Is he even eligble as the head of the Pentagon? I'm just curious b/c I heard that Pat Tillman's killers who were his fellow soldiers are almost untouchable criminally b/c they got out of the military....would that be the same for Rummy? I'm just curious, I don't really know how all this works-- enlighten me please.
2006-11-09 02:05:25 · 13 answers · asked by ♥austingirl♥ 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
No. Because even though he resigned, he can still be investigated by congress.
2006-11-09 02:08:33 · answer #1 · answered by jim 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No he wont be tried for anything - unless something proving comes up in the future, which I wont be the one to say it wont happen. What's on the table now however, there is nothing there that he has done wrong.
His stratedgy was not working and the people want change (evident from the outcome of midterm elections). I think the administration felt that fresh ideas were needed, both within - and to satisfy a disgruntled public.
2006-11-09 03:21:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No as a civilian he is not subject to the UCMJ. He is subject to United States Code weather he is in office or out. So his resigning has no bearing on his trying to avoid "prosecution". Besides he isn't being investigated for anything so far, so why would he be trying to avoid a "military tribunal"?
2006-11-09 02:11:09 · answer #3 · answered by Judge Dredd 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the purely reason Rumsfeld remains round is because if Bush fires him or accepts his resignation then Bush sends the sparkling message that Rumsfeld is incompetent and there is a issue with the warfare. If the Bush administration cleans residing house and receives rid of Rumsfeld then each and every human being disillusioned with the warfare now has even extra ammo adverse to the administration. At this aspect, Rumsfeld won't be able to extremely make it any worse, so why get rid of him. the concern is a lot previous salvaging and the administration is purely waiting to get out of workplace and hand this disaster off to somebody else because that is sparkling that they don't have a clue as to what to do to fix it. As if you imagine Batiste and a number of of different generals must have spoken up formerly the invasion you're patently overlooking quite a few key information. First, senior score protection force individuals did provide Rumsfeld and the Pentagon very sparkling checks of the flair problems with the invasion of Iraq. They were both skipped over or disregarded from duty......Shinseki ring any bells? second, I served contained in the first Infantry branch lower than Batiste in Iraq and in my opinion briefed him on quite a few events. aspect being, uniformed protection force officials even as on lively duty are literally not allowed by the Uniformed Code of protection force Justice from speaking out adverse to politicians. no matter if he needed to inform Rummy what he considered him he couldn't while not having thrown in reformatory. to people that ask why he did not renounce formerly the deployment that is ordinary. not one human being contained in the first Infantry branch (consisting of myself) replaced into allowed to get out of the protection force or renounce. My time in service were given prolonged 10 months. i can purely imagine what might want to have befell to any commonly used who requested to retire formerly his unit replaced into deploying!!! to boot to killing his occupation he might want to were informed to get on the plane like quite a few people else.
2016-11-28 23:08:27 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Before somebody can be tried in court there has to be reasonable evidence that a crime was committed.
And it really frightens me how you seem to think that somebody should be tried as a criminal for having different political opinions than yours.
2006-11-09 02:40:18 · answer #5 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No he got fired. Plain and simple ; someone had to take the fall and you know Bush or Cheney weren't about to admit their faults and step down.
2006-11-09 02:14:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
He stepped down because he is unpopular and the voice of America said it was time for change.
2006-11-09 02:14:59 · answer #7 · answered by E LIB o NATOR 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Tried by a military tribunal??? I wished you people would find out what's really important in life!
2006-11-09 02:09:51 · answer #8 · answered by Brianne 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Right now Bush and Rumsfeld have a Get Out of Jail Free Card, thanks to the Republicans. Hopefully we can rescind that as it is unconstitutional! And they should be charged!
S. 3930 would both recognize the President’s inherent authority under the Constitution and authorize the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to establish higher standards and administration regulations for violations of treaty obligations, including those which do not rise to the level of grave breaches. The legislation would order the President to publish those interpretations in the Federal Register as an Executive Order. Any such Order would be authoritative as a matter of U.S. law, with the exception of changes to the definition of grave breaches. The legislation states, however, that nothing in the section pertaining to the interpretation by the President is meant to affect the constitutional functions and responsibilities of Congress and the judicial branch.
“Geneva Conventions” is defined the same as in Sec. 5. Treaty Obligations Not Establishing Grounds For Certain Claims, except that the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 is referenced as 6 UST 3217 in this section.
Habeas Corpus matters. S. 3930 would amend the Habeas Corpus provisions of the United States Code to strip U.S. courts of jurisdiction to hear or consider a writ of habeas corpus (petition to seek release from unlawful detention) by or on the behalf of an alien detained by the U.S. who has been determined by the U.S. to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
The legislation would also strip U.S. courts of jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the U.S. or its agents relating to the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the U.S. and has been determined by the U.S. to be properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
The bill would also define several other terms as they are defined in other parts of Title 18 of the United States Code.
The new subsection (d) would also specify that the standard of intent required for grave breaches, especially murder, mutilation or maiming, or intentionally causing serious bodily harm, precludes offenses caused by collateral damage or death, damage, or injury incident to a lawful attack.
The bill’s changes to the War Crimes Offense would apply retroactively to November 27, 1997, except as to the “serious mental pain or suffering” definition within the context of Cruel and Inhuman Treatment.
Treaty obligations not establishing grounds for certain claims. S. 3930 would prohibit a person from invoking the Geneva Conventions or related protocols as a source of rights in a habeas corpus petition or other civil action brought in a United States court (state, territory, or federal) to which the United States, or current or former employee/officer/armed forces member/agent, is a party.
The legislation, for the purposes of this section, defines the “Geneva Conventions” as the: Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (6 UST 3114); Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea (6 UST 3217); Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (6 UST 3316); and Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (6 UST 3516).
The legislation would establish that the amended War Crimes Offense fully satisfies the U.S. obligation under Article 129 of the Third Geneva Convention (the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316).
The measure would prohibit US Courts from using foreign or international law as a basis for interpreting conduct listed in the grave breaches section of the War Crimes Offense (subsection (d)).
2006-11-09 02:34:05 · answer #9 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, because he has nothing to be tried for. It was time for him to step down that's all.
2006-11-09 02:13:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋