 
Writers
Special topic/genre writers
On-call theme writers
Editors
Project leaders
Sounds interesting?
Click here for more info.See news aboutThere will be no page refresh, so check it out.
Since the George W. Bush regime came to power, there have been numerous breaches of International Law, breaches of UN and other Conventions including the Geneva Convention. Those breaches are enough in severity and seriousness to warrant an international investigation as to charges being brought against former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
The allegations speak for themselves, highlighting the way the US Administration does business regardless of international protocols and other procedures as required by international law.
Here are some the allegations that can be brought against Rumsfeld.
1.)
It is alleged that Mr Rumsfeld, in company with others, knowingly mislead the United Nations in relation to the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, knowing the information as representation to the UN to be untrue and false.
2.)
It is alleged that Mr Rumsfeld, in company with others, commenced an illegal war against Iraq, despite such a war not being approved by the UN Security Council and despite the fact that the reasons for such a war being commenced was based on false and misleading information.
3.)
As the occupying powers in Iraq, together with the UK and Australia, the US failed to ensure the safety of civilians and others, as was their responsibility as the occupying powers. Mr Rumsfeld being one of the architects of the occupation, failed to ensure that international obligations in relation to the occupation of Iraq were carried out.
4.)
As Secretary of Defence, Mr Rumsfeld and others were responsible for the proven human rights abuses carried out against prisoners in US detention centres in Iraq by US military personnel and others.
5.)
As Secretary of Defence, Mr Rumsfeld and others presided over the illegal capture, transportation and detention of civilians.
6.)
As Secretary of Defence, Mr Rumsfeld and others presided over the illegal detention of civilians at Guantanamo Bay NAS, such detention designed as to avoid proper US, international, legal, and human rights provisions as well as Geneva Convention processes.
7.)
As Secretary of Defence, Mr Rumsfeld and others failed to ensure that all provisions of the Geneva Convention were fully complied with.
8.)
As Secretary of Defence, Mr Rumsfeld and others presided over a regime of human rights abuses including practices such as torture, such practices often taking place in locations away from public scrutiny through the so-called 'rendition' process.
9.)
As Secretary of Defence, Mr Rumsfeld and others authorised the weapons re-supply of Israel during the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The weaponry supplied included 'cluster-bombs'. The subsequent use of these weapons resulted in the deaths and injury of many innocent lives.
10.)
It is alleged that the conduct of this particular character has been way beyond what is permitted under International Law, that his conduct was in breach of International Law and the Geneva Convention and that his conduct could easily be classified as 'crimes against humanity'.
The two initial allegations are those that could adequately be proven and indeed supported through international processes.
It is now up to the UN and International Criminal Court to proceed with these allegations.
 TAGS: Politics Rumsfeld war Iraq bush Australia US military israel security BOOKMARK: Digg it | Add to Del.ICIO | Add to FARK ACTIONS: Comment Save Print Register free acount  
Helen C. NZ | |
JB/UK | |
Henk Luf | |
pryvateer | |
Henk Luf |
|
|
|
|
Henk Luf says on 2007-02-06 10:35:27 about US and World Opinion
Hi Pryvateer. Another sound contribution. Indeed, the grey areas as you mentioned should apply to all cases, including the Mosque theory and other 'civilians' with various types of weapons hidden under coats, jackets and other places just as they did during both your and my time in Vietnam. The legal precedence will be set if proposals before the ICC as well as a couple of current case will be successfull. The proposals, brought forward by a number of international experts, will tighten up the defintions substantially and some of the current cases will also confirm the theory as put. It will then open up a whole host of options in terms of prosecutions. There are other laws and legal definitions at play here with various countries but the opportunities are encouraging. Mind you, while I might be chasing Rumsfeld at the moment, others are in my sights as well.
In terms of the world's view of the US. The scenario that the US is in now happened once before in Vietnam. Different times, different scenarios, but the overall situation looks and smells familiar. I would dearly love to see a much less hostile US on the world scene. A US much less willing to stick its neck out for deadbeat situations and sometimes, deadbeat countries. The reason why I am saying this is because every time the US ventures into a place, its reputation goes down the drain, the debt levels go through the roof, and US citizens become a target for all sorts of fruitcakes. My view is, defend the US by all means, by control the half-wits within the country, and we have of few of those here as well, that are trying to make a name for themselves or get a bit of revenge.
In relation to Iraq having wmd's, and I know this first hand without going into too much detail. Iraq was attempting to develop wmd's. It used a crude form of weapon, for want of a better term, in the kurdish area and it used rather crude devices during its war with Iran. Subsequently, while some basic 'bits and pieces' were found during inspections, we could not find either complete or near-complete weapons or weapon systems, which explains the Scuds firings into Israel in the first war without a major payload. On a more lighter note. Should you wish to trade your President for a better one, can I suggest a package deal that we could include John Howard, our Australian PM. Take care. Henk |
|
|
|
|
|
pryvateer |
|
|
|
|
pryvateer says on 2007-02-06 08:16:05 about US and World Opinion
Henk Luf, I sometimes find it difficult to find intelligent life in the universe - mostly screaming when you contest their 'faith' based arguments with facts. Thanx for the quality of your arguments.
By your own admission, most of those areas are grey when it comes to fighting the Vietnam's, Somalia's, Afganistan's, etc., which makes my point. An International Court would have to first create legal precedence on whether fighters dressed as civilians and using civilian's as hostages and their sanctuaries like Mosques are covered under the Geneva - then Rumsfeld et.al. behavior could be ruled illegal. Until then, the behavior is unpopular, not illegal.
Now for world opinion and the US. Since the vast majority of the world are customers for our products and services, it is in our best interest to be popular, however placing the defense of the nation at it's mercy is not. The US, like all sovereign nations, must make the best decision for their countries future based on it's own self-interest. The fact the US has an inarticulate President doesn't diminish the argument. As for your contention about WMD, VP Cheney cautioned the administration not to go down that rat hole - making the reason for action the weapons - instead of a broader (and right) purpose. As a former scientist/engineer - if those weapons where disposed of or dumped, ample evidence would exist. Iraq had the weapons, as verified by the UN, and after broadcasting for 6 months we were going to attack - the WMD disappeared. To steal a line from Casablanca "I'm shocked". If we were lying, then how do you explain every national intelligence agency agreeing with our assessment? Even the countries that opposed the war with Iraq agreed with the assessment. This little fandango amuses me - Bush is all knowing when it comes secret inside intelligence, but then an idiot when it comes to everything else.
BTW - just to level the playing field. I am a Libertarian, did not vote for Bush and would not if given another opportunity. |
|
|
|
|
|
Henk Luf |
|
|
|
|
Henk Luf says on 2007-02-05 20:53:44 about Case against Rumpy
Hi Pryvateer. Ah those mandatory classes. I remember them well. It seems that every 'western' military outfit in the world had those and, like yourself, I certainly had my fair share. I think we might be running cross-purpose. Indeed, your argument in relation to the Geneva Convention is sound but it applies to 'normal', if there is such a thing, wars that are declared. However, the grey area comes in when a country, in this case the US, walks into a place and basically takes over in its own right or through local entities. Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Iraq and others are examples. In such situations, the matter of conducting an operation which may involve taking prisoners also becomes rather grey upon which it becomes very easy to find breaches, very easy in fact. In the case of Iraq. Indeed there were 17 UN resolutions. However none gave automatic offensive options. And the basis upon which the major Powell presentation was made was outright false. I think where, the US needs to go as to avoid being 'hated' around the world even in countries that are normally supportive of the US as a nation, is to start looking at its international standing. This will mean going into places only when invited, more peace keeping roles, chasing people like yound Osama and generally stay out of the domestic affairs of other countries totally. It is not defeatist, it is not a defeat, it is simply reality and a way to salvage some of the America's reputation which, internationally looks like the perverbial brown matter at the moment. In essence, I think that the US needs to learn that its military power essentially ends 12 miles off-shore and along its borders. I also think that the US has a right to find and capture the like of Osama and others responsible for the direct attacks on New York and Washington which may mean smaller, more specialised forces such as the Navy Seals and SAS-style forces.
I hope you have fun with this one. Tke care. Henk. |
|
|
|
|
|
pryvateer | |
Henk Luf |
|
|
|
|
Henk Luf says on 2007-02-05 09:10:04 about The case against Rumsfelt
Hi pryvateer. The opinion, upon being put to them, comes from the various International Law experts and I have some expertise in the areas of international law myself. You are correct in relation to the Geneva Convention area as you you put. The problem for the US is that it went outside international processes for a purpose. As to avoid srcutiny.Hence Guantanamo Bay hence the rendition flights. Not one person would ever ask the US to give up its sovereignty apart from the the US, or any other country for that matter, signs to comply with international stipulations agreed, rights of the child being an example. However, US sovereignty ends at the departure gate of Kennedy Airport, so to speak, beyond which International or third country law applies. The people captured by US forces and then transported to third countries were captured illegally and transported illegally. In fact, whatever one thinks of former Iraqi regime, and it was a nasty piece of work, the fact remains that the whole conduct of the US and its allies, was illegal and the case indeed exists for follow up on what I put. Thanks for your comments though, they are sound ones. Greetings |
|
|
|
|
|
pryvateer | |
hek | |
David F | |
|
