Friday, November 10, 2006

Germany calling US war criminals?

Rumsfeld facing potential criminal charges from Germany

And now, a test of your patriotism. Germany is hinting at bringing criminal charges against Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, George Tenet and many other ranking US officials for war crimes. Apparently, it is written in their law that they can do this. Of course, they can't ENFORCE that law. They won't be able to enact any punishment, so this is more international politics than anything else and, in my opinion, Germany's way of testing the new US political waters. In their eyes, they want to know how the new Congress will respond to this. If there are no objections, then it will be important knowledge for future dealings. An internationalist Congress is VERY GOOD for Germany. Obviously, this is bogus and the Pentagon won't give it a second thought, yet I am still intrigued about how we as Americans will respond.

Now for the test. I will say right now that if you support this, then you are Anti-American and I outright question your patriotism. This is not a matter of whether Rumsfled should or should not be investigated or charged. The question is whether he should be charged by a FOREIGN court. If you're OK with this, then you are as much a threat to America as any Taliban or Al Qaeda terrorist that we're killing in the Middle East.

Is this harsh? Of course. But it absolutely violates the Constitution and our sovereignty as a nation to support any foreign government's actions against our military and our executive branch. This internationalist attitude is dangerous and it does nothing but weaken us as a nation. How much worse will it be if a Democrat President signs on to the International Criminal Court, where punishment could actually be ENFORCED against our military leaders and elected representatives? Bush rejected this, Clinton supported it, what will Hillary or Obama do?

My hope is that Congress issues a statement now condemning Germany's actions. And that when the new Congress is sworn in they do the same. This can't be tolerated in any way, shape or form. Send the message NOW!


Dan Trabue said...

"I will say right now that if you support this, then you are Anti-American and I outright question your patriotism."

It's anti-American to be opposed to war crimes? I'd suggest it's anti-American to support war crimes.

It's my guess that Rumsfeld stepped down so as to try to lessen the likelihood that he'll be charged with war crimes.

So, call me anti-American, if you want. I want this crowd in DC investigated and, if it is determined that war crimes were committed, then prosecuted. Anyone who'd stand opposed to that is, in fact, anti-American.

America does not abide war crimes.

Dan Trabue said...

I wrote a bit hastily and sort of missed your comment about "The question is whether he should be charged by a FOREIGN court." I'm in favor of the US investigating, not Germany or other nations. BUT, short of a US investigation, I fully support other nations taking actions.

The world can't stand by and watch war crimes be committed. War crimes should always be confronted - by the home nation ideally, but if not the home nation, then the world.

Anonymous said...

John, to be clear, I DO NOT support Rumsfeld and the gang being tried in a foreign court. But to say anyone who does is "as much a threat to America as any Taliban or Al Queda terroist" is a little over the top, don't you think? --Deano

John The Patriot said...

Dean, I don't think it's over the top. Anyone who supports this is basically an internationalist. That is, they favor international propriety over our own sovereignty. They don't consider America's well-being a priority. In short, they are weak and it's their weakness that empowers our enemy. The more we want to gain favor with the international community, the more likely we are to capitulate to the demands of extremists. The internationalist attitude is a huge threat to this country and failing to see it makes it that much greater.

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

I was among those encouraging Germany to file those charges against Rumsfeld since we won't do it ourselves and since we are not part of the International Criminal Court.

There is no statute of limitations against such crimes, so I hope to live long enough to see Rummy, Cheney, and W in jail. This past week, my hope got stronger. America will once more become the nation that promotes human rights instead of violating them!

By the way, "internationalist" is not a swearword. It was once proudly worn by both Democrats and Republicans like Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, Gerald Ford, Mark Hatfield--and, to a lesser extent, even Bush 41.

Dan Trabue said...

"That is, they favor international propriety over our own sovereignty."

As I've already said, I prefer local sovereignty. But, just as I'm glad that the feds moved in when states were violating civil rights in the US, when a local entity is vagrantly breaking laws and refusing to hold itself accountable, it is time for a larger body to intervene.

You believe the same thing or otherwise you wouldn't support the invasion of Iraq.

John said...

This smells of World Government...

I agree with you 100% in that those who believe that Germany could pull this off and/or agree with what the Germans are saying are blatantly anti-American.

And Americans are buying up those damned Chrysler cars... German cars that is. The "Big Three" are now the "Big Two".

John The Patriot said...

I wish you guys would just come out and admit your true motives for investigating Bush and the Defense Department. You claim you want to know the truth, but what you really want is to just see Bush brought down and humiliated..and Rumsfeld with him, regardless of how damaging it is to America.

I say this because if you were actually interested in the truth, then you'd be interested to know that there have been NO documented acts of torture at Gitmo - that the facility has been visited by more than one thousand journalists, 77 congressman, 99 congressional staffers and NONE of them (not even the Dems) found any evidence of torture of human rights violations. If you wanted the truth then this info would interest you. But instead, you're more interested in Newsweek's false report about the Koran being mistreated - a report that led to riots and DEATHS in the Middle East. Where's the outrage over this? Weren't the human rights of those who were killed violated? Shouldn't Newsweek pay a price?

You don't want to know that the military DID investigate Gitmo, including records of over 24,000 interrogations and only found 9 cases of ALLEGED prisoner abuse (no torture), 7 of which were substantiated and ranged from being briefly chained to the floor to having duct tape over the mouth. Does this sound like the Gulag to you? IF so, then you need to brush up on your history.

What about Abu Ghraib? Although some of those acts constituted prisoner abuse, none of them rose to the definition of torture, and those responsible were arrested and prosecuted. There is NO evidence of the Pentagon authorizing any of those actions and, in fact, they outright violated Pentagon policy. Tell me why Rumsfeld would authorize this? There was no intelligence being gained. Are you prepared to say that he just wanted to abuse these people? Is that the kind of "black helicopter" conspiracies that you buy into?

George Soros said that Abu Ghraib was worse than the 9/11 attacks. WORSE! And Hillary Clinton was on the same stage when he said it and she didn't utter a peep. Where is the outrage over this? I would give your point of view more credence if it wasn't so hypocritical, and if you could produce a shred of evidence showing that America advocates human rights abuses.

Instead, you suggest that if our justice system is unable to produce this evidence then it should be elevated to a "higher" level because you're so convinced that it's there, we just chose in a conspiratory manner not to acknowledge it. THAT is about as anti-American as it gets and it defines what it means to be a secular progressive. You're so convinced that America is doing bad things that you refuse to acknowledge otherwise even when the evidence is stacked against you. It's shameful and only weakens us.

Dan Trabue said...

"I wish you guys would just come out and admit your true motives for investigating Bush and the Defense Department. You claim you want to know the truth, but what you really want is to just see Bush brought down and humiliated..and Rumsfeld with him, regardless of how damaging it is to America."

It is tiring and revealing of your nature that you insist that you know our motives better than we do. This haughtiness ("we know best. we know better than you what you need or even think.") is part of why the Republicans have been given the pink slip, seems to me.

John The Patriot said...

First, please don't group me with Republicans. I am a patriot who believes in service to country BEFORE self, hardly a trait endorsed by the Republican Party.

Second, I apologize if I misjudged you. The truth is I'm a little tired of people throwing out the words "war crimes" without any proof to support these claims. I understand disagreeing with the war. I understand dissent. But disagreeing does not give anyone the right to accuse the Pentagon or the White House of war crimes.

People have a tendency to use hyperbole in hopes of giving their argument more credibility, but we need to be careful with this in such a dangerous topic. The legality of the Iraq invasion rests in Saddam's flagrant violation of the cease fire agreement HE signed to end the first Gulf War. That makes the war legal, even if you want to make an argument against it, you can't argue that it's illegal.

And even though there were SOME abuses at Abu Ghraib, you have no evidence - and the ensuing military investigation yielded no evidence - that the Pentagon and the White House authorized these acts. In fact, those abuses were a direct violation of Pentagon policy, which is why those responsible were punished accordingly. Likewise, there is no evidence to support similar claims at Gitmo.

Disagree all you want, but do it responsibly. I respect dissent over Iraq, outrage over Abu Ghraib, and concern about Gitmo. But I will not allow people on this blog to make irresponsible and dishonest claims of the Pentagon and the White House committing war crimes without calling them on it. If you want to make your case, then make it with evidence and not assumptions. The burden of proof in this country rests on the accuser, not the accused. So if I misjudged your motives then I apologize, but I simply don't understand how someone can make these outrageous claims despite contrary evidence WITHOUT having some sort of alterior motive.

Dan Trabue said...

War crimes would have to be determined by a court of law. What I and a majority of the people around the world are saying is it looks likely, based upon evidence that we've all seen, that the Bush administration may be guilty of war crimes. Being opposed to war crimes, we would like someone to investigate.

That "someone" SHOULD be the US, as crime prevention begins at home. But, if the US doesn't investigate and we think that war crimes may have been committed, we would be wrong - unpatriotic to the highest of US ideals - if we didn't support someone else investigating.

And I won't lump you with the Republicans if you won't lump me with the Dems...