HOW 'BOUT THAT EU!!!!

[Okieflyer]

What a bunch of liberal pansies!:mad:


Germany May Bring Charges Against American Leaders (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html)

We probably need to dig up all those Americans that died and were buried there and bring them home.:(

[soonerinabilene]

um pot... you got a phone call from a black guy named kettle on line one.

[OCUDad]

Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides "universal jurisdiction" allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world.Am I the only person who finds it ironic that Germany, of all countries, believes it has universal legal jurisdiction? Why not, say, Uganda?

[OCUDad]

Apparently not. :D

[Vaevictis]

shrug, they figure that if Americans can prosecute Germans for war crimes...

[Vaevictis]

And in case you mentioned the really interesting part: Karpinski is apparently going to testify that "it was clear the knowledge and responsibility {for what happened at Abu Ghraib} goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld."

She probably has an axe to grind, but that's a pretty damning statement on its own. I'm interested to see what specific testimony she'll offer.

[Widescreen]

She's probably going to offer testimony of the woman scorned.

[mdklatt]

She probably has an axe to grind, but that's a pretty damning statement on its own. I'm interested to see what specific testimony she'll offer.

A link to a blog, no doubt.

[Jerk]

So...are they gonna send their SS Totenkopf Division over here to arrest Rumsfeild or what?

[OCUDad]

So...are they gonna send their SS Totenkopf Division over here to arrest Rumsfeild or what?Why not? They can enter the country easily if they come through Mexico.

[Vaevictis]

So...are they gonna send their SS Totenkopf Division over here to arrest Rumsfeild or what?

Probably not. But if the court finds him guilty, you're going to find very, very few Bush administration officials leaving the USA after 2008.

[Vaevictis]

And we'll probably have the pleasure of enduring all kinds of crazy assed extradition ****-fits and general inability for our various law enforcement agencies to cooperate.

... which has the potential to be very, very bad in so far as breaking up terrorist activities.

[Jerk]

Probably not. But if the court finds him guilty, you're going to find very, very few Bush administration officials leaving the USA after 2008.

sheesh.

Do you guys know that as right wing nutz as I am, if a foriegn gov't tried to come over here and arrest Clinton, I would go through the friggin' roof?

Maybe they'll indict Bush next. Then come to arrest him, and our secret service will have a shoot-out with the UN/Euro-trash police force.

[Vaevictis]

As I say, they probably won't try to apprehend anyone on American soil. The escalation in tension that would cause would be insane.

On someone else's soil? That's another story entirely.

... and we're lucky that nobody who's going to try to pursue this is like the Israelis. They'd try them in secret, and apprehend them if practicable, or assassinate them if not.

[Jerk]

As I say, they probably won't try to apprehend anyone on American soil. The escalation in tension that would cause would be insane.

On someone else's soil? That's another story entirely.

... and we're lucky that nobody who's going to try to pursue this is like the Israelis. They'd try them in secret, and apprehend them if practicable, or assassinate them if not.

Yeah, I read a book about the Mossad. Those Israelis are like that football player we had last year: "Imgonnagetchya"

[Okieflyer]

um pot... you got a phone call from a black guy named kettle on line one.

Your probably right. We just elected a bunch of liberal pansies too!

God help us, we're becoming like Europe!:(

[Ike]

Yeah, I read a book about the Mossad. Those Israelis are like that football player we had last year: "Imgonnagetchya"

But the Israelis typically don't get burned on the deep route. ;)

[Harry Beanbag]

Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.


It still ****es me off to no end the uproar and political blood lust that this has caused. This is not ****ing torture! In America, you know the most civilized nation on earth, these things are commonplace in military life, bootcamp, fraternities, some careers, message boards, and marriages. What a joke.

[Dio]

shrug, they figure that if Americans can prosecute Germans for war crimes...

Yeah, 'cause we exterminated 6 million prisoners at Abu Graib. :rolleyes:

[Vaevictis]

Yeah, 'cause we exterminated 6 million prisoners at Abu Graib. :rolleyes:

Never said we did.

Just sayin that if we can set up courts for war crimes carried out by Germans outside of America, there's no logical reason why they can't set up courts for war crimes carried out by Americans outside of Germany.

(other than the fact that we have more guns, that is.)

[Harry Beanbag]

Never said we did.

Just sayin that if we can set up courts for war crimes carried out by Germans outside of America, there's no logical reason why they can't set up courts for war crimes carried out by Americans outside of Germany.

(other than the fact that we have more guns, that is.)


Your analogy doesn't make any sense.

The Germans were tried by the U.S. and its allies for war crimes that were committed against Americans and their allies for the most part in Germany, or at least on the same continent, in Germany.

They want to prosecute Americans for war crimes (using that term very loosely) that were committed against Iraqis, Saudis, Afghans, etc. in the Middle East and the West Indies, in Germany.

[Vaevictis]

Your analogy doesn't make any sense.

If you commit a war crime, you can be held accountable by just about anyone, assuming that they can get their hands on you. Jurisdiction doesn't matter, ESPECIALLY when the power responsible for the war crimes is unable or unwilling to do the prosecution themselves.

Bitch about it all you like, but when it comes to prosecuting war crimes, the only thing that matters is if you have enough guns to make it stick.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

If you commit a war crime, you can be held accountable by just about anyone, assuming that they can get their hands on you. Jurisdiction doesn't matter, ESPECIALLY when the power responsible for the war crimes is unable or unwilling to do the prosecution themselves.

Not in the good ol' United States of America you can't. And here's why, from my understanding, Article III, Sec. 2 of that venerable document, the Constitution.


Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

[Vaevictis]

The Constitution holds very little weight when you step off of US soil and a bunch of local police grab your *** and ship you off to Germany.

Which is why I said that if this stuff goes down, you probably won't see many (ex) Bush administration officials leaving the USA.

[SoonerBorn68]

shrug, they figure that if Americans can prosecute Germans for war crimes...

This is the dumbest post I've ever read.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

The Constitution holds very little weight when you step off of US soil and a bunch of local police grab your *** and ship you off to Germany.

Which is why I said that if this stuff goes down, you probably won't see many (ex) Bush administration officials leaving the USA.

C'mon, man. That's insanity.

Let's count some reasons why. Not as an argument in line with any of the debates posted here, but reasons as to why such a theory doesn't hold much weight. Believe it or not, the prospect spooks me. But faith in the rule of law and the civilized world's adherence to settles me.

1) The US non-participation in the International Criminal Court. Strictly for this reason, along with prosecution for the ICC declaring in February 2006 that no investigation would be pursued in regards to "war crimes" being committed by coalition forces. Through the US's strong stance in non-participation, our nation has established a series of extradition treaties with participating nations to ensure that, as per Article III, Sec. 2, any and all crimes accused of US officials/military bodies will be tried as prescribed in our nation's body of laws.

2) Jurisdiction. Without declaration and investigation by the ICC, there is no established jurisdiction for arrest. It'd be no different than Canada bringing charges against Joe Citizen for stealing a car in Mexico. Without the ICC, no jurisdiction.

3) The America Service Members Protection Act of 2002. Specifically, Sec. 2002, subsections 7 through 11. There's a few nuggets of beautiful American sovereignty (sp?) in this legislation, a few of which I'll share.


The United States Government has an obligation to protect the members of its Armed Forces, to the maximum extent possible, against criminal prosecutions carried out by the International Criminal Court.


No less than members of the Armed Forces of the United States, senior officials of the United States Government should be free from the risk of prosecution by the International Criminal Court, especially with respect to official actions taken by them to protect the national interests of the United States.


The United States will not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over United States nationals.

This is the one I like the best.


The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.

That ease your mind a lil', Vae?

[Vaevictis]

My mind doesn't need easing. Germany probably has the guts to do the trial, but they probably don't have the guts to execute its findings (presuming that they find anyone guilty).

Like I've said -- the only thing that matters in international war crimes prosecution is whether you have enough guns to make it stick. Germany probably doesn't, and even if it does, it's probably not willing to roll the dice on it.

I mean seriously, do you think that if someone in some bum**** country in Africa had the same laws we had on war crimes jurisdiction went out and committed war crimes that we would give a rats *** about those laws? No. We wouldn't. If we wanted to prosecute them, we'd load up some Marines, we'd go grab their ***, and we'd prosecute them. Why? Because we've got more guns. That's all that matters.

[SoonerBorn68]

If you commit a war crime, you can be held accountable by just about anyone, assuming that they can get their hands on you. Jurisdiction doesn't matter, ESPECIALLY when the power responsible for the war crimes is unable or unwilling to do the prosecution themselves.

So, do you believe people in the Bush administration commited war crimes?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

But it's not a matter of "guts" and "having the guns to make it stick".

There's no ground to stand on from jump.

Not without the ICC, there isn't. And even WITH the ICC, good luck. It simply won't happen because of the political and economic pressure the Service Members Protection Act allows us now.

So how, Vae? Because you think it could go down like that? I don't want to be argumentative, but that particular point you're sellin' just doesn't jive, my friend.

[Vaevictis]

Not without the ICC, there isn't. And even WITH the ICC, good luck. It simply won't happen because of the political and economic pressure the Service Members Protection Act allows us now.

So how, Vae? Because you think it could go down like that? I don't want to be argumentative, but that particular point you're sellin' just doesn't jive, my friend.

Look, war crimes prosecution has always and will always boil down to three things:

1. Do you have the ability to apprehend the defendant.
2. Do you have the ability to keep the defendant once apprehended.
3. Are you willing to pay the price associated with #1 and #2.

There are or are have been plenty of war criminals out there that never got prosecuted because nobody was willing to pay the price to go get them and/or hold them.

War crimes prosecution, pretty much by definition, cross jurisdictional boundaries.

And it's not unprecedented to prosecute people for war crimes ex post facto -- ie, the stuff you're prosecuting them for never really had a law against them prior to them committing the crime. The first time "crimes against humanity" was ever charged (iirc) was ex post facto against Turkey.

So, basically, war crimes are whatever the person with the most guns says they are. Even if Rumsfeld committed war crimes, if he's smart and stays within the United States, he'll never be held accountable for it... unless WE are the ones prosecuting him. Why? Because we have the most guns.

Even if he steps foot outside, he probably never will be -- because we have the most guns.

That's all it boils down to. If you have the most guns, you get to decide who gets prosecuted for war crimes, and even what a war crime is. Nothing else matters.

[Vaevictis]

Really, I'm not saying anything that shouldn't be readily apparent.

The only reason our legal system can hold criminals accountable is because, well, our government has the most guns.

So it is with war crimes.

[StoopTroup]

That's it...

I'll no longer allow my Wife to drink Heineken.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Where ya goin', General?

BERLIN!

I'm gonna personally shoot that paper hangin' son of a bitch!

[Harry Beanbag]

That's it...

I'll no longer allow my Wife to drink Heineken.


Nah, you can let her. Heineken is Dutch. :)

[Vaevictis]

I'll no longer allow my Wife to drink Heineken.

So, out of curiousity, exactly who is getting punished that way? ;)

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I dare them to take any American and arrest them for stupid reasons...If we had huge balls we would give them 4 days to return him and if not, we level Germany...again!! Also in Iraq, we need to stop being pussies. I bet if we flattened Fallajuh and Sadr City...people would start paying attention.

[Jerk]

I dare them to take any American and arrest them for stupid reasons...If we had huge balls we would give them 4 days to return him and if not, we level Germany...again!! Also in Iraq, we need to stop being pussies. I bet if we flattened Fallajuh and Sadr City...people would start paying attention.

Lord Jesus, man. Did you get hit over the head with something heavy or overdose on something?

btw- I agree.

[WILBURJIM]

... Germany probably has the guts to do the trial...
I does not take guts to put Rumsfeld on trial, and in this case it may be a lack of guts. Self-hate, guilt and self rightousness play a part but, it's mostly fear of the muslim world. Afraid of the jihad. Germany is appeasing it's muslim masters and muslim population.

[Vaevictis]

I dare them to take any American and arrest them for stupid reasons...If we had huge balls we would give them 4 days to return him and if not, we level Germany...again!!

It wouldn't happen that way.

There's no way Germany would take them unless they had some kind of deterrent that they thought might prevent us from doing that.

If it did go down, Germany would probably have been assured by various allies of appropriate levels of backup.

For example, if Germany, France, the UK and Russia got together in a bloc on the issue, the math on the whole "oh yeah, we're just going to level Germany" would change considerably. You'd be talking another World War at that point.

Do we win that? Probably, if we do a WWII style mobilization.

Does the American public get behind it enough to do a WWII style mobilization? My bet is no.

[Harry Beanbag]

This thread is ridiculously stupid.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

This thread is ridiculously stupid.

I ridiculously agree.

[jrsooner]

All in all guys, Germany won't do squat. They'll belly ache. We'll send an ambassador over there, and tell them we'll remove our bases to "happier" nations around their borders, instead of leaving all that US$$$ and protection in their little nation. They'll drop it in exchange for our bases. :)

[OklahomaTuba]

If this did happen, Germany can say auf wiedersehen to our military bases and a lot of its tourism.

BTW, this general is committing treason by doing this, giving aid and comfort to the enemy, in this case, a member of AQ and the 20th hijacker of 9/11.

Rummy should bring those charges up before he leaves office IMO.

[WILBURJIM]

It wouldn't happen that way.

There's no way Germany would take them unless they had some kind of deterrent that they thought might prevent us from doing that.

If it did go down, Germany would probably have been assured by various allies of appropriate levels of backup.

For example, if Germany, France, the UK and Russia got together in a bloc on the issue, the math on the whole "oh yeah, we're just going to level Germany" would change considerably. You'd be talking another World War at that point.

Do we win that? Probably, if we do a WWII style mobilization.

Does the American public get behind it enough to do a WWII style mobilization? My bet is no.

It won't happen at all (Rumsfeld being detained by the Germans or anyone else). Germany or a "coalition" of many nations won't risk WW for some minor Geneva convention violations. This was not genocide, and the germans should know genocide. Some bad guys were misstreated and Germany wants to show they are sympathetic to the muslims with a show trial.

The whole "bigger guns" arguement does not make any sense in this instance.

This is nothing but appeasement by some German multiculturalists.

[Okieflyer]

It won't happen at all (Rumsfeld being detained by the Germans or anyone else). Germany or a "coalition" of many nations won't risk WW for some minor Geneva convention violations. This was not genocide, and the germans should know genocide. Some bad guys were misstreated and Germany wants to show they are sympathetic to the muslims with a show trial.

The whole "bigger guns" arguement does not make any sense in this instance.

This is nothing but appeasement by some German multiculturalists.

Exactly! This is the only way THESE liberal idiots (no, not all liberals are idiots) can make a statement. Because they don't have the guts or convictions to actually go after countries that do torture.

[Newbomb Turk]

...liberal idiots...

I'm telling Jim you think he's an idiot.

[Okieflyer]

I'm telling Jim you think he's an idiot.

Hey!:eek:

I said not all liberals are idiots!:P

[85Sooner]

As I say, they probably won't try to apprehend anyone on American soil. The escalation in tension that would cause would be insane.

On someone else's soil? That's another story entirely.

... and we're lucky that nobody who's going to try to pursue this is like the Israelis. They'd try them in secret, and apprehend them if practicable, or assassinate them if not.

Thats will happen about one hour before the entire UN building in NY becomes property of the citizenry and is cleaned out by the citizenry.

[Vaevictis]

The whole "bigger guns" arguement does not make any sense in this instance.


If not the threat of bigger guns, what then stops the Germans from sending in a team to extract Rumsfeld?

Surely it's not his winning personality.


It won't happen at all (Rumsfeld being detained by the Germans or anyone else). Germany or a "coalition" of many nations won't risk WW for some minor Geneva convention violations. This was not genocide, and the germans should know genocide. Some bad guys were misstreated and Germany wants to show they are sympathetic to the muslims with a show trial.

Also, I'm not saying that the scenario is in any way probable. I'm saying that it's the ONLY way it would ever happen. No way Germany stands up to us on their own; they no they can't win that battle. The only way -- improbable as it is -- is if they have enough backing that they think that they can win a staredown.

Of course, it's not like similarly improbable things haven't happened in the past. 10 years ago, if you had told someone that the USA would invade Iraq on what turned out to be totally false pretenses, and that the USA would preside over stuff like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, people would say, "What? No ****ing way. Not America. They're the leaders of the free world. The free world doesn't do **** like that. That's stuff the Soviets do."

[Harry Beanbag]

If not the threat of bigger guns, what then stops the Germans from sending in a team to extract Rumsfeld?


Well, there are many things that are stopping them. Not the least of which is that the charges are completely ludricrous and have no merit.




Of course, it's not like similarly improbable things haven't happened in the past. 10 years ago, if you had told someone that the USA would invade Iraq on what turned out to be totally false pretenses, and that the USA would preside over stuff like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, people would say, "What? No ****ing way. Not America. They're the leaders of the free world. The free world doesn't do **** like that. That's stuff the Soviets do."

Finally we're getting closer to your true feelings. You actually do think nude pyramids and loud music is torture and Americans should be punished like the Nazis and Imperial Japanese were.

[Okieflyer]

Finally we're getting closer to your true feelings. You actually do think nude pyramids and loud music is torture and Americans should be punished like the Nazis and Imperial Japanese were.

Yup, that's exactly the way they feel. They throw torture around like they do fascist!

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Nude pyramids last time I checked are no exactly a U.S. Policy. The whole Abu Ghraib thing is what happens when morans are allowed to make decisions. Listen to the ugly chick that points...Dumb as a sack of bricks. Let's analzye the dumb things done

1) The most ignorant aspect is taking the damm pictures and sending them to people. Ignore the fact that making a nude pyramid is stupid enough but being crazy enough to actually be photographed while involved leads me to believe these people are even dumber than John Kerry. A similar level of stupid would have been say O.J. had taken photo's while stabbing his wife and then sent them to his buddies.

2) Seriously naked pyramids...that isn't exactly a "gathering vital information" protocol. What was it they said...we was only following orders from interrogators...seriously how exactly does making them wear a collar or stacking naked men going to make them say "Wow this is torture"

3) Why haven't people been reporting how the prisoners have been begging for the U.S. to come back since the Iraqi's have taken control. Why? Because our idea of torture in this country is slightly inconviencing them like "not allowing them to potty every time they ask" Whereas in Iraq Torture is shoving a flaming brand up your rectal region.

Another thing is the very people that are up in arms about torturing are the same *******s that think the CIA somehow brainwashed Sirhan Sirhan and John Lennon's killer to murder them. Now our federal government has the skills to completely erase memories and implant intent but doesn't have the ability to coax answers out of terrorist. You can't call the intelligence agencies super genius's one minute and call them retards the next.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Oh and btw...my neighbors play their music too loud....when is Germany going to charge them with war crimes against me :P

[Okieflyer]

Oh and btw...my neighbors play their music too loud....when is Germany going to charge them with war crimes against me :P

Yes, but do they make you get into a naked pyramid?;)

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

They are cute enough that if they asked...I wouldn't hesitate a second ;)

[Newbomb Turk]

Yes, but do they make you get into a naked pyramid?;)

keep that kinky stuff up in Piedmont.

[Harry Beanbag]

Nothing better than a game of strip Twister with a couple of hawt chicks.

[Okieflyer]

keep that kinky stuff up in Piedmont.

We don't do naked pyramids in Piedmont. It's nekked bales.:D

[85Sooner]

Of course, it's not like similarly improbable things haven't happened in the past. 10 years ago, if you had told someone that the USA would invade Iraq on what turned out to be totally false pretenses, and that the USA would preside over stuff like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, people would say, "What? No ****ing way. Not America. They're the leaders of the free world. The free world doesn't do **** like that. That's stuff the Soviets do."


I really doubt that. Anyone who doesn't believe that torture, murder etc. happens from anyone in a case of war is living in fantasy land. Although from what I've seen, the gitmo and abu accusations were more like frat initiations rather than torture.

It was the Media and the anti war crowd who kept screaming the loudest. If the media and those anti- war characters were around in WW2 we would be speaking German. That is simply the fact of the environment we now find ourselves in.

[soonerscuba]

Watching Americans try to justify torture makes me sad in my pants.

[Okieflyer]

Watching Americans try to justify torture makes me sad in my pants.

Oh my, not another one. Here we go again with "torture".:rolleyes:

Go look up Elton, he'll make you happy in your pants.:D

[MamaMia]

So, what can we do to get them back? :pop:

[Okieflyer]

So, what can we do to get them back? :pop:

Hey! Maybe we could sue them and make them pay us back the money we spent on the Marshall plan after WW2...with interest!:eek:

Do you think we got our money's worth?:confused:

[olevetonahill]

Just my 2 cents
If you are gonna **** up the the bad guys . Make Damn sure there arnt any cameras ;)
I Have a hard time believing that 2 of these posters are American :eek:

[picasso]

blow me Europe.

[picasso]

ahem. again, we are the only freaking country to do anything in this world. whether you view it to be good or bad. we always step up to the plate.
the euro's always leave it to us (then criticize and moan and groan or follow in line).

stick your necks out now and then bitches.

oh yeah, and try to match our foreign aid, you small town huzzies.