News War-criminal prosecution for Rummy?

[turbo]

An international group of lawyers has filed a suit against him for war crimes, including torture. If they fail to get prosecutors to take up the case, they vow to file it in other countries.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061114/pl_afp/usgermanyprisoners

 

[devil-fire]

i don't think the usa recognizes any foreign court in regards to war crimes committed by americans. the reason for this is that if any foreigner accuses an american of a war crime, its because they are trying to slander america and in the unlikely event they are not just trying to slander, then domestic military courts will take care of it.

in the event this guy falls under the definition of a war criminal, i don't think he would be brought to justice in his lifetime. even if there was over whelming evidence to support the charge, he wouldn't even need to accept legal defense and the worst that could happen would be his popularity would go down. since that's not even an issue, he's off scot free.

 

[selfAdjoint]

i don't think the usa recognizes any foreign court in regards to war crimes committed by americans. the reason for this is that if any foreigner accuses an american of a war crime, its because they are trying to slander america and in the unlikely event they are not just trying to slander, then domestic military courts will take care of it.

I take it you are referring to the official or inferred reasons? Because of course these are not at all cogent. Whether or not any court is recognized, the UN charter was adopted as a treaty and confirmed by the Senate, so it is "the law of the land" whether an administration wants to recognize that or not.

i

n the event this guy falls under the definition of a war criminal, i don't think he would be brought to justice in his lifetime. even if there was over whelming evidence to support the charge, he wouldn't even need to accept legal defense and the worst that could happen would be his popularity would go down. since that's not even an issue, he's off scot free.

He would have to stay at home. Should he ever travel to Europe, or even Asia, he would run the risk of being arrested.

 

[Office_Shredder]

And how would the Bush administration feel being the first administration to willingly harbor a convicted war criminal?

Yeah, that would totally be +rep

OK, it may not be the first administration, but certainly the first one to do so in such a high profile case

 

[Anttech]

He would have to stay at home. Should he ever travel to Europe, or even Asia, he would run the risk of being arrested.

The USA has an invasion Law of The Netherlands, if a 'serviceman' was to be arrested and tried in the International Criminal Courts in Den Haag. Rummy isn't a service man, so I wonder if this would still be valid.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm

Edit: Seems so, the law stipulates any Civy who was held there

 

[Amp1]

And how would the Bush administration feel being the first administration to willingly harbor a convicted war criminal?

Ironiclly, the we habor terrorists, and war crimminals already. Read 'Failed State' by Chomsky. And in case (I'm sure it is the case) some of you deride this reference, you should know that he (Chomsky) painstakingly referenced and researched his assertions. in fact some are of his findings are a matter of public record.

 

[devil-fire]

I take it you are referring to the official or inferred reasons? Because of course these are not at all cogent. Whether or not any court is recognized, the UN charter was adopted as a treaty and confirmed by the Senate, so it is "the law of the land" whether an administration wants to recognize that or not.

a little of both inferred and official actually. there was a new court being started (or perhaps just having its first cases? i forget, sorry) that was supposed to be an international, non-biased court focusing on war crimes and crimes against humanity and the usa refused to recognize it or abide by its rulings or something like that (basically, the usa isn't allowing this court to judge amerincans). the reason given for this is that the american officials thought the court would be flooded with americans being brought to trial just for the sake of an effective smear campaign. mind you, i forget if this was a U.N. related court or not. however, doesn't the usa have veto power to interdict just about anything that happens in the UN?

He would have to stay at home. Should he ever travel to Europe, or even Asia, he would run the risk of being arrested.

i bet bush would have something to say about that as long as he is in office

in an unrelated topic, the usa let a man live in california in peace while an interpol arrest request was in force http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/sierraleone/lasnaud.html . just an example of how uncommon it is for someone living in the usa to be subject to justice outside the us while they are friendly with some people in the american government

 

[devil-fire]

The USA has an invasion Law of The Netherlands, if a 'serviceman' was to be arrested and tried in the International Criminal Courts in Den Haag. Rummy isn't a service man, so I wonder if this would still be valid.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm

Edit: Seems so, the law stipulates any Civy who was held there

wow. I am speachless.

The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands...In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the United States obtains immunity from prosecution.