Ok, interesting. So it is your position that every member of the Reagan and H. W. Bush cabinet who was involved in the sale of chemical weapons material to the Iraqis is a war criminal? That should only be a few hundred people. This action was aided by foreign actors, so I guess most of the diplomats involved are also war criminals. We are now in the category of thousands of war criminals. Is Syria a war criminal for creating chemical weapons, while chemical weapons are not covered under anything else referred to as âinternational lawâ, it is part of the âChemical Weapons Conventionâ, which Syria and North Korea have refused to sign.
Anyway, just with this chemical weapons trade we have 1,000 un-prosecuted war criminals.
Now, many countries continue to create, research, and stockpile chemical weapons despite âinternational agreementsâ against such action. Does that make every administration and all of those involved responsible for war crimes? If so, we are now in to the 5-digit range. Potentially 20,000 war criminals. Obama has not stopped chemical weapons stockpiling, so he is also a war criminal, as are his secretaries of state and much of the defense department.
All I am saying is that while you might be able to make an argument on a technicality, it would actually make many thousands of people guilty of the same crime. If you want to be vitriolic towards one âcriminalâ, you need to use the same vitriol for ALL possible criminals.
And, really, when these guys [who have a tax bracket comfortably high enough that theyâre taking advantage of multiple exemptions and paying accountants much money to do so] complain about the tax code, all that really is is code for wanting a (very low) flat tax so that theyâre effectively paying even less.
Itâs the 1% wet dream to push the burden of the income tax onto some sort of regressive consumptive tax, even though the wealthy already pay incredibly low taxes: eg, Romneyâs 14% tax rate.
Sure, if you pretend Rumsfeld was just any other arms dealer, thereâs no reason to single him out. But in that comparison you ignored that Iraq was not stockpiling but using chemical weapons while the deal were being made; ignored that the illegality of that use was used by Rumsfeld himself to justify the American war; ignored that he played any notable role arranging either of those things; and of course still ignored anything to do with that illegal war and allowing illegal interrogations as if they were not the main crimes in question.
In short, Rumsfeldâs not a war criminal if we ignore the reasons he is, but thatâs a spectacularly dishonest take. As for the argument that we have to call everyone else by the same standards, you let me anyone else who actually did the same things â not just your âitâs almost the sameâ strawmen like arms trading, but the crimes weâre pointing out he actually was behind â and I bet everyone will be more than happy to call them a war criminal too.
Why not? Why would it be so bad if everyone who engineers an aggressive war based on their own weapons deal and works to allow violations of the Geneva convention gets called that?
I was absolutely astounded when I discovered US citizens had to pay income tax there even if they live and work on the other side of the fucking planet.
No, I reckon that the best way to go after war criminals, is to start with the ones right at the fucking top, then work down to a point where everyone is pretty much chill with the ones that are left, because there comes such a point⌠Itâs been tried before this one time.
Reagan directed Rumsfeld to make the deal. Considering that Rumsfeld wasnât even a member of the cabinet or the official presidential staff under Reagan, I would assume you would have to convict the whole cabinet. They also made us of the CIA.
I am not making a strawman. If Rumsfeld, a private citizen, was directing a clandestine operating to give chemical weapons to Iraq, I would be amazed. I am fairly confident that the exchange was authorized by someone else. I believe he brokered the deal, but the people who authorized the exchange must be AT LEAST as culpable as Rumsfeld if not more culpable. Are you honestly arguing that those who authorized the deal arenât greater war criminals than the individual who brokered the deal? If you are correct, we need to dig up Nietzsche.
No, but more than one person can share guilt for something, and following orders was determined not to be a defense against war crimes a long time ago. And calling the special envoy a mere private citizen still seems dishonest, like calling the president a government employee. But yes, I donât doubt you can find war criminals in Reaganâs cabinet too.
But at any rate I donât think the case of Rumsfeldâs guilt hinges on that, and I only detailed it to clarify AcerPlatanoidesâs description, since it seemed to have escaped you what Rumsfeld justifying the war with his own receipts was about. I think his guilt is much more plain from that illegal invasion and the Geneva violations he helped create, which you seem reluctant ot address. What exactly do we lose by calling him on all the damage heâs done there?
I am not reluctant, I am just not particularly well-versed on the potential acts that violate international law that Mr. Rumsfeld might be involved in during his career.
My point is mostly that adding the label âunconvicted war criminalâ in the headline for Mr. Rumsfeld is inflammatory but also serves no purpose. There is a long list of people who are similarly culpable for all of the crimes that Mr. Rumsfeld is accused of and those people rarely receive this type of treatment. This all seems to be some extension of âBush-bashingâ which was popular in certain circles.
I guess there really isnât any room for that type of talk around here. Mob mentality rules and I must be the enemy for trying to point out the ridiculously inflammatory and pointless gesture of referring to Rumsfeld as a war criminal. He may be a war criminal, but he is pretty low on a long list of un-prosecuted war criminals(some whoâs name we will never know).
Werenât we politically aligned with Iraq during that period(without many people questioning that relationship) and wasnât it the US who originally backed the rise of the Baâath party to power?
There were standing orders to shoot civilians on sight. Ask pretty much any marine who served in Iraq whether they were ordered to fire only at armed individuals, or if their orders were to assume that any male over a certain age, who just happened to be in the contested area was an insurgent, and to shoot to kill.
Iâve got a good friend who followed these orders and is so haunted by them (rightfully so) that heâs on a cocktail of psych meds and has attempted to off himself a couple of times. In his particular case, it turns out that not every ~13 year old male happens to be an armed insurgentâŚ
This is not in any way meant to diminish your point that war crimes did not happen earlier, in fact, beyond Tokyo, crimes in Vietnam are pretty well documented.
The real war criminal is Cheney. How many Americans were killed because he easily convinced Bush that Iraq had WMDs (who then duped the rest of the government, which was still pissed about 9/11 and looking for revenge) and forced an unecessary, pointless war for the sole purpose of producing profits for Haliburton. Talk about scum.
You should really consider going into criminal defense law.
âLadies and gentlemen of the jury, adding the label âmurdererâ to my clientâs criminal record is inflammatory but also serves no purpose. He may be a murderer, but he is pretty low on a long list of un-prosecuted murderers(some whoâs name we will never know).â
Iâll assume this is a real question that you actually want answered and not just a setupâŚ
Rumsfeld is clearly guilty of innumerable war crimes: The Geneva Convention:Article 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 50, 55, 56, 59, 68, 69, 147. US Army Field Manual 27-10: US Federal law and military regulations as defined in the US Army Field Manual 27-10.
He is also guilty of breaking several international âcrimes against humanityâ laws that are recognized by the united states, which is far worse of an offense.
As all previous cases have ruled⌠âI received ordersâ does not absolve anyone in a command position from any of these crimes, or else every single SS officer would have been off the hook. Iâm not arguing against further investigations into other involved parties, but he was the linchpin of most of this and almost all of it either originated with or went through him.
[quote=âBobo, post:54, topic:28677, full:trueâ]
There were standing orders to shoot civilians on sight. ⌠Iâve got a good friend who followed these orders and is so haunted by them[/quote]
Not just the marines, the army too, my brother served the max tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan and he said the exact same thing and it pretty much messed him up. When protecting forward stations they were instructed to shout âstopâ 3 times (in english) and if the person didnât stop to shoot on site, regardless of age. They were specifically told that children were being trained as suicide bombers and that even children were potential enemy combatants. so sad.
How did he violate Article 18? Article 18 concerns violating religious freedoms.
I stopped at that point because it seems highly âbullshittyâ and I figured the rest were too.
Article 18:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
