I’ll be one of the first to admit that I think Donald Rumsfeld is an idiot and probably guilty of more crimes than can easily be counted.
However, I’m readily opposed to Germany attempting to bring Rumsfeld to trial for his crimes. Unfortunately the crimes were not committed in Germany—at least none that I am aware of, and I think letting Germany prosecute an American for a crime committed on American soil or elsewhere in the world would set a dangerous precedent.
The Center for Constitutional Rights should seek a more reasonable local for a trial—the United States for instance.
Why oppose it? Our own CIA kidnapped a German citizen off the street, threw him in prison, and tortured him. And he didn’t do anything.
The least we can do in return is give them Rummy.
Unfortunately Rumsfeld is not in charge of the CIA.
I am most concerned about the precident set here: while Germany has a reasonable government, if they go after an American and hold a trial, what’s to stop other governments that are less reasonable from grabbing random Americans off the street and putting them on trial in their countries.
As a political stunt this one is way too dangerous in what it means to average Americans who are abroad.
Rumsfeld is no saint, but I don’t want to go on trial somewhere I happen to visit because Rumsfeld was on trial in Germany… Being an American is not a crime.
When I first heard about this German trial against Rumsfeld I was all for it and was happy to hear it. Now I tend to agree with your statement. We’ll see how it goes…
Just a question. What if we really put him on trial AND a court declares him quilty of all charges?
Second: “don’t want to go on trial somewhere I happen to visit because Rumsfeld was on trial in Germany”
What?
Don’t you think this is a little exaggerated?
Do you really think a common US citizen would be charged of War Crimes.
I don’t talk about “evil” states, these states don’t need a Rumsfeld trial for a fake charge.
Volker: If we put Rumsfeld on trial that’s fine. If he’s violated US law, then we should be the ones to try and convict him.
With regards to your second point: No, it is not exaggerated. Like it or not, Americans are a target abroad–Terrorists have kidnapped people because of their citizenship, so it is not so far fetched to believe that rogue states might watch a first world nation try Rumsfeld and think to themselves that they could hold US citizens hostage and put them on trial for real or perceived crimes.
Make no mistake, I think Rumsfeld has made a lot of mistakes and probably violated the law, but I am absolutely, positively, against him going to trial in a third country.
Now, if he goes to Iraq and the Iraqi government decides to put him on trial for the crimes he’s committed in Iraq, more power to them, but I have not heard one iota of evidence that remotely supports the charge that anything Rumsfeld did, in any way, shape, and or form, hurt either Germany or a German citizen. The only charge that has been leveled is that the CIA kidnapped a German citizen–if that’s true then Germany needs to persue it with the USA and the officials in charge of the CIA, but Rumsfeld is not and was not in charge of the CIA.
Let me be absolutely, positively, clear on one point: I am against the USA kidnapping people in other countries. It sets a bad precident (e.g. other countries could come to the USA and kidnap our citizens off the street) that is very difficult to overcome not just legally, but also in the court of world public opinion.
American citzenship is a valuable and wonderful thing to have. It shouldn’t be thrown down the toilet to spite the Republican party. Liberals need to be bigger and better people than the Republicans and do what is right for all citizens. Seeking revenge on Rumsfeld by throwing him to the wolves is only stooping to the level of Republican party behavior.
“If we put Rumsfeld on trial that’s fine. If he’s violated US law, then we should be the ones to try and convict him.”
Yeah, that would be nice.
“With regards to your second point: No, (…) put them on trial for real or perceived crimes.”
That danger you have always,
and it is not limited to US Citizens. And for real crimes, your opinion is US Citizens cannot be trialed by foreign courts, if he committed a crime in this country.
“Make no mistake, I think Rumsfeld has made a lot of mistakes and probably violated the law, but I am absolutely, positively, against him going to trial in a third country.”
Why? Hypothetical, he has done what the charges say and your country isn’t to prosecute him.
“Now, if he goes to Iraq and the Iraqi government(…) but Rumsfeld is not and was not in charge of the CIA.”
That isn’t the point,see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction
and Deutsche Welle http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2237323,00.html.
“Let me be absolutely, positively, (…) but also in the court of world public opinion.”
I didn’t think you would endorse these actions. And
I don’t think that the US is
an “evil empire”. But with this, we have definitely a splitted opinion.
“American citzenship is a valuable and (…) level of Republican party behavior.
Yes like the ones of the most european states. But such a thing cannot and shouldn’t be a Freifahrtschein (sry, cannot find an english expression for that one, I hope you know what I mean).
I don’t know if I really understand the last part, so
no comment on this.
Points to make, in no particular order:
1) If an American commits a crime whilst abroad, I fully support the arrest and trial of that citizen in the country where the crime was committed.
2) I’ll admit that it is highly unlikely that Rumsfeld will be prosecuted for his alleged crimes within the USA.
3) I do not believe in Universal Jurisdiction: The precedent set by legitimate first world countries will only encourage rogue states (e.g. North Korea, Venezuela) to hold kangaroo court cases in an effort to gain global sympathy. This endangers everybody, not just Americans, however I make no apologies for putting Americans first. I also accept that Germany should put Germans first.
Beyond the basic legal issues, I have no idea what putting Rumsfeld on trial would achieve. If he is convicted, will everything be magically fixed? Unlikely. The effort put forth to go after him will only divert resources from more important issues and causes.
I believe that going to trial in America would be a mistake. Look at who are holding the seats in the courtroom, do you really believe a fair trial would be possible? Sometimes to reach outside of yourself gives you more honesty and I believe that is what’s trying to be done hear.
Putting Rumsfeld on trial will do many things. It would not magically fix things, but think of it this way… If convicted for war crimes the case will set a president which could be used to go after others, like the one who approved those war crimes. This is a way to get the ball rolling.
There is a point at which you must see right and see wrong and punish those in the wrong from a to z to discourage others from following in the footsteps of the wrong. Rumsfeld might be a smaller fish now that he has stepped down, but lets not encourage his behavior by letting it go unnoticed…that’s how we got where we are today, letting all these things go without dealing with them. This is a step to the more important issues, and without it we’ll have to be good jumpers to get to the next step. It’s like taking down drug dealers. Pick up a small timer and see what information he can give you so you can bust the guy bringing in a truck load of cocaine every week. and by the way, i believe we are gaining more respect in other countries by going after the leaders committing crime. That’s what Germany’s people want, so don’t worry about travelling, just don’t go to north korea any time soon.
Rumsfeld has retroactive immunity dealing specifically with war crimes in our nation because of a law recently passed by congress….guess who thought of that law? that’s why we can’t do it in America- duh.
The U.N. cannot handle this case because in 1986 the u.s. withdrew from the court and only follows it’s jurisdiction on a case by case basis, why would Bush ever agree to that one.
We could not have Rumsfeld on trial here before he stepped down because International law states that he would have immunity while still in office.
I hope this explains some things…I just hope the convention has proof to take to trial
It doesn’t matter that Germany wants to try Herr Rumsfeld. They should name Herr Cheney, Senor Gonzales and Herr Wolfowitz as co-conspirators. George Bush should be mentionned as a possible co-conspiritor, but he must be proven to be culpable and of such mental capability as can understand what being on trial means as he is not responsible. He is just a figure head. He is only marginaly aware of what is going on around him. The bottom line is that they can charge all of them. They can be called to be extradited and denied by our justice department before Bush leaves office. All that matters is that they are charged, or tried in court or tried in abcentia. It now has become their legacy. I think it is a great idea, and the least that Germany could do. Germany is a soveriegn nation, that the above mentioned rogues called for, an inocent civilian citizen, to be kidnapped and rendered to another country and tortured. These are crimes against international law. Not just German law. Adolph Hitler, Slobadan Melosevic, Sadam Hussein and George Bush all invaded different sovereign nations in a stated “Preemptive” attack when it was obvious that none of those countries ever intended any harm to their persecutors and invaders. That is against international law. Those men and women in the Bush administration did those things and should be held accountable for them. As a citizen of the US and a retired military officer, I see torture and rendition as reprehensible and dispicable behavior only capable of being perpetrated by the most criminal and evil of minds. That is why I lumped them with the despots of modern history.