Rumsfeld Can't Be Tried for Torture

[Eki]

I wonder how those tried in the Nurenberg trials "could be held personally responsible for actions taken in connection with their government jobs". Rumsfeld can't even say "he was just following orders", because he could have turned down the job as the Defense Secretary if he had wanted to.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261725,00.html

Rumsfeld Can't Be Tried for Allegations of Torture in Overseas Military Prisons

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

WASHINGTON — Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld cannot be tried on allegations of torture in overseas military prisons, a federal judge said Tuesday.

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.

[tinchote]

Hey Eki, you should now by now, the Nazis were the "bad guys" and these are the "good guys" ;)

[Eki]

these are the "good guys" ;)
Could have fooled me.

[Tomi]

He still can face charges if he goes to some country that respect human rights, i think he can be taken to court as a war criminal too in many countries.

[Rollo]

Of course he can't be tried, they we're probably labelled as illegal combatants which is a lovely term invented recently by the US Military which basically states that if we refuse to recognise that you are an "enemy" we can do with you want we want.

People have been held without cause in Guantanamo Bay for 5 years plus with no hope of trial, simply because you can't hold a trial unless you're charged with something.

Torture of illegal combatants of not recognised enemies apparantly falls outside of the terms of the Geneva Convention, which I'd like to point out that as it's a UN document, the USA ignores its authority anyway.

[Gannex]

Donald Rumsfeld was completely open about every order he gave. He said that the niceties of the Geneva Convention should not be allowed to inmates of Guantanamo Bay. They were only "combatants", not entitled to the privileges accorded prisoners of war. The American people heard all this, did not object, applauded their government and urged it to be tough in the War on Terror. If Rumsfeld is guilty of war crimes, then about fifty percent of the American public are guilty too.

[SOD]

The American people heard all this, did not object, applauded their government and urged it to be tough in the War on Terror.

The American govt only talks tough about being "tough on terrorists" They've already talked with the Iraqi resistances. :s nooze:

[Eki]

Donald Rumsfeld was completely open about every order he gave. He said that the niceties of the Geneva Convention should not be allowed to inmates of Guantanamo Bay. They were only "combatants", not entitled to the privileges accorded prisoners of war. The American people heard all this, did not object, applauded their government and urged it to be tough in the War on Terror. If Rumsfeld is guilty of war crimes, then about fifty percent of the American public are guilty too.
I bet the Germans thought the same when they killed and tortured the "illegal combatants" of the resistance organizations in Europe and their friends and family members. They probably thought "This will save lives of our own boys. We must support the troops".

[EuroTroll]

Donald Rumsfeld was completely open about every order he gave. He said that the niceties of the Geneva Convention should not be allowed to inmates of Guantanamo Bay. They were only "combatants", not entitled to the privileges accorded prisoners of war. The American people heard all this, did not object, applauded their government and urged it to be tough in the War on Terror. If Rumsfeld is guilty of war crimes, then about fifty percent of the American public are guilty too.

I strongly disagree with you there, Gannex.

Firstly, you seem to disregard the civilized provisions of the Geneva Convention as something utterly pussy - something rightly ignored in the real men's world. I would think, though, that perhaps it is not, after all, so very unreasonable for all people to have the right to not be beaten, suspended upside down from the ceiling by chains, urinated on, shocked, sexually humiliated, burned, locked inside boxes and subjected to mock executions. Wouldn't you say?

Secondly, there is a distinct difference between the people who do something evil, and the people who are not involved in doing the evil, but think that perhaps it is not so bad. It is our millennia-long tradition to punish those who do evil, and leave those who didn't do evil unpunished.

Rumsfeld should be held accountable.