+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/20/2018 08:07 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  3.088 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
11/30/2005 09:22 AM ID: 51504 Permalink   

Former Chief of Staff: Cheney Could be Guilty of War Crime


Lawrence Wilkerson, a former senior US state department official said yesterday that US Vice President Dick Cheney could be guilty of a war crime over the abuse of prisoners.

When asked if Mr Cheney was guilty of war crimes Wilkerson told reporters "Well, that's an interesting question - it was certainly a domestic crime to advocate terror and I would suspect that it is ... an international crime as well."

Human Rights Watch published a report into any official who took part in, "ordered, or had command responsibility for war crimes or torture,“ the report singled out Donald Rumsfeld however Mr Wilkerson argued that Cheney was ultimately responsible.

    WebReporter: Hugo Chavez Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  lol yeah  
as if anyone can get him too stand trial,as much chance as seeing king kong paragliding from the empire state building !
  by: gatsby   11/30/2005 01:35 PM     
  by: kinko     11/30/2005 03:42 PM     
  wait for the right-wing response of...  
"...if we don't torture them they'll blow us all up....and stuff....probably..."

I suppose the US can't really say anything when Americans get kidnapped and tortured in Iraq since thats what the US is doing with ppl all over the world.

Welcome to Camp Americanos.
  by: Flashby     11/30/2005 03:53 PM     
  It all depends  
on what the meaning of "is" is. The Bush administration stand is that these "combatants" are not qualified for the protections of the Geneva Convention. The basis of these claims is that the "combatants" are not sponsored by any internationally recognized government and do not fight under any internationally recognized flag, they wear no uniforms, and therefore, have no protection under the Geneva Convention. For those of you unfamiliar with the Geneva Convention, it establishes the international rules of engagement as well as the treatment of POWs. The Geneva Convention defines the conduct and appearance of a legitimate soldier. The "combatants" do not fit the Geneva Convention definition of a soldier. Since the "combatants" do not fit that definition, the Geneva Convention does not approach the rules of engagement or handling of captured "combatants". Since the Geneva Convention is the international law regarding engagement of POWs and these "combatants" are not soldiers by definition, they cannot be considered POWs because POWs are by definition captured enemy soldiers.
  by: tomblik     11/30/2005 04:33 PM     
  Technically true but...  
the Convention of Human Rights and other similar agreements bans the use of kidnap and torture. The US governments cherry-picking of international law and the use of semantics does not mean that the kidnap and torture of individuals, uniformed or otherwise, is legitimate. If these ppl are not combatants, what are they? Civillians? Presumably they have to be one or the other and either way they have rights and protection under one or more treaty. Its like the Pentagon saying that what they used in Fallujah wasn't napalm because they'd altered the chemical composition of the kerosene so they were ok via a technicality. They continually ignore the spirit of international law and avoid it by use of questionable technicalities. Its BS.
  by: Flashby     11/30/2005 05:42 PM     
  rumsfeld and Dubya 2  
all three should go down
  by: MmmMan     11/30/2005 05:47 PM     
  Just wondering  
What would happen if another country offered these 'combatants' asylum or citizenship. Maybe another country could draft these people, to an honourary position.
At which point they would no longer be 'combatants', but soldiers in the service of a recognised foreign goverment.
  by: Ec5618   11/30/2005 06:05 PM     
  only if that country ratified  
a war against the usa either past or present
  by: MmmMan     11/30/2005 06:18 PM     
  For that to work under the  
Geneva convention they would have had to belonged to that country and in soldier like dress under that countries flag when they were detained.
But as has been said here, just because these soldiers are not protected under the geneva convention, doesnt mean they have no rights at all as humans. But if these people have commited a crime in Iraq, and are not 'soldiers under a foreign flag' then they are just criminals then yes? So the Iraq Justice System should be dealing with it all. I am not an international lawyer, but this does techniqually sound like Kidnapping and torture to me. If they commited a crime in Iraq, they should be arrested by Iraqi police (maybe with US help if needed) but tried in Iraq.
  by: ssxxxssssss   11/30/2005 10:24 PM     
do you mean should be guilty??? As for as I am concerned, he is guilty along with Bush.
  by: slave_boy_imp   11/30/2005 10:52 PM     
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W Bush...war criminals. And there defense is...wait for it

America, F**K YEAH!
Coming again, to save the ****** ******* day yeah,
America, F**K YEAH!
Freedom is the only way yeah,
Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too,
America, F*** YEAH!
America, F*** YEAH!
What you going to do when we come for you now,
it’s the dream that we all share; it’s the hope for tomorrow

F*** YEAH!

McDonalds, F*** YEAH!
Wal-Mart, F*** YEAH!
The Gap, F*** YEAH!
Baseball, F*** YEAH!
Rock and roll, F*** YEAH!
The Internet, F*** YEAH!
Slavery, F*** YEAH!

F*** YEAH!

Starbucks, F*** YEAH!
Disney world, F*** YEAH!
Porno, F*** YEAH!
Valium, F*** YEAH!
Reeboks, F*** YEAH!
Fake T*ts, F*** YEAH!
Sushi, F*** YEAH!
Taco Bell, F*** YEAH!
Rodeos, F*** YEAH!
Bed bath and beyond (F*** yeah, F*** yeah)

Liberty, F*** YEAH!
White Slips, F*** YEAH!
The Alamo, F*** YEAH!
Band-aids, F*** YEAH!
Las Vegas, F*** YEAH!
Christmas, F*** YEAH!
Immigrants, F*** YEAH!
Popeye, F*** YEAH!
Demarcates, F*** YEAH!
Republicans (f*** yeah, f*** yeah)
  by: Mr-Anderson   12/01/2005 02:54 AM     
  Opinions opinions.  
It never fails. Every time an article like this pops up, pointless US bashing comes out as well.

Citizens: It's really convinient to jump on the bandwagon NOW and start decrying everybody that your parents and grandparents probably voted for. The cross section here might be a little different, but statistically speaking there is no reason to believe you even bothered to vote during presidential elections. What these guys are doing is deplorable, I'm not arguing that. But how much can you REALLY say you know about international treaties and conventions?

Foriegn Citizens: Hey, let's all be racist towards Americans and take every opportunity to say everything they do is evil. Forget about Bush winning popular vote by 2%. Forget that your average American can't do anything about it now. We've had our say, and those of us who were rational about it LOST.

How many of you actually know someone who's been to Iraq in the past few years? Did you bother to ask them to explain to you what's it's like over there?

I don't advocate torture, and I wish it wasn't nescessary, but it IS. When you're sitting in your humvee driving down the street, making sure that civilians aren't out in the streets blowing each others faces off, and a rocket mixed with a little bit of small arms fire comes at you from down the road... it takes an extrodinary person not to blow the living hell out of wherever the origin is. You've just been engaged, and the enemy has just signed his own death warrant. If you happen to catch them, what are you gonna do? Let em go so they can get started again and maybe succeed this time? No. You're going to want to imprison em, and at the very least... try and find out what his friends have waiting for you. This is where the torture comes in. Is it 100% effective? No. Is it morally right? Probably not. Do I lose any sleep over doing anything and everything we can to save the lives of men and women are extremely misguided and thought that hanging out at military base in Kansas was a good way to pay for school? Absolutely not. As I said, these people have allready signed their death warrants for attacking soldiers. They knew what they were doing, and they knew it wasn't going to be candy land.
  by: neonpanda   12/01/2005 04:03 AM     
  back to the point  
I got a little side-tracked.

Dick Cheney: Morally reprehensible, probably guilty of quite a few crimes. Probably not guilty of war crimes though.

@Flashby: Yeah, it's semanitcs. In case you didn't notice, semantics are what make laws and justice tick.
  by: neonpanda   12/01/2005 04:08 AM     
I'm not bashing 'America', I'm bashing the current neocon evangelist christian right administration...American's' individually are a great people. It's just that voting should be compulsory..that's what the soldiers of pre 1776 died for. And that's why you have a dodgy Admin now, people didn't vote and or disfranchised or were policically blind, but hey that's just how it goes, heads or tails.

And dude until you are fighting over there don't say what it's like even if you know someone over there, let them say it....if you are a Iraq-veteran well yeah. You just need to step outside the sqaure and see why people bash Bush, your friend or yourself wouldnt be over there if it weren't for your Supreme Commanders decision to falsely conjer up evidence of WMDS in Iraq then have a back up of spreading freedom through regime change all the while securing oil fields...that's what they are fighting for the Iraqi's and oil. No blood for oil I say, blood for freedom, blood for nothing ultmately.

  by: Mr-Anderson   12/01/2005 04:25 AM     
The only person I have seen advocating torture was a Middle Eastern nut case on Fox ‘News’.

From everything I have ever heard/read torture is not useful other then making yourself feel ‘good’ (vengeance if you will) it does not accomplish anything.
The information you get is <u>NOT</u> reliable and therefore means nothing!

As for the thing about dems losing yeah they lost however poll numbers being what they are I think people regret it.
  by: emp3r0r     12/01/2005 04:51 AM     
  not just Bush Cheney et al.  
Chomsky: By Nuremburg standards every US President since 1945 would have hanged

A bitter truth
  by: Hugo Chavez     12/01/2005 10:04 AM     
Can you give me any real argument about the legitimity of the American attack and occupation of Irak ?? If you can give me one, then what you say makes sense. If not, all your argumentation is just to be compared to what a german soldier would have said for his mission in Europe in the 1940's. Point.
  by: LeTonduZ   12/01/2005 12:08 PM     
  @neonpanda (continued)  
I mean i understand what you're talking about, but it is irrelevant if you understand that the primal action (invasion of Irak) was not legitimate. All the arguments given by the american administration were found to be lies or disguised commercial interests. Therefore, your remarks are just like if a simple young soldier of germany in the 1940's was complaining about the treatment he received from belgian or french "resistance"... It's not his fault, but you can't neither blame the occupied country's people.
  by: LeTonduZ   12/01/2005 12:20 PM     
My point wasn't that the war was right or wrong, it was about posters who feel the need to get their jibe in every chance they get. The US and International media outlets have been having a field day with us since day one, and every spun-way-out-of-control and unsubstantiated rumor just adds to the poor image of your average joe who's opinion five years ago came to naught.

@3mp: It just doesn't work like that. Very few things in life are 100% effective, and quite a few are ineffective most of the time. Now that it's "cool" to bash the US, this torture thing has become an issue. Every nation involved in an active conflict since the beginning of time has employed torture to one extent or the other, but since we're doing it NOW and have the unfortunate stigma of being involved in this thing at all... we're taking flak for it. We're faced with grim realities now. If we picked up and pull out right now, then that would be highly irresponsible. We went and bombed the crap out of them, and everybody knows it was wrong, but it's too late now. It allready happened. We've made a commitment piece the country back together to the point they can handle themselves, and a large part of that is troops. Having said all that, I believe we should do everything we can to protect American soldiers and Iraqi civvies (and yes, the combatants are technically classified as civ, but they're not). Torture DOES work in certain situations, and that's all that's important to me.
  by: neonpanda   12/01/2005 08:38 PM     
How does it possibly work?

As for “cool” to bash the US it’s cool because the nation has screwed this thing up from day one. I’m not advocating a US pull out. However if there is not head way with both the “civcies” (hearts and minds) and training Iraqi military in a reasonable amount of time then a pull out is are best bet.
  by: emp3r0r     12/01/2005 09:20 PM     
Easy. If you torture one guy, word spreads. At that point, all you need is a little theatrics and the rest cough up what they know real quick.

It's a tool in the arsenal. It should be used sparingly and with discretion if AT ALL, but soldiers need all the options they can get.
  by: neonpanda   12/01/2005 09:34 PM     
  @3mp 2  
And I'm failing to understand your logic that if a method does not have an absolute success rate than it shouldn't be used. You think every person ever put to torture LIED? I somehow doubt it.
  by: neonpanda   12/01/2005 09:36 PM     
you have a problem with my logic?
read your own post.
  by: emp3r0r     12/01/2005 09:55 PM     
I'll buy your logic as soon as you can explain why a terrorist has any incentive to tell the truth while tortured. He only needs to divulge SOMETHING, period. Before this conflict it was widely known that torture was not effective. Now people like you clamor for the scraps of a justification of why it should be used. Why don't you first start by explaining how violating human rights and international law in this way actually works when there is no need for truthfulness. If someone had electrodes on my testicles and wanted to know if Ronald McDonald was behind 9/11, you bet your -ss I'd send them off to the nearest Golden Arches on whatever wild-goose chase they'd like. A chase kind of like the Iraq war...

How is it that suddenly it seems to be fashionable to defend what we had admonished in other nations?

And it's now "cool" (read: appropriate) to bash America now because we've been messing up a lot in the last 5 years. I've heard the tired, xenophobic rhetoric about how everyone is against the bright, shiny city on the hill, but the fact of the matter is that we brought it on ourselves.
  by: MomentOfClarity     12/01/2005 10:45 PM     
  Great Logic Neopanda  
"Every nation involved in an active conflict since the beginning of time has employed torture"

Ahh, so that makes it ok... I love the arguement that "everyone else did it". I guess by that logic, the slaves shouldn't have been freed, women should still be 2nd class citizens, and genecide against a nationality (see Indians) is ok.
  by: tellgar     12/01/2005 11:17 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: