NationStates Jolt Archive

That's the question a group of German legal gurus is facing. Unfortunately it looks like the lawsuit is valid according to German law, so they really don't have much of a reason to say "No".

Apart of course from the fact that this is the US, a major ally of Germany. Apart from Merkel's long-running attempts to repair the damage done over Iraq. Apart from the sheer impossibility of actually punishing any of the offenders.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,473987,00.html
Rumsfeld Lawsuit Embarrasses German Authorities
By Ulrike Demmer

Former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld could face charges of war crimes after a lawsuit was filed against him in Germany. Now Germany's Federal Prosecutor's Office has to decide whether it will investigate.

A tough nut to crack...

What does NSG say?

That's the question a group of German legal gurus is facing. Unfortunately it looks like the lawsuit is valid according to German law, so they really don't have much of a reason to say "No".

Apart of course from the fact that this is the US, a major ally of Germany. Apart from Merkel's long-running attempts to repair the damage done over Iraq. Apart from the sheer impossibility of actually punishing any of the offenders.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,473987,00.html


A tough nut to crack...

What does NSG say?

Since we apparently don't have the balls to sue them I'm glad someone is finally doing so.

Rumsfeld and Cheney should go hunting together.

Ok, and just how are they going to do this exactly? I mean are they expecting Rumsfeld & Co. to fly all the way to Germany, or are they going to come here, or will they go to the UN? Which sets of laws are they going to use, the USA, or the Germans? I don't see this working.

Ok, and just how are they going to do this exactly? I mean are they expecting Rumsfeld & Co. to fly all the way to Germany, or are they going to come here, or will they go to the UN? Which sets of laws are they going to use, the USA, or the Germans? I don't see this working.
He broke German laws (or some such), so he will be prosecuted in Germany under Polish law.

They should begin prosecution, and then host the next NATO summit and see what America decides to do. :D

... god damnit I just remember the guy is no longer Secretary of Defense. I hate that slimy piece of poo. :mad:

Ok, and just how are they going to do this exactly?
I am not familiar with the specifics of German law, however, I expect they'd manage it by initiating legal procceedings and proceeding with due process from there.

I mean are they expecting Rumsfeld & Co. to fly all the way to Germany, or are they going to come here, or will they go to the UN? Which sets of laws are they going to use, the USA, or the Germans? I don't see this working.
The charges have been filed in Germany, unless there is cause to assume otherwise, why would you expect the case to be heard somewhere other than Germany or under any law other than German law (I'm a bit confused about the other poster's reference to Polish law being employed, perhaps they jest, but I'm largely unfamiliar with German law so for all I know....)?

Again I dont know the specifics so far as German law is concerned, but I would be surprised if there were no provision for proceeding with trial in absentia (provided the defendent had been given fair opportunity to be heard). If that is the case, they dont need Rummy to show.

You need to lure ol' Rumsfeld to Berlin somehow. Would the temptation of real German Apple Strudel be enough to tempt him?

Men at his age like thier food.

Or if you want to be ironic about it, extraordinary rendition?

How about this. Rummy gets "captured" by "middle-eastern" "terrorists" and taken to "Afghanistan" and then the German NATO contingent mount a "rescue operation" with the Kommando Spezialkräfte, and is then flown to Berlin for his own "safety" prior to being flown back to the US. But since he's there they might as well charge him with warcrimes. ;)

For those out there that were unable to click on the link, let me:
Kaleck is basing his lawsuit on the Code of Crimes Against International Law, which came into force in Germany in 2002. Under the code, Germany's chief prosecutor is entitled to prosecute individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes -- irrespective of the location of the defendant or plaintiff, the place where the crime was carried out or the nationality of the persons involved.
The crimes listed in the code are considered fundamental crimes whose prosecution lies in the interest of humanity and can therefore not be considered simply a domestic affair of the country involved. The German authors of the legal code were thorough, and their text is considered exemplary

Looks like he'll be tried under german law

Bump.

So would be tried in German courts or the ICC?

German courts.

I'd like to see it happen - I would be interested to see how it turns out :)

Absolutely. How does Germany have jurisdiction though...

that’s going to be one busy court with all those cases (and that’s just Rummy)

German courts.

I'd like to see it happen - I would be interested to see how it turns out :)

Absolutely. How does Germany have jurisdiction though...

That's what I was thinking...How could Germany take a foreign national to trial?

That's what I was thinking...How could Germany take a foreign national to trial?

well he doesn't have to turn up but if the court finds him guilty he had better stay outside German borders

also the charges are for international crimes I think every nation can try Rummy if that’s what turns them on

And Germany has the right to prosecute an American citizen, how? No offense, I oppose the Iraq war as much, if not more, than my European counterparts, but this is ludicrous. Rummy cannot be charged under someone else's law. He simply isn't answerable to it.

That's what I was thinking...How could Germany take a foreign national to trial?

The same way they usually do it when a foreign national has committed crimes in Germany and resides outside the country at the time of the trial, I suppose. It's not unheard of.

What is unheard of is the political implications such a trial would bring.

In other news:


Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against Rumsfeld

The Associated Press
Tuesday, March 27, 2007; 8:37 PM

WASHINGTON -- Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld cannot be tried on allegations of torture in overseas military prisons, a federal judge said Tuesday in a case he described as "lamentable."

U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan threw out a lawsuit brought on behalf of nine former prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said Rumsfeld cannot be held personally responsible for actions taken in connection with his government job

The lawsuit contends the prisoners were beaten, suspended upside down from the ceiling by chains, urinated on, shocked, sexually humiliated, burned, locked inside boxes and subjected to mock executions.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First had argued that Rumsfeld and top military officials disregarded warnings about the abuse and authorized the use of illegal interrogation tactics that violated the constitutional and human rights of prisoners.

Hogan appeared conflicted during arguments last year. On one hand, he said he was hesitant to allow allegations of torture to go unheard. On the other hand, he said the case was unprecedented.

"This is a lamentable case," Hogan began his 58-page opinion Tuesday.

No matter how appealing it might seem to use the courts to correct allegations of severe abuses of power, Hogan wrote, government officials are immune from such lawsuits. Additionally, foreigners held overseas are not normally afforded U.S. constitutional rights.

"Despite the horrifying torture allegations," Hogan said, he could find no case law supporting the lawsuit, which he previously had described as unprecedented.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032701338.html?reload=true

He simply isn't answerable to it.

Americans aren’t answerable to international law now?

Oh who am I kidding :(

It's pretty worthless, and nothing will ever come of it, so why waste the German taxpayers money?

It's pretty worthless, and nothing will ever come of it, so why waste the German taxpayers money?

The principle of the matter *nods*

I was unaware that American citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of German law...

That's what I was thinking...How could Germany take a foreign national to trial?
And Germany has the right to prosecute an American citizen, how? No offense, I oppose the Iraq war as much, if not more, than my European counterparts, but this is ludicrous. Rummy cannot be charged under someone else's law. He simply isn't answerable to it.
I was unaware that American citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of German law...
Guys, the question has been answered in the article.
Kaleck is basing his lawsuit on the Code of Crimes Against International Law, which came into force in Germany in 2002. Under the code, Germany's chief prosecutor is entitled to prosecute individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes -- irrespective of the location of the defendant or plaintiff, the place where the crime was carried out or the nationality of the persons involved.
The crimes listed in the code are considered fundamental crimes whose prosecution lies in the interest of humanity and can therefore not be considered simply a domestic affair of the country involved. The German authors of the legal code were thorough, and their text is considered exemplary.

It's a little bit like the Nuremberg trials. Under German law none of the Nazi war criminals were really guilty of very much at all (and the German justice system wasn't gonna prosecute them anyways).

So the US took it on itself to charge them with crimes against international law and humanity, and ultimately punished them for it.

The 2002 law in Germany is very similar. It allows the German State (and thus gives prosecutors the responsibility) to charge people with crimes against humanity and international law regardless of nationality. It's part of trying to make sure that war criminals and the like don't use national jurisdictions to escape punishment.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1414097,00.html

And they accuse us of trying to police the world.

Brilliant.

Guys, the question has been answered in the article.


It's a little bit like the Nuremberg trials. Under German law none of the Nazi war criminals were really guilty of very much at all (and the German justice system wasn't gonna prosecute them anyways).

So the US took it on itself to charge them with crimes against international law and humanity, and ultimately punished them for it.

The 2002 law in Germany is very similar. It allows the German State (and thus gives prosecutors the responsibility) to charge people with crimes against humanity and international law regardless of nationality. It's part of trying to make sure that war criminals and the like don't use national jurisdictions to escape punishment.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1414097,00.html

Um... You do realize that the U.S. had basically taken control of Germany with the other Allies, and Russia, at the time? If Germany invades the U.S. and takes over the administration, then they have the right to prosecute American citizens. Until such a time, we are a sovereign nation, and whether or not I agree with the cause of the lawsuit, Rumsfeld is answerable to American Treaties and American Law, and the enforcement of International Law by courts which America recognizes, and that's about it.

If we were signatories to the ICC (we probably ought to be), then a trial there would be reasonable, but we are not.

Until such a time, we are a sovereign nation, and whether or not I agree with the cause of the lawsuit, Rumsfeld is answerable to American Treaties and American Law, and the enforcement of International Law by courts which America recognizes, and that's about it.
But you get the idea of the law, which is that national sovereignty and other such excuses are meaningless when it comes to crimes against humanity (as in all of mankind). As it is, Mladic and Karadzic may not be guilty under Serb law (or the Serbian authorities might not want to try them), but that should hardly be used as a reason for them to not be tried at all.

Also, I found the text of the law: http://www.cicr.org/ihl-nat.nsf/a24d1cf3344e99934125673e00508142/09889d9f415e031341256c770033e2d9!OpenDocument

I think they could if they really wished to do so, but then, the costs it likely would bring would make the whole thing not worth it. I mean, the German economy would take a hit if suddenly American servicemen stationed in Germany were pulled out, and the Germans know this.

Besides which, I don't think he has actually done anything wrong. I think it's just a symbolic stab at America by her enemies.

~ Romandeos.

I mean, the German economy would take a hit if suddenly American servicemen stationed in Germany were pulled out, and the Germans know this.
That's a pretty ignorant thing to say. Germany's GDP is somewhere around $2.6 trillion, and it's the world's largest exporter before the US, Japan or China.

The hit would affect the local communities around the bases, not the economy as a whole.

That being said, no one is gonna be helped if the spat starts all over again. Merkel had just managed to normalise relations again after the whole Iraq business.

I wrote that bastard Rummy a letter and he never even wrote back.

If were up to me I'd hang the son of a bitch.

It's even legal in Utah!

You need to lure ol' Rumsfeld to Berlin somehow. Would the temptation of real German Apple Strudel be enough to tempt him?

Men at his age like thier food.

Or if you want to be ironic about it, extraordinary rendition?

How about this. Rummy gets "captured" by "middle-eastern" "terrorists" and taken to "Afghanistan" and then the German NATO contingent mount a "rescue operation" with the Kommando Spezialkräfte, and is then flown to Berlin for his own "safety" prior to being flown back to the US. But since he's there they might as well charge him with warcrimes. ;)

The 2004 case, brought by the same guy, was dismissed in part to allow Rummy to a security conference - he had refused to set foot in Germany while the case was pending. Now that he's a private citizen, there's less political leverage the US can bring to lean on Germany again. :D

And they accuse us of trying to police the world.

Brilliant.

Pretty sue they didnt jump the gun in Iraq.

I think they could if they really wished to do so, but then, the costs it likely would bring would make the whole thing not worth it. I mean, the German economy would take a hit if suddenly American servicemen stationed in Germany were pulled out, and the Germans know this.

Besides which, I don't think he has actually done anything wrong. I think it's just a symbolic stab at America by her enemies.

~ Romandeos.

Yes, because we keep military bases in our enemies' countries. And dont give me Gitmo, Cuba is not a true enemy anymore.

Merkel's long-running attempts to repair the damage done over Iraq. long running fellatio.

I just cannot see the point.

The man did his job, and like it or not, people got hurt. I'm sorry there are so many innocent people that get hurt in times of war, but this is nothing new.

To be perfectly honest, given Germany's history, this sort of action would be a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

In my thinking, it is a very dangerous thing to have a US Official held accountable by a foreign nation.

Yes, I understand the arguements, but once this begins, where does it stop?

Just my thoughts - and probably not worth a great deal.

Cheers.

The man did his job, and like it or not, people got hurt. I'm sorry there are so many innocent people that get hurt in times of war, but this is nothing new.Did he? He conspired to launch an unprovoked invasion of a foreign sovereign nation. Last I checked, that wasn't a job, but a crime.To be perfectly honest, given Germany's history, this sort of action would be a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.Because when your ancestors have donce wrong, you can't ever do right. Or what are you saying?In my thinking, it is a very dangerous thing to have a US Official held accountable by a foreign nation.For Germany maybe. It's a bit of a stretch to think it'd be of any major consequence to anyone else.Yes, I understand the arguements, but once this begins, where does it stop?Hopefully it doesn't. Hopefully war criminals will be tried, convicted and punished, no matter who or where they are. Makes the world a much safer and more stable place.

long running fellatio.
A special article, just for you!

Evil Americans, Poor Mullahs (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,474636,00.html)
Forty-eight percent of Germans think the United States is more dangerous than Iran, a new survey shows, with only 31 percent believing the opposite. Germans' fundamental hypocrisy about the US suggests that it's high time for a new bout of re-education.

Also, the article lost a lot of its bite in the translation. If you speak German, read the original: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/debatte/0,1518,474554,00.html

Germany has the same right to prosecute Rumsfeld as America has to hold foreign nationals at Gitmo.

Germany has the same right to prosecute Rumsfeld as America has to hold foreign nationals at Gitmo.

But the ones at "Gitmo" aren't being given a fair trial, or trial at all, where this is a proposal that would give Rumsfeld 'due process'.....

Guys, the question has been answered in the article.
But that requires reading!! :eek:

That being said, no one is gonna be helped if the spat starts all over again. Merkel had just managed to normalise relations again after the whole Iraq business.

That is true, but it would still be interesting to see how it would end, and the repercussions such a trial (not to mention a possible conviction!) would have :)

Absolutely. How does Germany have jurisdiction though...

German courts have jurisdiction of any matters the german government sees fit to give it jurisdiction in.

Germany could, if it wanted to, make it illegal, under German law, for an american to kill another american in America.

To use an old cliched line I learned while working in London, "Parliament can make it illegal for a British citizen to smoke a cigarette on the streets of Paris, if it wished to".

The US went to war because Afghanistan didn't extradite Bin Laden....

For those out there that were unable to click on the link, let me:


Looks like he'll be tried under german law

Just reading the description tells me that they have zero case here.

Just reading the description tells me that they have zero case here.

because your legal analysis has been oh so sharp, what with pieces of brilliance such as:

perjury means lying under oath
it can't be a crime unless you intended to do it
manslaughter implies intent
the supreme court has addressed the issue of "under god" in the pledge "several" times

You will, of course, forgive me if I do not overly rely on your opinions on matters of law.

Just reading the description tells me that they have zero case here.

I can not fathom why someone who has consistantly demonstrated his complete and utter ignorance of the legal system, thinks himself qualified to make such a statement.

Seriously, who do you think we think you are?

Did he? He conspired to launch an unprovoked invasion of a foreign sovereign nation. Last I checked, that wasn't a job, but a crime.

Saddam Hussein was building chemical weapons and testing them on his own people, in violation of international law, with plans to sell these weapons to terrorists to use against the US and our allies. Rummy, the President, and MOST OF CONGRESS decided to defend our nation and enforce international law. If you have a problem with that, you can suck my balls.

:sniper:

Saddam Hussein was building chemical weapons and testing them on his own people, in violation of international law, with plans to sell these weapons to terrorists to use against the US and our allies. Rummy, the President, and MOST OF CONGRESS decided to defend our nation and enforce international law. If you have a problem with that, you can suck my balls.

:sniper:

(allows dramatic pause)

Present them.

*removes pants*

Saddam Hussein was building chemical weapons and testing them on his own people, in violation of international law, with plans to sell these weapons to terrorists to use against the US and our allies. Rummy, the President, and MOST OF CONGRESS decided to defend our nation and enforce international law. If you have a problem with that, you can suck my balls.

:sniper:

Yes he was building chemical weapons and using them on his own population, namely the Kurds, and there was a nuclear weapons program that was achieving momentum.

However. These weapons ceased to exist in 1991.

U.S. arms inspector Charles Duelfer, when presenting his findings before the Senate Armed Services Committee, four weeks before the 2004 presidential election, stated in his report that "Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991" and the survey team found "no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production."

The weapons were all destroyed or rendered inoperable by UN weapons inspectors and the Iraqi authorities themselves. If the UN inspectors had been allowed to continue thier job and "enforce international law" before the Iraq invasion of 2003, then this fact would have been confirmed much earlier than it was.

*removes pants*

Must be real cold where you are.
http://i22.ebayimg.com/03/i/07/fd/e8/26_2.JPG

because your legal analysis has been oh so sharp, what with pieces of brilliance such as:

perjury means lying under oath
it can't be a crime unless you intended to do it
manslaughter implies intent
the supreme court has addressed the issue of "under god" in the pledge "several" times

You will, of course, forgive me if I do not overly rely on your opinions on matters of law.

I can not fathom why someone who has consistantly demonstrated his complete and utter ignorance of the legal system, thinks himself qualified to make such a statement.

Seriously, who do you think we think you are?

To quote "That 70's show": BURN!!! :eek: :D :fluffle:

Saddam Hussein was building chemical weapons and testing them on his own people, in violation of international law, with plans to sell these weapons to terrorists to use against the US and our allies. Rummy, the President, and MOST OF CONGRESS decided to defend our nation and enforce international law. If you have a problem with that, you can suck my balls.

:sniper:

"Enforce" doesn't mean "Breach" or "Go against", which is what the US did... I shall have to get you an encyclopedia for christmas :)

<Snip>Unlike you, I'm no amoebae. But if you want, I'll eat you alive.

Being serious for a moment though, I think you should fact check your shit. I know 3 year olds better at making up shit than you are.

manslaughter implies intentI believe Murder implies intent. Manslaughter does not.
the supreme court has addressed the issue of "under god" in the pledge "several" times and it's still being argued here... your point?

Saddam Hussein was building chemical weapons and testing them on his own people, in violation of international law, with plans to sell these weapons to terrorists to use against the US and our allies. Rummy, the President, and MOST OF CONGRESS decided to defend our nation and enforce international law. If you have a problem with that, you can suck my balls.

:sniper:

You need to find a news outlet other than Fox. Like one that reports news.

Saddam had most of his chemical and nuclear crap shipped to Syria immediately prior to the invasion. One of his own top former lackeys admitted this.

Saddam had most of his chemical and nuclear crap shipped to Syria immediately prior to the invasion. One of his own top former lackeys admitted this.

Crated up entire factories did he? Whole reactors?

Saddam had most of his chemical and nuclear crap shipped to Syria immediately prior to the invasion. One of his own top former lackeys admitted this.

Bwahahahaha!!!! :D

And if you believe that I have a bridge in Texas for sale :)

"Excuse me good sir, I see you have a gun. I plan to kill you, would you please give the gun to the gentleman on your left? Much obliged." ;)

Saddam had most of his chemical and nuclear crap shipped to Syria immediately prior to the invasion. One of his own top former lackeys admitted this.

All the people on your side have changed their tune without letting you know. To the internets! You can still catch up.

Saddam had most of his chemical and nuclear crap shipped to Syria immediately prior to the invasion. One of his own top former lackeys admitted this.Admitted it, did he? After your gov't either beat him over the head with a stick, paid him off or both?

It makes more sense to trust sources that don't have an obvious agenda, and those sources all disagree.

That's the question a group of German legal gurus is facing. Unfortunately it looks like the lawsuit is valid according to German law, so they really don't have much of a reason to say "No".

Apart of course from the fact that this is the US, a major ally of Germany. Apart from Merkel's long-running attempts to repair the damage done over Iraq. Apart from the sheer impossibility of actually punishing any of the offenders.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,473987,00.html


A tough nut to crack...

What does NSG say?

This seems like an appropriate time to post the following link.

http://www.yankeepotroast.org/archives/2007/03/a_note_from_don_1.html

Crated up entire factories did he? Whole reactors?

He had no factories or reactors to speak of because nuclear weapons do not contain them.

Admitted it, did he? After your gov't either beat him over the head with a stick, paid him off or both?

There is no evidence to suggest either. Please stop making shit up.

He had no factories or reactors to speak of because nuclear weapons do not contain them.



There is no evidence to suggest either. Please stop making shit up.

We never sold him any nukes. We did sell him a shitload of chemical weapons, all of which were way out of their use by date. In fact the preponderance of evidence (you may wanna look that up) shows that a vast majority of their chemical weapons were infact destroyed when they were told to do so. The only remnants to be found are some old duds out in the desert that didn't go off during testing.


By the way, fun history lesson, did you know Hussein was our pet until Gulf War I? We stabbed him in the back.

There is no evidence to suggest either. Please stop making shit up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZT622ew_dM

I believe Murder implies intent. Manslaughter does not.

Correct

and it's still being argued here... your point?

My point is that the supreme court has NEVER had the opportunity to reach a judgment on the merits in regards to the constitutionality of "under God" in the pledge, despite corny's insistance that it had "several times"

He had no factories or reactors to speak of because nuclear weapons do not contain them..

But where were they, because they would have been needed to create the weapons.

Or did he develop the Big Nuclear Bomb Tree and just water it twice a day?

But where were they, because they would have been needed to create the weapons.

Or did he develop the Big Nuclear Bomb Tree and just water it twice a day?

Everyone knows Saddam got his nukes from Iran.

There is no evidence to suggest either. Please stop making shit up.
I wish someone would have told the administration just that concerning the WMDs back before they decided to invade Iraq :(

There is no evidence to suggest either. Please stop making shit up.Feels nice destroying your own sorry excuse for an argument, don't it? Well don't let me stop you.

My point is that the supreme court has NEVER had the opportunity to reach a judgment on the merits in regards to the constitutionality of "under God" in the pledge, despite corny's insistance that it had "several times"
I thought they did. stating that the words "Under God" in the pledge as well as "In God We Trust" on the American currency was not considered breaking the seperation of Church and State, and the those arguing that it is are currently appealing the decision.

Everyone knows Saddam got his nukes from Iran.

Yes, via his time portal. Soon later he will destroy his enemies before rescuing himself from the noose.

Yes, via his time portal. Soon later he will destroy his enemies before rescuing himself from the noose.

unfortunatly, when sending the rescue squad, he punched in BC instead of AD...

and that's how Christianity started...:p

Yes he was building chemical weapons and using them on his own population, namely the Kurds, and there was a nuclear weapons program that was achieving momentum.

However. These weapons ceased to exist in 1991.

CLINTON LIED! CLINTON LIED! :D

CLINTON LIED! CLINTON LIED! :D

Forgive my ignorance, but what did Clinton lie about?

Forgive my ignorance, but what did Clinton lie about?

it wasn't a lie, it was just a misunderstanding...

the press thought he said "Saddam Scrapped his missiles."

but what he did say was "Some dame sucked his (Clinton's) missile." :p :p :p

Forgive my ignorance, but what did Clinton lie about?

If Saddam did not have weapons since the 1991 Iraq War, then why the hell did he order the bombings in 1998 of his so-called Chemical, Bio, and nuclear facilities that he claimed were still making WMD?

If he did not have them in 1991 then that means he did not have them in 1998.

If Saddam did not have weapons since the 1991 Iraq War, then why the hell did he order the bombings in 1998 of his so-called Chemical, Bio, and nuclear facilities that he claimed were still making WMD?

If he did not have them in 1991 then that means he did not have them in 1998.

Oh well, then he must have lied, or been misinformed.

Oh well, then he must have lied, or been misinformed.

And now we apply that same logic to the current and thus....

CLINTON LIED! CLINTON LIED! :D

Clinton lied about a lot of shit, you say this like it's news.

Clinton lied about a lot of shit, you say this like it's news.

What politician hasn't lied about something related to Foreign AFfairs? :D

By the way, fun history lesson, did you know Hussein was our pet until Gulf War I? We stabbed him in the back.

Yes. It's even suspected that the CIA put him into power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZT622ew_dM

Wow. That link really proved a lot :rolleyes:

But where were they, because they would have been needed to create the weapons.

No, they wouldn't have. You don't need a nuclear power plant in order to build a nuclear weapon, and factories... well, I'd imagine that Iraq has a few of those, and you can't just look at a factory and be able to tell what was most recently made there.

I wish someone would have told the administration just that concerning the WMDs back before they decided to invade Iraq :(

Which administration are you speaking of? A few dozen intelligence agencies from around the world looked at the same evidence as we did and came to the same conclusion.

Feels nice destroying your own sorry excuse for an argument, don't it?

I have done no such thing.

If Saddam did not have weapons since the 1991 Iraq War, then why the hell did he order the bombings in 1998 of his so-called Chemical, Bio, and nuclear facilities that he claimed were still making WMD?

If he did not have them in 1991 then that means he did not have them in 1998.

It's not just Clinton. Al Gore, Madeline Albright, Nancy Pelosi, etc. were all on the same page about it.

http://patdollard.com/2007/03/07/democrat-hypocrisy-on-iraq/

That link is made of pwn.

I'm hardly a fan of Rummy and I was always against the Iraq war, so I can't say I care too much about what happens to him. But it does seem a little pointless. They know he won't face any sentence so it seems rather petty to waste probably millions of Euros of German taxpayers' money just for the sake of scoring political points. Plus I've never been too comfortable with the whole concept of universal jurisdiction in the first place.

Sounds like a good laugh. Go for it I say.

By the way, he's not being charged for the Iraq War.

He's being charged for Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and various memos he wrote in relation to them.

Saddam had most of his chemical and nuclear crap shipped to Syria immediately prior to the invasion. One of his own top former lackeys admitted this.
Brilliant. I love a good laugh, kudos for the entertainment. Especially like the bit in the later post about nuclear weapons not containing factories...great stuff. Please do keep it up. The belly-laughs are 'a rolling.

Which administration are you speaking of? A few dozen intelligence agencies from around the world looked at the same evidence as we did and came to the same conclusion.
Which administration do you think? The Bush administration of course. They made the decision to break international law and commit an act of agression by invading Iraq. They made the call, and they are stuck with the responsibility and the blame for the thousands of dead. So it doesn't really matter what other intelligence agencies thought.

Oh, and notice how I don't even touch upon how intelligence was twisted to send the right message, and how it was used by the administration to drive the US to war. It may not have been lies as some claim, but it surely was manipulation.

It's not just Clinton. Al Gore, Madeline Albright, Nancy Pelosi, etc. were all on the same page about it.

http://patdollard.com/2007/03/07/democrat-hypocrisy-on-iraq/

That link is made of pwn.
Actually, it's more close to be made of fail in this thread. It sure is made of "So what?". Are there still people who don't know that some democrats supported the invasion? Go ahead, send the video to them. It doesn't change the fact that "The Decider" President Bush is left with the full responsibility for the invasion and the aftermath of it all. The Responsibility and the blame.

A special article, just for you!

(Bush FanBoy from germany) (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,474636,00.html)


Also, the article lost a lot of its bite in the translation. If you speak German, read the original:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/debatte/0,1518,474554,00.htmlInteresting..
Looks like your reporter friend -Claus Christian Malzahn- has a soft spot for Bush.
or is that DerSpiegel's soft spot?
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkwIDSA1GBnYBvg5XNyoA?p=Claus+Christian+Malzahn+bush

Actually, it's more close to be made of fail in this thread. It sure is made of "So what?". Are there still people who don't know that some democrats supported the invasion? Go ahead, send the video to them. It doesn't change the fact that "The Decider" President Bush is left with the full responsibility for the invasion and the aftermath of it all. The Responsibility and the blame.
Pro-invasion IF Iraq was found to be a threat. Notice the IF.

Yes. The people of Europe are overwhelmingly opposed to the American torture programmes and the Iraq war. Charges should be filed, even if only symbolically, to register that. This is not what we want the West to be about.

Pro-invasion IF Iraq was found to be a threat. Notice the IF.

I'm sure some didn't mention that IF though, but I hear what you're saying.

Since when does Germany have the right to prosecute anybody for war crimes?

Since when does Germany have the right to persecute anybody for war crimes?

Legally they don't.

Since when does Germany have the right to persecute anybody for war crimes?

I think the word you're looking for is prosecute . . .

I think the word you're looking for is prosecute . . .

Apologies; yes, that's what I meant.

Since when does Germany have the right to prosecute anybody for war crimes?
Since the new law.
Legally they don't.
Legally they do. It might even be OK under international law since crimes against humanity are global crimes which every state may be able to prosecute.

Legally they don't.

This has been another shining example of corny's brilliant legal mind.

Wrong.

Apparenlty you missed it; I was referring to Germany's actions during a particular war in the 1930's and 40's.

What I meant was, "On what moral ground does Germany have the authority to prosecute a war crimes trial?"

Apparenlty you missed it; I was referring to Germany's actions during a particular war in the 1930's and 40's.

What I meant was, "On what moral ground does Germany have the authority to prosecute a war crimes trial?"

Well disregarding your "sins of the father condemns the child eternal" approach, I would say that they got the grounds you're looking for with the Nuremberg trials and the fact that you can argue that the Germans now know better than many. They know the face of evil and inhumanity intimately.

Looks like your reporter friend -Claus Christian Malzahn- has a soft spot for Bush.
or is that DerSpiegel's soft spot?
So far I haven't been able to find any coherent bias either way in Spiegel articles. They have infuriatingly lefty guys and infuriatingly righty guys, and even a few in the middle.

Now, he is obviously someone who has less problems in thinking about the world in good and evil. But even so, I personally think it's high time that those who get so aggravated about Bush think about why they don't nearly feel as bothered by Ahmadinejad.

Apparenlty you missed it; I was referring to Germany's actions during a particular war in the 1930's and 40's.

What I meant was, "On what moral ground does Germany have the authority to prosecute a war crimes trial?"

hey buddy, hear the news? the 40s were 60 years ago.

And in other news, General Francisco Franko is still dead.

Well disregarding your "sins of the father condemns the child eternal" approach, I would say that they got the grounds you're looking for with the Nuremberg trials and the fact that you can argue that the Germans now know better than many. They know the face of evil and inhumanity intimately.

Indeed. Therefore it is the German states moral duty to bring to justice war criminals in all guises. Even Americans.

Well disregarding your "sins of the father condemns the child eternal" approach, I would say that they got the grounds you're looking for with the Nuremberg trials and the fact that you can argue that the Germans now know better than many. They know the face of evil and inhumanity intimately.
Indeed. Therefore it is the German states moral duty to bring to justice war criminals in all guises. Even Americans.
I can only agree!

Since the new law.

Legally they do. It might even be OK under international law since crimes against humanity are global crimes which every state may be able to prosecute.

You have a problem there as this is not a case of crimes against Humanity.

You have a problem there as this is not a case of crimes against Humanity.

Wow. I guess we don't need the courts anymore. You know, it used to be that to determine whether or not a crime had been committed, we would have a trial. You know, exactly what's being done here.

However did we do without you?

Or, we could be sane and realize that it's pretty fucking stupid to declare that no crime has been committed prior to a trial, the sole purpose of which is to determine whether or not a crime has been committed.

I wonder corny, how do you know that no crime, under GERMAN law, has been committed? Are you as well versed in german law as you are in american? If so Rumsfeld should hire you post haste, you are truly the greatest legal mind of your generation.

You have a problem there as this is not a case of crimes against Humanity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity
The Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum states that crimes against humanity "are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. However, murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of meriting the stigma attaching to the category of crimes under discussion."

As I said, we're talking Abu Ghraib, Extraordinary Rendition and Camp X-Ray, as well as the various questionable memos Rumsfeld wrote in regards to these and US policies.

If it doesn't fit these categories, it's pretty close to them.

Legally they don't.
Evidently, they do.

Evidently, they do.

Evidently, Germany has no jurisdiction.

Evidently, Germany has no jurisdiction.

Evidently, they do. Under German and international law.

Evidently, they do. Under German and international law.

Actually no as we do not recognize the Iternationa Court of Justice which supposedly handles such things.

Actually no as we do not recognize the Iternationa Court of Justice which supposedly handles such things.
Unless Edwards or Obama get elected...

Actually no as we do not recognize the Iternationa Court of Justice which supposedly handles such things.

which doesn't matter because we don't have to recognize GERMAN law for the law to still exist.

Unless Edwards or Obama get elected...

Still has to be approved by 2/3rds of the Senate.

You are most definitely right about that however, as far as I know, that no German citizen has been harmed by the United States....

which....doesn't matter.

which doesn't matter because we don't have to recognize GERMAN law for the law to still exist.

You are most definitely right about that however, as far as I know, that no German citizen has been harmed by the United States....

which....doesn't matter.

In a way, it does. Not like it matters, this is not going to happen anyway so there is nothing to debate.

Still has to be approved by 2/3rds of the Senate.
They'll attach it to some bill saving cute puppies, and it'll go through.

They'll attach it to some bill saving cute puppies, and it'll go through.

That would be illegal as it is a treaty that needs to be ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate. That's by the Constitution. If the Dems tried any other route, it would be ruled null and void and the President could very well be impeached for it. Not that I would encourage impeachment, more censure than that.

In a way, it does.

No. It doesn't. At all. Period.

Actually no as we do not recognize the Iternationa Court of Justice which supposedly handles such things.

So . . . if I decide that I don't recognize American law . . . you're saying that I can smoke all the weed I want, kill anyone I want, and they can't arrest me and put me on trial? SWEET!

So far I haven't been able to find any coherent bias either way in Spiegel articles.of course you cant find it.. you would not recognize bias even if it hit you on the forehead.

BTW.. it still looks to me like -Claus Christian Malzahn- is a Bush fanboy.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkwIDSA1GBnYBvg5XNyoA?p=Claus+Christian+Malzahn+bush

Interesting subject, though the last page of no-good mud throwing was quite annoying and needless. :P

The point is that how ever little comes out of it, every such case is needed – no matter how symbolical, political or otherwise deemed inappropriate or a waste of money. Even though it might be hard case to pull anything useful out of, merely the fact that a case of this proportions and subject is allowed to be heard shows the importance of democratic virtues and freedom. Constitution or not that was allegedly what spawned the problems, along with a whole bunch of weapons of various sizes and atrocities – proved or not.

If any infringement on any right, be it property or not, is suspected it is the job of a set court to decide whether or not it took place. The question whereas Germany has jurisdiction or not, it has been answered many times, and can summed up in short by two quotes from the threat:

Velka Morava – Page 1:

Kaleck is basing his lawsuit on the Code of Crimes Against International Law, which came into force in Germany in 2002. Under the code, Germany's chief prosecutor is entitled to prosecute individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes -- irrespective of the location of the defendant or plaintiff, the place where the crime was carried out or the nationality of the persons involved.

The crimes listed in the code are considered fundamental crimes whose prosecution lies in the interest of humanity and can therefore not be considered simply a domestic affair of the country involved. The German authors of the legal code were thorough, and their text is considered exemplary…

And then:

Neu Leonstein – Page 7:

The Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum states that crimes against humanity "are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practise of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. However, murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practise. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of meriting the stigma attaching to the category of crimes under discussion."


And I know that many has argued for and against this as being sufficient arguments, but doesn’t that pin-point the specific need of a trial. If not German, then at least U.N.

Which by the way, clears the path for a funny thought on the basics which U.N. was built up after WW II. The fact that USA went around U.N when going to war, they, as far as I can see, didn’t give a lot of thought to the last part of The Joint Four-Nation Declaration* (Moscow Declaration, 1943). Basically, they brought the issue to the U.N. who did not sanction the war, but invaded with a number of other “allied” countries none the less.

Joint Four-Nation Declaration, as agreed upon by USA, Brittan, China and USSR. I quote part 4 and 5.

4. That they recognise the necessity of establishing at the earliest practicable date a general international organisation, based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving states, and open to membership by all such states, large and small, for the maintenance of international peace and security.

5. That for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security pending the re-establishment of law and order and the inauguration of a system of general security they will consult with one another and as occasion requires with other members of the United Nations, with a view to joint action on behalf of the community of nations.

As it has been quoted before, U.N. inspectors had been allowed into Iraq and deemed the country as being without any “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (Am I the only one really tired of that phrase??)

Further more, no other serious signs of aggression, though a bit playing "cat and mouse, from the nation of Iraq had been found than what appeared to be misinforming and misleading intelligence reports.

When the USA and the rest of the “Allied” countries choose to invade, despite the U.N. resolution more or less saying the “NO”(by the “threat” of VETO), they choose to ignore the fundamental need of any country (not counting “super powers”) – The sovereign equality. They further more went from being members of an international organ dedicated to keeping peace, order security on a near global level, to be a rag-tag gathering of vigilante-nations taking it on themselves to clear the world of chaos, evil and “Weapons Of Mass Destruction”.

The U.N. Resolution 1441 was used as an excuse by the invading forces, who meant that it was up to them to invade in order to follow up on the resolution. The thing about the U.N. security council saying no, is to be understood as France’ (a permanent member, thus having VETO) premiere minister Jacques Chirac on the 10th of march, 2003, declared that France would VETO any resolution leading to war.

That made it unnecessary for the The Bush- and Blair-administrations to “ask for permission” since the answer was no anyway.

(Am I the only one who smells a little resemblance to small kids: “Mom, can I go to <insert friends name here> tonight?” – “NO” - *Kid sneaks out of the window*)

That makes it a bit sad to see posts arguing for how international laws was broken in Iraq, and that was why USA attacked. A good example is G-Max on page 3:

Saddam Hussein was building chemical weapons and testing them on his own people, in violation of international law, with plans to sell these weapons to terrorists to use against the US and our allies. Rummy, the President, and MOST OF CONGRESS decided to defend our nation and enforce international law*. If you have a problem with that, you can suck my balls.


*) Apparently by breaking/ignoring a heap more.

To go back on track with the “Jurisdiction – Who and where part?” and the “how can Germany find it in themselves to even think like that, after what they did three generations ago”.

The people who wrote that, I wonder, did you even think before writing that? Its like asking a white American citizen: “How do you dare to wear a cotton shirt?” or “How can you find it in yourself to smoke that tobacco?”

Its history, it’s a whole new generation of people, not only in charge, but populating the entire country. I mean, a mere fraction of the soldiers, officers and such from WW II is still alive.

Besides, the Nuremberg Trials made sure that war-crimes did not go by unpunished. And the jurisdiction of those trials did not come from, as is was proposed in some post, by the American invasion of Germany, but from the unconditional surrender to the four allied forces (three if you don’t count France). The occupation forces then created the Allied Control Council, a sovereign power in Germany, which then together with the London Charter of August 8, 1945, invested the power needed to go through with the trials. It is though important to remember that only things taking place during the war was included in the charges, since it could only punish violations of international law and the laws of war. (Yet another great phrase… Laws of War…)

Not that its all important for the subject, but just to get it right. :P

In other words, the reason why trials take place in the first place is to determine whether or not there actually is a case.

And then in a bit more biased version. Since USA & co did not want to play by the “international rules”, I see no reason why they should be judged by “international rules”. If USA and its allies can mock another country's sovereign rights, why shouldn’t another country be able and even allowed to do the same. In this case, seemingly without consequences. (Of course the trials would then be a part of the coming consequences. :P)

If there is enough evidence of such events, let the trial begin. And while the mechanics are running, we might as well take a look at the casual way the Geneva convention has been handled in the war too. At least for the countries that signed it, that is. That, for one, strikes USA of the list.

Not that they recognize anything... But hey, they've got the guns and the bombs, so i guess its okay.

You have a problem there as this is not a case of crimes against Humanity.
Yes, you missed the part of the article where it stated that he could face "charges of war crimes" - the guilt or innocence would be determined through a trial.
Evidently, Germany has no jurisdiction.
They do. See the previous posts.
Actually no as we do not recognize the Iternationa Court of Justice which supposedly handles such things.
Actually, the US does recognice the ICJ. You're thinking of the International Criminal Court - but you don't make a point anyway, since the ICC isn't the only court which should handle these things. There isn't anything stopping national legislatures from making it possible for national courts to handle serious crimes like war crimes and crimes against humanity. In fact, several countries has used that option.
You are most definitely right about that however, as far as I know, that no German citizen has been harmed by the United States....
So you you haven't heard about, say, this guy?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c2/Khalid_El-Masri_Reuters.jpg/200px-Khalid_El-Masri_Reuters.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri)

He was a german citizen.

of course you cant find it.. you would not recognize bias even if it hit you on the forehead.
:rolleyes:
What I said is that there isn't one coherent line that Spiegel is pulling. There are biased writers (generally with the word "Opinion" clearly written at the top) of all persuasions.

What I can't make out is that either side is given relatively more importance. As it is, Spiegel provides news stories from around the world from a German perspective, and apart from you I've had few complaints about me using the site as source.

BTW.. it still looks to me like -Claus Christian Malzahn- is a Bush fanboy.
I already said that he probably is. Not that that means that he isn't making a valid point: Ahmadinejad is doing everything that people say they hate about Bush, except to an even greater extent, plus he's actually head of a country that is not allied with Germany, and as such is a relatively greater threat.

Then there's the whole wiping Israel off the map thing, and the "I'm gonna build me some nukes" thing, both of which go fundamentally against what German foreign policy (having been decided upon by elected officials) stands for.

Why so many people seem to think that Bush is worse or a greater threat to them than Ahmadinejad isn't entirely clear to me. Especially at this point in time, with Bush basically unable to hurt anyone since his army is stuck in Iraq and him barely hanging on against a very popular congress which is against him.

Just to clarify my own standing, in case somebody felt offended by my ignorance and/or how easy it was for me to criticise when being uninvolved myself. I am from Denmark. One of those so called allies in the war against terror and Weapons Of Mass Destruction (gotta love the term!!), and the country of origin of some disputed sketches.

We to have had problems with our forces not acknowledging the Geneva Convention on a couple of occasions - mainly when surrendering prisoners of war to American forces. The problems arise because of us having signed the aforementioned Convention and USA not, since a little paragraph states that we will not exchange prisoners of war with any country or military force of whom it can be expected not to treat the prisoners in the way dictated by the Convention. This happened mainly in Afghanistan though, and the prisoners being taken for some mysterious flights by various American army or intelligence organs, or put in some of the "five stared" camps around the world where they were either subjected to inferior general treatment than those allowed by the laws of war, as of the Geneva Convention, or what normally is categorised as torture or lack of human rights.

Further more, on the question of who is the bigger foe, i would dare to say both since they are beyond comparison. We are talking about one of the worlds largest and well equipped professional armies, led by democratically elected governments officials, contra theocratic nepotism with only a fraction of the funding found in USA. The thing that worries me most in in this case is the shared lack of judgement and the careless use of international rules.
The USA have lately, in my eyes at least, confirmed that they feel above the normal code of behaviour, and that international conventions and especially the U.N. is only to be abided to when convenient. A thing shared by countries like Iran.

Another thing shared by countries like USA and Iran is that they need a tense foreign-politic, preferably with more than a single country to hide a poorly run domestic politic, and a country that has been deteriorating for the last 30 years. And I don't need any complaints on this statement, as I accept it as a fact, and so should you, that it is purely my opinions, and a personal perception of USA. But it is a quite common perception of USA, at least for the people i know and have talked to.

When it comes to Ahmadinejad and so on, I sincerely believe that we have nothing to fear from him, as he seems quite capable of jumping of the tallest cliffs all by himself. And that what ever we do, the way to eliminate any threat from that part of the world (e.i religious fanaticism or terror) we in the western countries should mind our own business first.
We have this great proverb for the situation in Danish which roughly translated goes something like "clean infront of your own door, before cleaning in front of your neighbour's". And the general tendency of religion in the world is to grow into something more fanatical. Even in countries like Denmark and especially in the USA. If you take a look on the right wing supporters of American politics, a surprisingly big part of those comes from the extremely christian congregations. And they are not really known as people who tolerate other religions very well, which is all the more true when confronted with a just as rigorous belief. That, I am convinced, plays a big role in the western countries when the media and common man both have to generate their own picture of the situation.

Welcome to NSG Archaic Countries. You should learn to use the quote function properly, it will help you in the future :)

Well... I know that. And I guess I should be sorry, but I always use Word, or some other text processor for writing my long posts. And well, this time I didn't have the patience to quote all the stuff I used.

And thanks.

Well... I know that. And I guess I should be sorry, but I always use Word, or some other text processor for writing my long posts. And well, this time I didn't have the patience to quote all the stuff I used.

And thanks.

Just thinking that the quote function with the little green arrow makes it easier than mentioning "back on page 7" etc. Easier when one can just jump back to that post. But no worries, it's really just for your convenience :)

Well... I know that. And I guess I should be sorry, but I always use Word, or some other text processor for writing my long posts. And well, this time I didn't have the patience to quote all the stuff I used.

And thanks.

LOL... and it's a real bitch when you write your long post (with appropos quotes) and you get that damned "database error" message when you hit post.


and you get a blank reply screen when you tap on the "back" button...

:headbang:

Or the board automatically logginh you out after some time of inactivity.

But as I said, I lost patience at the quoting part, and just took the entire text, so that it wouldn't be necessary for you to go back at all.

By the way, kudos if you read it all.