Rumsfeld War Crimes Trial
Got your vacation planned?
I'm looking forward to Rumsfeld being put on trial for war crimes.
What struck me most about Rummy's response to McGovern was that it wasn't all that compelling. Rather, someone could conclude the accusations are correct, reasonable, and consistent with protecting the Constitution.
May 19 Report: Kos: War Crimes Preparation -- UN in Geneva Questioning 30+ US Officials Torture.
A reasonable person can conclude the Secretary of Defense lied, knew he was lying, and has violated the laws of war. Ray McGovern didn't really get much of a story from Rumsfeld.
When asked why he lied, Rummy just said, "so wrong, so unfair and so destructive. . .", a variation of the RNC's latest buzzword, "Dangerous".
The thing with a war crimes trial -- that isn't a defense. It's whining.
When someone denies something -- which proves to be true -- this can be used to impeach them as a witness, and raise in the minds of a jury reasonable doubts about their ability to recollect facts. [ Click ]
Hearsay is admissible when it shows that someone is making inconsistent statements. This time, it's not only on tape, but the original denials are also well documented.
This man clearly is lying over matters -- that if were true -- should have been well explaind by the "existnce" of the WMD. There is on evidence justifying his original assertions; nor anything to support his contention that he never asserted there was a lawful basis for war.
Rather, without evidence and teh cotinued denials, it is reasonable to conclude that Rumsfeld has no intention of cooperating with any lawful inquiry, nor is he remorseful for what he has done. Rather, he continues to assert a false reality.
The issue is whether he will be held to account for his war crimes.
He's a criminal. And the public outbursts are warranted. Moreover, given his defiance of the law, and his illegal use of miltiary resources against Americans, the public -- under the principle of reciprocity -- may lawfully ingore those standards of conduct that are imposed on the public.
It is more than appropriate Rumsfeld be publicly ridiculed. He shows no hint to warrant any respect.
This aspect of the conversation well captures how Rumsfeld later qualifies things -- aor asserts that he qualified them -- in order to claim he was not asserting something.
The issue is that Rumsfeld made assertions, they were unqualfieid, and he knew the Congress and public would rely on them. [ Click ]
He knows he's lying. He's misstating history because his history is one of a criminal.
This version captures the denial -- "I did not. . ." -- which is also admissable, and further undermines his credibilty for purposes of impeachment not only on the Iraq WMD issue, but what we were lead to believe about 9-11. [ Click ]
Notice also he's changing it from "knowing" something -- which was relied on -- and sayhing he qualified the statement, which he did not -- assering teh opposite: That he "knew where the suspect sites were."
He's clearly changing history from an affirmative assertion -- which Congress relied on -- to an affirmative assertion about something ambigous. That is not a credible recollection of history, rather it is an intentional misrepresenation which any grand jury could reaonably find as not credible and a basis for perjury, and obstruction of justice.
This comment is curious:
Rumsfeld: "i’m not in the intelligence business."Ridiculous! SecDef's job is to lead the DIA and NSA, both combat tools under his authority.
If SecDef says he's "not in the intellgience business" then he's out of a job.
This version captures the non-sequitor -- if you lie to others, can you rely on their belief in your deception as a basis to prove soemthing else? No.
RUMSFELD: Let me give you an example.
It's easy for you to make a charge, but why do you think that the men and women in uniform every day, when they came out of Kuwait and went into Iraq, put on chemical weapon protective suits? Because they liked the style?
(LAUGHTER)
They honestly believed that there were chemical weapons.
(APPLAUSE)
Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons on his own people previously. He'd used them on his neighbor (AUDIO GAP) the Iranians, and they believed he had those weapons.
We believed he had those weapons.
QUESTION: That's what we call a non sequitur. It doesn't matter what the troops believe; it matters what you believe.
What really matters: Reality, and what Rumsfeld did to mislead the country and his troops relying on his leadership and his intelligence.
Let's think big picture for the moment. Indeed, Rumselfed is war criminal. Put that aside for teh moment.
The issue is what is to be done to apply this insight to where it matters, namely Iran.
Recall Rumsfeld's statements about Iraq -- that they wree more than 5 years away from developing a threat -- ref -- the same can be said of Iran, but double that to 10 years.
Think about What Rumsfeld has done with Iraq: Lied about the threat. Yet, we know there's a longer timewindow for Iran, yet we're asked to believe the same non-sense with Iraq: That "we must act."
Based on Rumsefeld's rewriting of history in 2006, combined with the lack of WMD, and the outright lies to get us into war, the issue before us isn't what is or isn't to be done with Iran; but what is to be done to put the spotlight back on Rumsfeld:
He's a misterable creature, despicable, and should be treated no better than the Nazis were at Nuremburg. The issue is wheter AMericans are going to try him for war crimes; or whether American -- because it refuses to assent to the rule of law -- has to be invaded, and Rumselfed if forcibly produced to the Hague to face trial.
America can't claim it is soverign nation when it defies the laws and fails to apply the lessons of the law and recent history to credibly selfgovern. Unless Rumselfed is tried, the lack of action will indicate to the world that for them to adequately defend themslves against what they saw in Iraq -- unfoudned invasions -- that that may lawfull taken pre-emptive action and lawfully do what the Americans refuse to do: Deliver Rumselfed to a legal tribunal at the Hague.
Rumselfed cannot claim he's being kidnapped. Rather, under the laws of war -- which he volates -- because he's ordered the kidnapping of innocent people, he has lost the right to claim any immunity or special protection. Rather, under teh laws of war he may be lawfully kidnapped in a reciprocal manner to match the kindnappings he has well planned, orchstrated, and supported.
America hs to realize how far this mess has spiraled. Unless you as a natoin force this White House and SEcretary of Defense to assent to the rule of law, other nations may lawfull enter US terrotiroy and extradict Rumsfeld to the Hague. This is another way of saying the US has lost the right to call it self a soverign nation.
An illegitimate goernment will rfuse to face these facts, and make the issue "something else". You can play that game all day long by poitning fiingers at Iran, or claiing "those who talk about crimes are bad peole." The real issue is this leaderships' colelctive decision to refuse to assert the rule of law has exposed all Americans to having their security lawfully violated so that citizens around the globe can ensure they are protected from these outlaws.
In short, the recklessness of a few has jeporadized the security of teh nation. These are not simply issues of Criminal law, but soverignty, legitimatcy, and national integrity. The US is a rogue nation and no different than the Third Reich.
As WWII was winding down, people began to think what should be done. What was to be done with teh leadership. recall tehy had never had a war crimes trila before. Someone had to think of that.
Today, teh same discussion needs to occur: What is teh way forward after the truth is known; who is going to lead this; and what must be done t oset things right.
The Germans after WWI got it wrong leaving the problem in place and that led to WWII. Today in 2006 we need to heed these tyhpes of lessons and realize the issue isn't simply what is good for America, but what is good for the nation of the world order, notion of laws, and the world respect for the rule of law.
The US has no credibiltiy in trying people. It's courts are shams. The trials are not based on real evidence. Rather, the non-sense at Guantanamo has been a sham. There will be constant delays by the White House and DoJ -- they cannot credibly be relied upon to be indepdentn as they are effectively trying themselves.
The way forward is to outlaw the RNC, and have war crimes trial that is indepedent of the US.
posted by Constant @ 5:09 PM
<< Home