdiction if you can just declare yourself to have oversight over everything? Why do these outlandish declarations not have to be vetted by an international body?

[talksense101]

Double standards and hypocrisy seem to be the order of the day, eh? Why dont you swap Germany and the US in the original article above and take an unbiased view?

International tribunals and courts were established for a reason, but with GWB going on the offensive by disregarding international law, it seems that Americans find it OK to live by the "might is right" law. History tells us that there is no such thing as a perenial superpower. I pity the future generations who are going to suffer for the actions of the current generation.

[thuh Freak]

Double standards and hypocrisy seem to be the order of the day, eh? Why dont you swap Germany and the US in the original article above and take an unbiased view?

We found a war criminal. The war criminal that we found was tried in the country in which his crimes were committed. He was convicted and sentenced by the locals; just recently I believe.

I don't find many of the things we've done as ok. Those are tangential to my main misunderstanding here. I don't understand how Germany, or any country or locality, can assert jurisdiction over whatever they want.

[Bergermeister]

The odd thing here is the US wants immunity for its citizens from foreign laws. This means that ann American in China could not be punished by that country for crimes he commits in that country.

The same of course would not apply to foreigners in the US. They would be tried by US laws.

Who thinks their jurisdiction is world-wide?

[Puh]

Now, something like Universal Abduction I can understand.
Like, you know, when US CIA operatives pluck someone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Mustafa_Osama_Nasr) from the streets of sunny Milan and send him to even sunnier Egypt.
Or diverting the odd chap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_el-Masri) on his way to a vacation in Skopje to a vacation in Afghanistan (not so overrun).

Or helping foreign companies see the wrongs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms-Burton_law) in this world and right it.

Or sticking a flag in space (http://www.ostp.gov/html/US%20National%20Space%20Policy.pdf) and claiming, well, the Rest of the Universe.

But Universal Jurisdiction?

That's just wrong man.


The City of Philadelphia isn't suing Paris (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061111/en_afp/franceusjustice_061111173649) (that's Paris-France, not Paris-Texas) for naming a street after Abu-Jamal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia_Abu-Jamal), the guy that has been in prison since 1982 for a murder one Arnold R. Beverly has confessed in 1999 (http://www.partisandefense.org/pubs/innocent/ab.html) to have committed, in the States. They're suing them in France.

But Germany is claiming Universal jurisdiction! I mean, what gives??

[r2d2rox24]

We found a war criminal. The war criminal that we found was tried in the country in which his crimes were committed. He was convicted and sentenced by the locals; just recently I believe.

I don't find many of the things we've done as ok. Those are tangential to my main misunderstanding here. I don't understand how Germany, or any country or locality, can assert jurisdiction over whatever they want.


The precident which Germany follows today was first used by The Allies at the end of World War 2 when they tried the leaders of Germany for crimes they commited when not under American, or Allied sovereignty. Many of them were found guilty, rightly so.

It is after this and the international court for the trial of Yugoslavia that the ICC was formed so that people could be tried for war crimes. Obviously the people committing these crimes won't subscribe to the court....but neither do criminals believe that they should go to jail. The court has the backing of a number of countries where it receives the legitimacy. The court wasn't formed to try americans....americans just are going to be tried by it, next time it could be germans or russians or chinese....

[r2d2rox24]

The precident which Germany follows today was first used by The Allies at the end of World War 2 when they tried the leaders of Germany for crimes they commited when not under American, or Allied sovereignty. Many of them were found guilty, rightly so.

It is after this and the international court for the trial of Yugoslavia that the ICC was formed so that people could be tried for war crimes. Obviously the people committing these crimes won't subscribe to the court....but neither do criminals believe that they should go to jail. The court has the backing of a number of countries where it receives the legitimacy. The court wasn't formed to try americans....americans just are going to be tried by it, next time it could be germans or russians or chinese....


The Bush administration is in other realms claiming more jurisdiction than Germany. The recent test by China of the missiles that can knock satilittes down caused the Bush Administration to claim that anyone shooting missiles into space were threatening america and claimed that jurisdiction over outer space....

[Macadephia]

I am honestly a little surprised this thread has gotten this far without anyone even noting that Rumsfeld has NOT been indicted yet. Seriously how does a thread, with as many outside links, get so long without anyone even addressing this fact. Stop and think for a moment before reacting, failing to do so is a big problem far too many of us, dare I say, should be indicted for.