Is it time for Rumbsfeld to resign or be fired?

[Cronos1]

According to this article Secretary Rumsfeld approved a prisoner to be held “off the books” in order to hide him from Red Cross, an apparent violation of international law.

I realize that some think that what Rumsfeld was justified given we are at war. Question that I have is just after how many violations of international laws is a cabinet member fired?

[Zagadka]

@Cronos1

I realize that some think that what Rumsfeld was justified given we are at war. Question that I have is just after how many violations of international laws is a cabinet member fired?

17.6 public violations before they “retire,” I think.

[Fear_Itself]

@Cronos1

Question that I have is just after how many violations of international laws is a cabinet member fired?

International law does not apply to American political leaders:

The U.S. government frequently blasts other countries for human rights violations. It also frequently supports – or even, in the case of Iraq, seeks to initiate – war crimes prosecutions against other country’s leaders. But, at the same time, it refuses to acknowledge that what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Washington seeks to immunize U.S. leaders from war crimes prosecutions entirely, no matter what they may do. That is doubtless the reason Bush felt compelled both to refuse to become a party to the treaty and also recently to withdraw the U.S. signature from the ICC statute.

[Debaser]

From the OP’s cite:

Pentagon officials tell NBC News that late last year, at the same time U.S. military police were allegedly abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered that one Iraqi prisoner be held “off the books” — hidden entirely from the International Red Cross and anyone else — in possible violation of international law.

It’s the first direct link between Rumsfeld and questionable though not violent treatment of prisoners in Iraq.

So, it’s one strike and your out for our SecDef? One possible strike, that is.

It’s clear that Rumsfeld has done nothing to warrant removal from his position. It’s also clear that anti-Bush folks hate Rumsfeld and would happily wish him to be removed from office for any reason that they could come up with.

[Debaser]

@Fear Itself

International law does not apply to American political leaders:

From Fear’s cite:

Washington seeks to immunize U.S. leaders from war crimes prosecutions entirely, no matter what they may do. That is doubtless the reason Bush felt compelled both to refuse to become a party to the treaty and also recently to withdraw the U.S. signature from the ICC statute.

This statement is absurd. Please show any evidence (besides an anti-Bush college professor) that Washington seeks to immunize US leaders from war crimes prosecutions entirely, no matter what they may do.

Despite this paragraph being laughable on it’s face, it’s actually contradicted later in the same article…

Why is the United States so upset about the ICC statute? The answer is this: Under the statute, the ICC can take jurisdiction over a national of even a non-party country if he or she commits a crime in a party country’s territory.

So, the US is against the ICC because they don’t want an international organization to have jurisdictional control. Somehow she twists this into Bush wanting to immunize US leaders from war crimes.

It’s a formula that anyone who reads GD or the Pit these days is familiar with. Take some facts and twist them until they fit your preconcieved notions that Bush and everyone in his administration is evil, and whatever motives they have must be the worst possible ones you can think of. This chick would fit right in on the boards. :rolleyes:

[Cronos1]

@Debaser

From the OP’s cite:

So, it’s one strike and your out for our SecDef? One possible strike, that is.

It’s clear that Rumsfeld has done nothing to warrant removal from his position. It’s also clear that anti-Bush folks hate Rumsfeld and would happily wish him to be removed from office for any reason that they could come up with.

One could also suggest that no matter what the administration does, Bush supporters find it acceptable. But that isn’t the question. The question is at what point should he be fired? Does committing non-violent crimes justify removal from office? (Remember, Clinton was impeached for lying about having an affair).

In order to see if his actions were actually illegal, he would have to be tried in court. Until then, are you willing to call situations where Americans are being held against Geneva Convention rules as “possible” violations, or will you be less equivocal?

[Fear_Itself]

@Debaser

Please show any evidence (besides an anti-Bush college professor) that Washington seeks to immunize US leaders from war crimes prosecutions entirely, no matter what they may do.

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the White House September 13, 2002, and signed by George W. Bush

We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept.

[Debaser]

@Fear Itself

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the White House September 13, 2002, and signed by George W. Bush

So the Administration doesn’t want the jurisdiction of the ICC to include Americans. Neither do I.

Does that make me, like the administration, guilty of wanting to immunize US leaders from war crimes prosecutions entirely, no matter what they may do?

Does anyone seriously think that these statements are equivalent?

[Debaser]

@Cronos1

The question is at what point should he be fired? Does committing non-violent crimes justify removal from office? (Remember, Clinton was impeached for lying about having an affair).

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, and right to the face of the American people. The fact that it was about an affair is just the subject of the lie.

I don’t know the answer to the question of committing non-violent crimes. Does anybody know the process for removing a cabinet secretary?

As far as what point he should be fired, I’d say that’s up to the POTUS. Rumsfeld works for Bush. It’s up to Bush to determine if he is doing a good job and if not, at what point to consider removing him. I’d bet that Bush has a slightly different take on Rummy’s performance than the average poster on a liberal message board.

In order to see if his actions were actually illegal, he would have to be tried in court. Until then, are you willing to call situations where Americans are being held against Geneva Convention rules as “possible” violations, or will you be less equivocal?

I didn’t say “possible” first. I was pointing out that the cite from the OP says the violations are “possible”.

[Squink]

Treaties be damned, Rummies not going anywhere:

I’m never disappointed in my secretary of defense. He’s doing a fabulous job and America’s lucky to have him in the position he’s in," Bush told reporters at the White House when asked if he was disappointed at Rumsfeld’s move.

“The secretary and I discussed that for the first time this morning,” added Bush, sitting next to Rumsfeld. He noted that the secretary had called a news conference later in the day and would address the issue.
…
In March, Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, the U.S. Army officer who investigated abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, criticized the practice of allowing so-called “ghost detainees” as “deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine, and in violation of international law.”

Bush Backs Rumsfeld in Hiding of Iraq Prisoner

[vibrotronica]

George W. Bush looked the American people in the face and lied, too.

[Avenger]

Firing Rumsfeld for this would be like charging someone with jaywalking after they had gone on a mass killing spree with an Uzi in the middle of a street.

[Zagadka]

@Debaser

So the Administration doesn’t want the jurisdiction of the ICC to include Americans. Neither do I.

Does that make me, like the administration, guilty of wanting to immunize US leaders from war crimes prosecutions entirely, no matter what they may do?

Given that the ICC is set up for the express purpose of enforcing international law and trying people for war crimes, then yes, refusing to accept it is.

What other authority are you going to answer to for war crimes, if not the ICC? Hm?

[John_Mace]

@Zagadka

Given that the ICC is set up for the express purpose of enforcing international law and trying people for war crimes, then yes, refusing to accept it is.

What other authority are you going to answer to for war crimes, if not the ICC? Hm?

Wow, have all the civilian and military courts in the US been abolished?

[Debaser]

@Zagadka

What other authority are you going to answer to for war crimes, if not the ICC? Hm?

In the news yesterday…

The U.S. Army is bringing murder charges against a soldier who fatally shot at close range an Iraqi man who already was badly wounded in a vehicle after a high-speed chase in Iraq (news - web sites), officials said on Wednesday.