Article here. Believe it or not, this isn’t even the first time – but circumstances have, arguably, changed:
Will this get anywhere?
Should it?
(For my part, I’m still hoping to live long enough to see Henry Kissinger hauled before the ICC – just for what he did in Chile, never mind Vietnam or Cambodia.)
:rolleyes:
Certainly…I’d hold my breath were I you. 
Should it what? Pursue this? Certainly…they should knock themselves out and have some fun with it. Do you have some kind of expectation that when they convict these guys (in absentia) that the US will (or should) turn them over to…who exactly? For what purpose?
By what authority will they be tried? Under what set of laws?
-XT
No. No ally of the US is going to prosecute a high level US official for war crimes. This is a left wing loony fantasy. But I’d love to see all the Democratic Senators tripping over themselves to be the first one to defend Rumsfeld from such action.
No. Germany holds no jurisdiction of this. The precedent would be a huge blow to international relations and would further incite the US to act unilaterally.
Under German and/or international law by way of “universal jurisdiction” – same theory that allowed Spanish authorities to prosecute Augusto Pinochet. Read the article.
It might prevent Rumsfeld from traveling to Germany, at least. Doesn’t Henry Kissinger have some problems roaming South America freely because of charges leveled against him for his involvement in Operation Condor?
Ah yes, “universal jurisdiction.” Iran could claim it has “universal jurisdiction,” too. So could North Korea. Why should I respect a German arrest warrent any more than I would an Iranian or a North Korean one?
I recall that Spain’s initial efforts to extradite Pinochet from Britain (where he had gone for surgery) included charges that Spaniards had been murdered (and/or tortured) as the result of Pinochet’s coup.
Where is the similar German involvement in this situation?
While the current process has the name “international,” they are basically a self-selected group shopping for individual countries where they might find laws that would support their desires. This is not remotely similar to a World Court. And do you really want the Ayatollah of Iran calling a commission together to try anyone who has violated the Law of the Prophet, arranging for the court to consist of selected Saudis, Libyans, Chechnyans, Sudanese, etc.?
I really don’t think that the people who are cheering this on have given sufficient thought to its ramifications.
OTOH, allowing Bush, Rummy, Cheney, et. al., to get away with war crimes without ANY attempt to bring them to account, however feeble … also maybe not a wonderful thing.
In this case, the ends do not justify the means.
Or the President of the United States calling a ‘military tribunal’ for anyone it deemed had ‘supported’ terrorism?
Oh wait a minute…
We can’t expect other countries to play by different rules than we do. If the German government had found some obscure way to link the Bush administration to supporting Nazism, whether it be by giving a car ride to an alleged supporter or by giving money to a charity that had a worker who once gave money to a nazi organization - can you really say that it would be any different from what the US is currently doing in its war on terror with ‘enemy combatants’ and all?
Ask Adolf Eichmann.
I am generally of the opinion that “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” are both unjust. Or rather, the trials are - the punishments handed down to the likes of Saddam or Goerring hardly bother me. The problem with it is that I see ex post facto laws as inherently unjust. While someone could make an argument that Saddam is being tried for murder in Iraq by an Iraqi court (all true), it was apparently the law written or not that he was allowed to order and do those things. I’m all for hanging the jerk, and even setting up a tribunal to determine which accusations were false and which were not, and allowing for punishments to his worst collaborators.
At present, it appears every other country is playing by different rules than we do.
I don’t remember anyone serving him with an arrest warrent.
You’re absolutely right. And after they start to think about the ramifications, intelligent people wake up and face reality.
The Belgians tried this a couple years ago. They gave themselves the righteous authority to arrest anybody who set foot in Belgium, for “war crimes” committed anywhere in the world. First they accused Israel’s prime minister Ariel Sharon of war crimes, and the loony left applauded furiously. Then they tried to charge Colin Powell of war crimes from the first Iraqi war. And that’s when they woke up and realized just how stupid the whole idea is. .
When Powell and Bush refused to attend EU meetings in Belgium, the Belgians realized that they were going to lose their status in Europe. So they cancelled their laws rather than become a place where no dignitary will visit.
:rolleyes: The key word here, you see, is not “warrant” but “arrest.”
Sure…I read the article. I question whether YOU read (and understood) all the implications there however. This isn’t a duly authorized international body (if there really is such a beast), that could legally look into the question of ‘war crimes’ by high level US officials…not by any stretch of the imagination. Leaving aside the fact that the US (IIRC) didn’t even SIGN the treaty relevant treaties for a world court type body, these guys aren’t even part of that body. They have no jurisdiction. So…its like left wing (or in these guys case, anti-US) mental jerk-offery…just for show and fun. Thats why I said…sure, knock yourselves out guys! Have fun with your mock trial!
Just don’t get your hopes up BG that the US is going to pack up these guys and send them off for their just punishments at these bozo’s hands. Even if the Dems take control of both the house and senate AND manage to finally install somone like Kucinich in the white house its not going to happen. IF these guys were ever going to be tried for ‘war crimes’ it would be right here in the good ole US of A…not by some joke of a self appointed kangaroo court in Germany…
-XT
Eichmann was only arrested after he happened to visit Israel.
I guess in the case of Nazi war criminals, it was simply a much easier matter politically for “International Law”, such as it is, to function without much challenge. In the case of Rumsfeld, I’m not sure precedent means much. Pinochet gets prosecuted essentially because he’s on the side lacking influence. Same goes with Nazi war criminals. They can be nailed because no one really wants to be seen to defend them, at least not openly. One nation can essentially violate the sovereignty of another with impunity because that violation is eclipsed by its motive, and by the might of those doing the violating. In the case of a German court, maybe their laws support a conviction, but in practical terms, I think the worst that could happen to Rumsfeld is he’ll have to forgo speaking engagements and vacations in some foreign jurisdictions once he retires.
Happened to visit
Brought there by Mossad.
I really don’t care about the waste of skin that was Eichmann but let’s be real here.