Should Rumsfeld stand trial for war crimes?

Forums: Politics, Us, War Crimes, Iraq War
Email this Topic • Print this Page

A UN official says there is enough evidence that former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be brought to justice for war crimes.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak in an interview on Monday told CNN that the international body had enough evidence to prosecute Rumsfeld for his direct authorization of tortures at US detention centers in 2002.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=83866&sectionid=3510203

============

Yay! hang him by his ball's !!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 3 • Views: 1,745 • Replies: 18

No top replies

@Zippo,

Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, Rice, Perle, ..., there more than enough evidence to bring them all up on war crimes.

1 Reply

@Zippo,

That's good.

1 Reply

The U.S. is still getting over the divisions from the Civil War. Also the divisions from more recent wars. If this was acted upon, it would divide the country, and be bad for the country going forward. The world at large would be affected negatively, due to a global economy. We should all move forward, and not listen to thoughts that could, in the end, to be seen as myopic.

2 Replies

@McTag,

Oops, we can't forget Blair and his underlings, can we, McTag?

2 Replies

@JTT,

The U.S. Is Required To Bring George W Bush & Donald Rumsfeld Before A Court! U.N. War Crimes

Correct!

0 Replies

@Foofie,

This would imply a "free pass" to future war Presidents/criminals .... and a never ending circle of violence

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Quote:

he U.S. is still getting over the divisions from the Civil War. Also the divisions from more recent wars. If this was acted upon, it would divide the country, and be bad for the country going forward. The world at large would be affected negatively, due to a global economy. We should all move forward, and not listen to thoughts that could, in the end, to be seen as myopic.

The rule of law, Foofie, the rule of law, one of those defining principles of conservatism.

1 Reply

@JTT,

I believe Blair should answer to a court of law. I believe he deliberately misled us. I've always said that.

2 Replies

@McTag,

I knew that, McTag. For a man as eminently fair as you, that could never be doubted. I only wanted the list to be as complete as possible.

1 Reply

@JTT,

There are a number of lawbreakers--Rumsfield among them--whom I would really love to see in the dock, but I fear it's not likely to happen, for reasons of lack of spine in the U.S. legal authorities. Should one of these folks go abroad, however, he could be arrested. I doubt that Rummie has any foreign trips planned.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Oops, we can't forget Blair and his underlings, can we, McTag?

Anyone seen "Blair on Trial"?

Fairly recent drama from the Brits. Quite trenchant satire.

Bushco, of course, get off because the US hasn't signed on to the ICC

1 Reply

@dlowan,

Quote:

. . . the US hasn't signed on to the ICC

And likely never will . . .

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

And likely never will . . .

It would be hard for the USA to do that and maintain its current status as the biggest hypocrite nation in the world.

I doubt very much that the Germans and the Japanese had signed on to the ICC and yet, ...

Will John Howard be indicted soon, Dlowan?

0 Replies

@Zippo,

Zippo wrote:

This would imply a "free pass" to future war Presidents/criminals .... and a never ending circle of violence

What violence? The U.S. was getting Sadam Hussein out of his office a little late; some think the elder Bush should have done it with Desert Storm.

What is a circle of violence? Does this refer to killing the Kaiser's soldiers, Nazis, North Koreans, Vietcong, Republican Guard and Taliban?

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
he U.S. is still getting over the divisions from the Civil War. Also the divisions from more recent wars. If this was acted upon, it would divide the country, and be bad for the country going forward. The world at large would be affected negatively, due to a global economy. We should all move forward, and not listen to thoughts that could, in the end, to be seen as myopic.

The rule of law, Foofie, the rule of law, one of those defining principles of conservatism.

I would not learn from you. I believe you do not meet my prerequisites to allow me to believe your lessons are given in the spirit of conservative patriotism.

On that note, you should address another with your intellectual offerings.

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

I believe Blair should answer to a court of law. I believe he deliberately misled us. I've always said that.

You mean because he became a Catholic? Elizabeth I is rolling in her grave.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

What's clear is that you've never learned anything, Foofie. You've just memorized propaganda. The difference is immense.

0 Replies

@Miklos7,

Quote:

... for reasons of lack of spine in the U.S. legal authorities.

That same lack of spine is evident in the citizenry, Miklos. You're one of the brave few.

0 Replies

Should Rumsfeld stand trial for war crimes?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know