Germany going after Rumsfeld?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reel it in for a sec..

As much as this idea pisses me off like most here, this is NOT the German government filing these charges. It is being filed by a bunch of Iraqis and a saudi. They are just using the German Court system, which I agree is giving them too easy a time. Their courts threw it out 2 years ago, they will again, much more likely now then 2004. Sadly enough, their star witness, is an american bag by the name of Janice Karpinski.

In addition, this would fall under international court system. We are not a member, we do not recognize it. In order to get Rummy, they would need a kidnapping, which would obviously not be worth it for Germany. Last I checked we got a decent airstrip, a few nice airplanes, and a couple of well-armed men within their border.
 
Last edited:
Turn about is fair play. We make claims to go after terrorists anywhere in the world and we claim jurisdiction over them. If we don't like the idea of a foreign court indicting our people, then we should strike out laws.

I am no fan of european courts. I'm less of a fan of hypocrisy
 
Overall Hypocrisy

I think they are overly hypocritial. Their history indicates otherwise. Now, the Germans believe they are righteous. In the 21th century, we reap their ideology of hate bourne in the 20th century. It is manifesting from fascism to socialism. What have they ever brought to the world except for their fine engineering. They have short memories
 
When the day comes that an American is tried in a foreign court for "war crimes," the clock will truly be striking midnight in our land. But I suppose we should be prepared for just about anything over the next couple of years...
 
The radical lefty fifth column "Center for Constitutional Rights" is behind this. I think Clinton even comtiplated appointing one of the high rianking members to the USSC. Seems like his name statrted with a D. :eek: Their name is Orwellian.
 
What I meant to point out is that it is lefty citizens of the USA that is filing the case aganist Rumsfield. They are just using Germany as the place to do it. These are "Patriotic" citizens don't you know?
 
The former General who is allegedly testifying for the plaintiffs is covering her ***. If she was given an illegal order by Rumsfeld she should have disobeyed it and let the chips fall where they may. She's just passing the buck.
 
Being a German and a fellow gun owner, I´m really disappointed in some of your comments.


carlrodd wrote:
"what a laugh. NO citizen of the United States of America should ever be brought before that court."


The hypocrisy of this statement is almost unbearable. The US government kidnaps people all over the world, detains them and claims jurisdiction over them, only because of supposed relations to terror organisations. Do you really want to support such a system?

Before you answer I strongly recommend you read the following wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri. Here we have an innocent man who was kidnapped, tortured and wrongfully detained by the US government (they even admitted it). Was anyone held responsible for this? No.

The case was dismissed on the grounds it would jeopardize state secrets.

You really have to sit back and enjoy this statement. The judge basically granted the government a blank check to shield all their actions from accountability.

I don´t want to start a debate about the supposed terrorists in Guantanamo Bay being held prisoners for years without a proper trial, but one thing should be absolutely clear:

The US legal system is not willing to oppose the US government.

The fact of the matter is that Rumsfeld will never be tried in front of a US court, no matter how dubious his involvement in Abu Ghraib was. Obviously the US government can do whatever it wants as long as it marches under the flag of the "War on Terror".


The Guy wrote:
"...Wow, are they still p.o.'d about loosing WWII and the Natzi war crimes trials? I don't belive we gassed, shot, raped or starved 6+ million to death at anytime in our history."


Honestly, how can a sane and intelligent person even think that?

Have the Germans lost their right to criticise the United States because of the actions of their ancestors? Do you really want to be so narrow-minded and attribute all German criticism of the US to some alleged grudge?

I can assure you that I hold the US in high esteem but when criticism is due then it´s due and you have to deal with it objectively instead of ridiculing a nation and reducing it to the actions of a despicable group of people sixty years ago.
 
Well, bad for you. :)

That Heckler&Koch USP Expert sitting in my safe is a damn fine handgun.
 
Hey, I admitted it was a flip coment.

Anyway, the idea of another country claiming jurisdiction over our citizens is insane. If Rumsfeild directly ordered the torture of LIGITAMITE PRISNORS OF WAR, I would have no problem with an AMERICAN COURT prosicuting him to the fullest extent of the law.

Thes fellows are not prisnors of war, as they are not legitamite soldiers under legitamite countries. They are TERORISTS, and thus have no recourse under Geneiva (spelling, I know) Convention. They were not captured in uniform, and thus, I belive, could have been shot on sight. They are still alive, and were not skinned, maimed, chinese water tourtured, or had their genitals attached to a generator.

I really don't see how being deprived of sleep or being made to walk around naked or not knowing wich way east is as real tourture.

They still have heads for crying out loud.

So basicly, TOUGH S%!^ world, we pulled no fingernails.
 
@SnWnMe
I cited wikipedia only once to give the readers a quick overview of the El-Masri case. Feel free to do some research if you don´t trust the information given in this article.

@The Guy
Calling your statement a flip comment seems like a cheap excuse for bringing a point, you secretly believe in. How else can I interpret you saying Yes, I know this kind of thing is innapropriate, but...

I´m also appalled at how fast you are to classify someone as a terrorist. On what information do you base your belief that everybody held prisoner by the US government is really a terrorist and not some poor bastard who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. The word of your government?
 
Okay, so how come this putative World Court only goes after the US?

And what to make of this? "The US legal system is not willing to oppose the US government"

How many times have laws been challenged in courts? Lawsuits are a great part of our society :)

"ridiculing a nation and reducing it to the actions of a *snip* group of people."
Welcome to the club. We put up with it everyday.

What allegedly happened to the guy in the Wiki link maybe unfortunate but I am sure that he would rather be held captive by the US than say the Chinese or North Koreans.
 
And what to make of this? "The US legal system is not willing to oppose the US government"

I was talking about the governments´ strategies and actions in the "War on Terror" (as explained in the following paragraph)


What allegedly happened to the guy in the Wiki link maybe unfortunate but I am sure that he would rather be held captive by the US than say the Chinese or North Koreans.


"Unfortunate" is a severe understatement. This wasn´t some child`s play. This guy was kidnapped, interrogated (dare I say tortured) and detained for several months before being released at night on a desolate Albanian road in the middle of nowhere.

How would you feel if this would happen to you and nobody would be held responsible for it?
 
I doubt very seriously that anyone can possibly PROVE that Rummie or anyone else had complicit a priori knowledge of any specific events in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Buy that might prove illegal under international law. Not gonna happen in any court in any jurisdiction, because there's just too many 'if-then' statements in that chain to survive hard contact. In the end, if it even makes it into a court, it'll turn into no more than a long drawn out progression of 'could have known' and 'could have forseen' but no direct complicity. Dunno if that sounds like progress to me. :uhoh:

There's a fine line between battlefield intelligence gathering and government sponsored torture of its 'enemies'. I'm not sure exactly where I place that line, but I do not like what I read about Khalid El-Masri.

Having said that, I don't think that we can make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. The key issue to me is how we deal with it. Trying to discredit it or sweep it under the rug is a sign of immaturity. A silly lawsuit in Germany isn't going to change that.

Turn about is fair play. We make claims to go after terrorists anywhere in the world and we claim jurisdiction over them.
Since nobody's addressed this, I will. To the best of my knowledge, that's not a true statement. We don't claim jurisdiction over them. We play the game of diplomacy.

In other words, we twist the arm of the sovereign nation in play to GIVE them to us. Sometimes, we twist hard. Sometimes, not. I am aware of no case in the US-led GWOT when we went in to a sovereign nation and abducted its citizens. (The investigation into the abduction of Hassan Moustafa Osama Nasr from Milan proved that the Italian intelligence apparatus *was* involved and effectively gave him up..) In every case that I know of, we either picked 'em up in a military operational area in Afghanistan or Iraq or their own .gov gave them up.

If they don't like being sold out by their own, they should go back to their own and ask for recompensation. They don't get to whine to me because their own .gov abdicated sovereign responsibility.
 
Last edited:
Being a German and a fellow gun owner, I´m really disappointed in some of your comments.


carlrodd wrote:
"what a laugh. NO citizen of the United States of America should ever be brought before that court."

The hypocrisy of this statement is almost unbearable. The US government kidnaps people all over the world, detains them and claims jurisdiction over them, only because of supposed relations to terror organisations. Do you really want to support such a system?


let's begin. the united states in no way would benefit from subjecting itself, or it's citizens to the authority of any international court. why? the international community has proven time and time again that America is not held to the same standard as other nations; we are vilified when we choose not to act, and vilified when we do. it's popular to hate the US, especially in Europe...show me a significant amount of evidence to the contrary. secondly, and most importantly, WE ARE A SOVEREIGN NATION. you belong to one as well. if it is the will of your people to so gladly compromise that sovereignty, so be it.....don't expect it of every other nation. also, please provide evidence of the US kidnapping and detaining people all over the world.

Before you answer I strongly recommend you read the following wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri. Here we have an innocent man who was kidnapped, tortured and wrongfully detained by the US government (they even admitted it). Was anyone held responsible for this? No.

The case was dismissed on the grounds it would jeopardize state secrets.

You really have to sit back and enjoy this statement. The judge basically granted the government a blank check to shield all their actions from accountability.


as a nation we are not perfect, our federal government is not perfect, and of course, individual federal employees are not perfect. mistakes are made, wrong is sometimes done to others. with all of that said, i'll make two points: for one, many of the details of the story you cited rely solely upon el-masri's own testimony. he is alive and well and free....that in itself is an important point. secondly, the international community has made an art out of painting the US as a devil by continuously sensationalizing American military and political missteps, whilst completely ignoring a preponderance of benevolent behaviour by our nation toward so many other nations. you'll have to excuse us then for tending to dismiss the many, and often ridiculous gripes of the inhabitants and governments of seemingly every other nation on the face of the earth(with the exception of Israel and Kuwait).

I don´t want to start a debate about the supposed terrorists in Guantanamo Bay being held prisoners for years without a proper trial, but one thing should be absolutely clear:

The US legal system is not willing to oppose the US government.


do your research. this opposition is as common in the US as doner kebabs houses are in frankfurt.



The fact of the matter is that Rumsfeld will never be tried in front of a US court, no matter how dubious his involvement in Abu Ghraib was. Obviously the US government can do whatever it wants as long as it marches under the flag of the "War on Terror".

wild exaggeration. you write as if we're all out beheading our enemies and raping their wives and daughters. instead of sensationalising the US's actions, you should be crippled with shame over your country's near complete inactivity in the face a world full of problems. constant criticism of US policy and membership in the peanut gallery known as the UN do not qualify yours or any other nation as a contributing, benevolent, responsible part of the international community.


The Guy wrote:
"...Wow, are they still p.o.'d about loosing WWII and the Natzi war crimes trials? I don't belive we gassed, shot, raped or starved 6+ million to death at anytime in our history."

Honestly, how can a sane and intelligent person even think that?

Have the Germans lost their right to criticise the United States because of the actions of their ancestors? Do you really want to be so narrow-minded and attribute all German criticism of the US to some alleged grudge?

I can assure you that I hold the US in high esteem but when criticism is due then it´s due and you have to deal with it objectively instead of ridiculing a nation and reducing it to the actions of a despicable group of people sixty years ago.
[/I]

the United States is regularly judged by past decisions, actions, occurrences that are not even close to being as heinous and evil as the extermination of millions by the Nazis, whilst the bulk of the German population closed its eyes. it's an undeniable part of your recent past, and it is not anyone else's fault that any of your present policies, criticisms etc. are considered in light of it.
 
let's begin. the united states in no way would benefit from subjecting itself, or it's citizens to the authority of any international court. why? the international community has proven time and time again that America is not held to the same standard as other nations;

Unfortunately this kind of paranoia seems to pop up constantly. You say that America is not held to the same standard as other nations. I can´t say if this is true but considering that the US government always claims the moral high ground for their actions, I personally would like to see the United States be more involved in international courts.


i'll make two points: for one, many of the details of the story you cited rely solely upon el-masri's own testimony. he is alive and well and free....that in itself is an important point.

I can´t judge the accuracy of all details, but most of the facts are undisputed:
The poor bastard was kidnapped, interrogated and held prisoner for several months by members of the CIA before they recognised their mistake and set him free on a desolate Albanian road without a refund or even an official apology.

You seem to be proud that he wasn´t killed. I´ll ask again: How would you feel if this would happen to you or a member of your family, all in the name of the "War on Terror"?


secondly, the international community has made an art out of painting the US as a devil by continuously sensationalizing American military and political missteps,

You have a good point there, but I wouldn´t go as far as to say that the European governments make it a point to shoot down the US government at every occassion they get.

I also think that it´s not solely a European problem that it has become hip to criticise and oppose the US government. It seems that leftists and supposed intellectuals all over the world cherish disagreeing with everything the US government does.

This is more of a social trend that an objective dealing with US politics and I strongly disagree with this position.


you should be crippled with shame over your country's near complete inactivity in the face a world full of problems. constant criticism of US policy and membership in the peanut gallery known as the UN do not qualify yours or any other nation as a contributing, benevolent, responsible part of the international community.

I can only speak for myself:

Do I think that Germany is inactive in a world full of problems? No. While we didn´t play an active role in Iraq, you mustn´t forget that German troops are heavily involved in Afghanistan and lately at the coast of Libanon.

Do I think that the UN talks too much instead of doing something worthwhile? Yes, I do. But will this situation change when the US just bypasses them and does their own thing?


the United States is regularly judged by past decisions, actions, occurrences that are not even close to being as heinous and evil as the extermination of millions by the Nazis, whilst the bulk of the German population closed its eyes. it's an undeniable part of your recent past, and it is not anyone else's fault that any of your present policies, criticisms etc. are considered in light of it.

NAZI GERMANY IS NO PART OF MY PAST. I am 25 years old and refuse to be judged upon the actions of these bastards.

Do you think that the United States are any less morally responsible for their actions because Germany set a precedent for evil and heinousness during the Nazi regime?
 
"Wow, are they still p.o.'d about loosing WWII and the Natzi war crimes trials? I don't believe we gassed, shot, raped or starved 6+ million to death at anytime in our history"

Maybe not all at one time. But our history isn't that pretty either. African slaves, almost genocide of Native Americans, Chinese indentured servants, 200,000 - 500,000 Filipino civilians killed in the Philippine-American War, atomic weapons on civilian populations in WW2, napalming civilian villages in Vietnam, etc. Using war stats may not be the best examples, because war in itself is a very ugly thing, however it shows that the US has killed people all over the planet. The US produced VX gas, patented Ricin, and even deployed Sarin (Okinawa in the late 60's). We used 60,000 soldiers as human guinea pigs for mustard gas.
I don't know the exact number of deaths, but we did our fair share of gassing, shotting, raping, and starving of people. So did Japan, England, France, Spain, Russia, Germany, China, Iraq...
 
Here is a clear example of the hypocrisy I cite
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...tml?in_article_id=415889&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
Outrage at London sting by US spies
By CHRISTOPHER LEAKE, Mail on Sunday Last updated at 21:41pm on 11th November 2006

It seems as if George Bush's secret agents can now arrest Britons here and fly them over the Atlantic to face trial.

Undercover American agents are staging secret 'sting' operations in Britain against criminal and terrorist suspects they want to extradite to the US.

n a recent operation, agents from America's Department of Homeland Security set up a suspect by posing as dealers wanting to illegally sell night-vision goggles for export to Iran.

The spies arranged a series of clandestine meetings in London hotels, which they secretly filmed as evidence. It is thought to be the first time American agents have been caught using such sting tactics in Britain.

Urgent questions were being asked about whether the British Government had been aware of the operation. If so, it raises issues of the State collaborating with foreign agencies to entrap suspects - and if not it raises the spectre of American spies working unchecked on British soil.

Human rights campaigners demanded an explanation from Home Secretary John Reid and Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett.

The case has provoked a huge row because the agents used tactics banned in Britain. In addition, the offence of which he is accused would not be a crime in this country. If British police officers had employed this type of sting, the ensuing case would almost certainly be thrown out of court.

In July 2003, ten defendants accused of laundering £15million walked free from Southwark Crown Court after Judge George Bathurst-Norman described police actions as 'massively illegal'. The judge said a police sting aimed at trapping them had 'overstepped the line between legitimate crime detection and unacceptable crime creation'.

Following the US spy sting an Iranian-born businessman - named by Whitehall officials last night as former Iranian ambassador to Jordan Nosratollah Tajik - now faces extradition to America.

Mr Tajik, who has lived with his family in Britain for several years, is accused of conspiring to sell military equipment to Islamic extremists. He was arrested on the Americans' behalf by British police officers before the alleged deal went ahead and detained in prison for a week.

The sting operation also raises new questions about Britain's one-sided extradition arrangements with the United States, under which British citizens can be sent across the Atlantic for trial with ease.

It is much harder for British authorities to extradite American citizens to the UK.

During the operation, the undercover American agents, who were unarmed, claimed they wanted to sell night-vision goggles, said to be worth £50,000, for export to Iran, in breach of US export controls.

Mr Tajik, who is 52 and was recently in hospital with a serious illness, has since been released on substantial bail and has reported daily to a police station near his Durham home. He is an honorary fellow of Durham University's Institute for Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies and has an engineering degree from the University of Westminster.

Mr Tajik is now due to appear at an extradition hearing at City of Westminster magistrates court on December 4.

The Mail on Sunday understands Mr Tajik's legal team will claim he has no terrorist connections or criminal record and that the American agents acted illegally as 'agents provocateurs' by trapping him.

Sources close to Mr Tajik say he feels he is being made a scapegoat for America's opposition to Iran, and the case could widen the rift between America and Iran because of Mr Tajik's former diplomatic role.

According to a witness at a House of Representatives inquiry into state-sponsored terrorism in Iran in February last year, Mr Tajik was one of several Iranian diplomats recruiting Palestinians to establish terrorist cells.

Matthew Levitt, director of terrorism studies at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said: "Iran actively recruits Palestinians for terrorist training in its camps."

He added: "Iran arranged for free travel, medical treatment and terrorist training for Palestinians who had been wounded in the violence in the Middle East who then returned to the Palestinian territories to establish terrorist cells. Among those involved in the recruitment drive were...Iranian ambassador to Jordan Nosratollah Tajik."

Iran, along with Syria, is also the main sponsor of Hezbollah.

It is not known whether the sting operation is connected to a British investigation launched in August after Israel accused Britain of indirectly supplying Hezbollah terrorists with military night-vision equipment that helped them target Israeli soldiers in Lebanon.

The batch of 250 systems, each stamped "Made in Britain', was discovered by Israeli troops in Hezbollah command bunkers in southern Lebanon. Israel demanded to know whether the night-vision gear was part of a batch sold by Britain to Iran in 2003 for use against drug smugglers.

The sting comes just days after it was revealed that Home Office Ministers signed away crucial British extradition rights with America without holding a single meeting with their US counterparts. The Government last month defeated attempts to block further 'fast-track' extraditions despite a rebellion by backbench Labour MPs.

Critics of the 2003 treaty claim that the burden of proof now required makes it too easy for US authorities to demand that British subjects stand trial in America, as demonstrated by the recent case of the NatWest Three.

British bankers Gary Mulgrew, David Bermingham and Giles Derby fought a long-running but unsuccessful battle to avoid extradition on fraud charges related to the collapse of energy giant Enron. They were extradited in July, and were not allowed to return to the UK despite being granted bail. Their trial will be held in Houston, Texas, next year.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said last night: "We already have a one-sided extradition arrangement that allows people to be bundled off to America without so much as a by-your-leave. Now we have US agents operating in Britain entrapping people into criminality in the first place.

"The Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary must tell us the nature of these agents' operations in Britain."

Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman Nick Clegg said last night: "The case of rendition flights to transport American prisoners for interrogation in other countries raised concerns about the degree to which the American security services run operations on British soil without the full knowledge of the British Government.

"Everyone wants the British and American security services to co-operate well, but we don't want a situation in which American authorities can act on British soil with complete impunity and without regard for British domestic law."

The Metropolitan Police refused to comment on the case. A spokesman said: "We do not discuss our investigative techniques, but we do nothing that is illegal and we work to Home Office guidelines."

A Home Office spokeswoman said: "We are aware that this man is wanted by the US Government on charges of alleged arms sales. The matter is before the courts, so we cannot comment."
Change the country involved to the US. Make it such that LE from one city sets up and executes a sting in another city without informing the second city of the happenings. What do you think the response would be. I have a bulldog attitude toward terrorists and those who supply them, but I also have a thingy for national sovereignty. You just don't go around stomping on another country's sovereignty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top