Donald Rumsfeld, unconvicted war criminal, is upset with the IRS

boing
62

Which version of the Geneva Convention are you reading? Those are specifically referencing the 4th. Articles 17-19 deal with humanitarian rights that were suppressed via direct orders from Rumsfeld. Sorry you stopped at the second one because you didn’t personally see or understand the application. That list are the articles specifically listed by the conglomeration of legal teams in the potential case that was put together but never tried.

If by “bullshity” you mean that “numerous well respected legal teams agree upon”, 23 respected law firms cooperated in putting the potential case together, then yeah…what would they know compared to you? lol. geeze. this isn’t my information btw., I was merely passing it along assuming that you actually wanted the answer to your question. ha! guess not.

Apparently since you couldn’t be bothered to read past the second one you weren’t actually interested in the answer but rather in expressing your pre-arrived at viewpoint. fair enough. carry on with your opinions… if you want them to be informed opinions you may wish to dig into the material a little deeper though…

3 Likes
63

Sorry, was reading the UN charter. My apologies.
While I fully acknowledge that I was reading the wrong document and apologize for my mistake, if I had been correct I don’t see how stopping at what I assumed was a total misapplication of the law was me “not being interested in the answer”. How does that logically follow? I understand I made a mistake and appreciate you pointing it out, but I disagree with your logic.I made the mistake because article 17 of the UN charter actually applies to the situation as well.

If we were arguing over the cause of prohibition and I pointed to the 18th amendment and you misread that amendment as the 18th amendment of the Georgia constitution…I wouldn’t assume you were completely lacking in interest in my statement. You seem eager to see me as some conservative with an agenda.

Though back to article 18 of the geneva convention: I still think you misapply it.
Article 18 of the Geneva convention(my apologies for article 18 of the UN charter):
All effects and articles of personal use, except arms, horses, military equipment and military documents shall remain in the possession of prisoners of war, likewise their metal helmets and gas masks and like articles issued for personal protection. Effects and articles used for their clothing or feeding shall likewise remain in their possession, even if such effects and articles belong to their regulation military equipment.
At no time should prisoners of war be without identity documents. The Detaining Power shall supply such documents to prisoners of war who possess none.
Badges of rank and nationality, decorations and articles having above all a personal or sentimental value may not be taken from prisoners of war.
Sums of money carried by prisoners of war may not be taken away from them except by order of an officer, and after the amount and particulars of the owner have been recorded in a special register and an itemized receipt has been given, legibly inscribed with the name, rank and unit of the person issuing the said receipt. Sums in the currency of the Detaining Power, or which are changed into such currency at the prisoner’s request, shall be placed to the credit of the prisoner’s account as provided in Article 64.
The Detaining Power may withdraw articles of value from prisoners of war only for reasons of security; when such articles are withdrawn, the procedure laid down for sums of money impounded shall apply.
Such objects, likewise the sums taken away in any currency other than that of the Detaining Power and the conversion of which has not been asked for by the owners, shall be kept in the custody of the Detaining Power and shall be returned in their initial shape to prisoners of war at the end of their captivity.
So, you think Donald Rumsfeld personally oversaw the removal of mementos of a personal nature from POWs for no reason? What am I missing?

64

No, but those thing were done upon his orders and much worse. Articles 17-19 are the least grievous of his offenses, I was listing all the violated articles as presented in the potential case that was assembled for thoroughness, I didn’t edit the list to only contain the showstopper ones even though those are there as well, such as torturing enemy combatants or illegal arms sales. The US executed Japanese officers for crimes of war such as water boarding US soldiers, history is interesting that way. Remember Oliver North, what he did was child’s play compared to Rumsfeld and he was officially tried and he acted on orders that were handed down as well, his story was very similar but to a much lesser degree.

I didn’t paint you into any specific political corner, I was simply pointing out that all I had done was as succinctly as possible answer your direct question based on the assembled case against him that hasn’t gone to court. This wasn’t my opinion nor my information, I was simply relaying the case as people who know far more about it then myself had agreed and assembled.

It was my impression that you seemed more interested in refuting the answer without understanding it then in understanding the information provided. that was an assumption on my part and i apologize if it was inaccurate.

I personally care about this issue because the double standard undermines the USA’s position and authority globally and weakens the globally agreed upon conventions for human rights. This is unacceptable and damaging to the US and the world as a whole, and undermines our ability to demand that our own troops receive the same rights we are denying enemy troops. The Geneva Convention was created for this exact reason.

3 Likes
65

Why is he complaining to the IRS when he should know that it’s Congress who creates tax law?

66

See: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 26 Internal Revenue.

Congress doesn’t micromanage. They pass laws that give broad authority to agencies and departments to create administrative law. This is why EPA regulations are law. The IRS has authority from congress to create the forms we use and formulate certain rules. I’m not well versed in tax law so I can’t be more specific, but there is something to be said for complaining to government agencies.

Whenever they change a regulation, the proposed change is opened up to public comment, for one thing. There is a literal newspaper-format document that comes out five days a week to update the CFR it’s changed so regularly. Congress can certainly decide to override, overrule, or change any regulation as it sees fit, but the IRS does the day-to-day decision making.

67

I’m a math wiz (by the standards of most people’s math ability, I’m not claiming to be the next Euler) and taxes confuse the crap out of me. I know plenty of people who are smart and patient and just throw it to a professional service/preparer/software because it’s not intuitive. I tried to show a friend of mine who had a super easy 1040EZ filing how simple it is to use the H&R Block App which I had used earlier this year to e-file. I figured it might relieve some of her stress levels around filing herself.

What I noticed is that the apps punish you if you qualify for EIC, taking money from people who really need it. My friend made so little she had zero taxable income. She would have had a decent chunk of change deducted from her overpayment and credit by e-filing with H&R or any other service. My filing was completely free, despite the fact that I made much more than her. In talking to others, there seems to be a trend that people who qualify for EIC and really need the money as soon as possible are exploited by these tax-prep services and end up getting nickel-and-dimed because they are generally either less financially sophisticated or less confident about their ability to navigate their returns.

In the end I just did her return for her on paper and sent it in the old-fashioned way. But there are numerous legitimate arguments for simplifying the tax preparation process.

One final note: When the fuck did the Internet completely forget what ad hominem means? This has gone from a pet peeve of mine to the realization that there’s a broader problem.

It started with people complaining about it loudly like tattling schoolchildren whenever they were insulted. That was bad enough: Calling you an idiot because your views are wrong isn’t ad hominem. Saying your views are wrong because you’re an idiot is ad hominem.

But now, we’ve completely lost sight of the usefulness of knowing this is a fallacy. Donald Rumsfeld is a horrible person. He can be a horrible person and still be right. This is the definition of the ad hominem fallacy, to argue or insinuate that someone is wrong because of their status, as opposed to actual veracity of their argument.

1 Like
68

I agree with that statement but I still have no problem with attaching “unconvicted war criminal” to every mention of Donald Rumsfeld, just to make sure he never lives it down. If I wrote a blog I’d have headlines like

Donald Rusmfeld, unconvincted war criminal, walks cocker spaniel in park

or

Donald Rusmfeld, unconvincted war criminal, watches "Mad Men" reruns

5 Likes
69

while i agree that it doesn’t add to the headline or article per se…I also personally think he should have to wear a giant scarlet letter style sign stating “Unconvinced War Criminal” everywhere he goes so the he and everyone else doesn’t forget it. :slight_smile: normally i believe in due process and that people innocent until proven guilty and all that, but there is a reason this has never been tried and probably never will, and have you ever seen an interview with the guy about it??? his creepy smug world molester smile will scar your soul.

4 Likes
70

I share your concerns about our adherence to international law. The US needs to be strict adherents to the law. Our recent actions with the Iranian ambassador to the UN is a horrible example of our double standards.

However, I think that most of our recent violations were collective actions where the actors felt that their positions were legally justified. The ultimate blame for this situation could be on the executive in charge of the actions or the lawyers who created a fantasy where these acts were excusable. Targeting an official who was only a “cheerleader” seems to be silly. If the mere mention of Donald Rumsfeld requires the attachment of “unconvicted war criminal”, then that same dishonor should clearly be attached to Ronald Reagan, both Bush presidents, and Barack Obama.

I also understand that “just following orders” is not an excuse from previous trials, however, relaying orders is an excuse. Donald Rumsfeld did not originate most of these orders nor did he personally enforce them. I can understand your anger at him, but as I said previously we need to reserve the bulk of vitriol towards those with the most power to stop this behavior. Targeting Rumsfeld seems petty and pointless.

Finally, I think trying to MAXIMIZE the number of charges while sacrificing accuracy is ridiculous. Article 18 clearly is not applicable. You are allowed to confiscate personal items from prisoners for all kinds of reasons. I doubt any war crime tribunal would convict anyone for a violation of article 18. I don’t mean to obsess over this fact, but if you are going to point out his war crimes I think you should actually point out his war crimes, not flip through the book like a bad Christian missionary and find every line or verse that might casually be related.

As for the Japanese and waterboarding: While I think waterboarding is torture and should not be allowed, I can’t find a single case where “waterboarding” was the sole crime. I guess when you waterboard one guy and vivisect another, people tend to downplay the waterboarding. I am not saying we should keep doing it, but I am saying that I cannot find a single case where the soldiers of Japan were convicted purely for waterboarding. The Nazis waterboarded people too, but similarly I cannot find a case where that was the sole accusation.

Oliver North committed treason. Oliver North was never tried. My memory seems to be that he wiggled out of it with an immunity deal for testifying.

I am interested in debating your accusations, but not because I think your accusations are baseless. I think many people are getting into this cesspit of inaccuracies. If you label Donald Rumsfeld as the “Goebbels” of the US, you are being very inaccurate. If you simply assert that he is part of a cabal of men who should be tried as potential war criminals, I still might question the legitimacy of that accusation. If you say that their actions were deplorable and we should work as a nation to distance ourselves as much as possible from that type of behavior in the future, I would be right there with you.

71

Rumsfeld is a dickhead because A) tax code is unnecessarily complex so that it can include copious loopholes for rich people like him, mostly instrumented by his buddies and B) the IRS does not write tax code, and anyone who’s so much as seen Schoolhouse Rock should know that.

1 Like
72

yeah it probably is, but i think it is a common tactic among lawyers, which is why at the end of the trial you hear, on the accounts of x & y the jury find the defendant not guilty, on the accounts of z the jury finds the defendant guilty. I think they throw everything that applies at the case because multiple guilties compound the sentence and establish a larger picture for the prosecuting case. at least that is my take on their reasoning when putting together the case. not being a lawyer i really don’t know though, i’m proffering my best guess.

also, i think that the position of the president is also largely figurehead fortunately or unfortunately. Rumsfeld was actually the originator of many of the policies and orders, not just the conduit, and even for the orders he just passed along he was the main conduit through which everything was passed. The “was just following orders” not being an excuse only applies to command level or higher positions, because they are supposed to be in a critical decision making position, it doesn’t apply to regular soldiers except in the most grievous of cases where an exception is made. You could say almost all officers were passing orders from higher up, this is true even of the SS officers that the US tried. Very seldom is the top figurehead ever tried except in dictatorships. i’m not condoning any of this, just explaining my understanding of how things currently work.

I think if Rumsfeld was at all apologetic, or took the stance, “yeah sometimes in difficult circumstances you have to make difficult decisions and they aren’t always easy or right”, but when you see the interviews with him he actually has a very smug sociopathinc smile of glee when he discusses those things. He knew fully well what he was doing and took great pleasure in doing it. That is part of what makes him an easy person to pin a lot of this on. imho. anway, those are my thoughts for whatever they are worth.

It would be nice if we were setting the example for other to follow. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
74

I’m not sure I’m reading the subtext, but that first photo is a terribly shopped job… You can see the head behind the head, and a poorly done shadow.

75

Nah, that’s the edge of Saddam’s yarmulke.

76

No real point – just a bit of snark.
Ya, I couldn’t see that edge when I posted from my phone…
There is a little info about the photo half-way down this page history - Was there a deep US involvement with Saddam, Osama and Gaddafi? - Skeptics Stack Exchange

77

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.