Recent
AP article quotes Rumsfeld's spokesman saying that due to his recent resignation, Rumsfeld has decided to skip NATO.
Is that right? Apparently the Pentagon spokesman was speaking so quickly that the AP stenographers had no time to think! Otherwise they might have remembered (or Googled and found) articles such as this one. If any of them read DK, they would've been well-informed.
More details below the fold...
AP types up Rumsfeld's press release:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has dropped plans to join President Bush at a NATO summit this month in Latvia, in light of his announced resignation, a Rumsfeld spokesman said Monday.
Nary a mention of other, less courageous motivations Rummy might have, such as a fear of getting his ass in jail for war crimes. From the TIME article:
New legal documents [...] will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld [and Abu Gonzales, Tenet and others] for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
As Pinochet saw in the UK, previous history of being fawned over by lick-spittle invertebrate leaders is no guarantee of continued brown-nosing. Maggie Thatcher did her best, but nobody really cared for Pinochet. A Spanish judge wanted his ass, and the UK would've cheerfully let him have it. Maggie blew a fuse, and the House of Lords twisted itself into knots, but Pinochet was trapped: he would have to stand trial in Spain. Except that he didn't: the UK used his ill-health as the excuse to let him slink back to Chile.
In Chile, Pinochet got himself lifelong immunity as part of the deal to cede power. Chilean wingnuts retained enough power to keep the government from rescinding that deal. Oh-so-ironically, Chile--the scene of his crimes--was a safe haven for Pinochet! Until, of course, it no longer was: eventually the Chilean wingnuts power waned enough that Pinochet could be stripped of his immunity. But by then he was old, and few believed any justice could be served by prosecuting the old derelict. Amnesty International has a nice timeline of matters Pinochet.
The parallels are startling. Essentially, Rummy and the Shrub have probably committed many war crimes. These are also crimes under US law, but they face relatively little danger of prosecution. First of all, the recent Torture bill essentially gives them a get-out-of-jail-free card. If that fails (either due to repeal, successful constitutional challenge, or by being trumped by the Geneva Conventions), there's always the IOKIYAR presidential pardon. Hey, it worked for Weinberger and others, why not Rummy?!?
But Pinochet highlights the problem: it's no longer enough to bully American prosecutors and courts. There's any number of countries in the world who have independent judiciaries (and yes, by some odd twist, independent judiciaries decide what to prosecute in parts of Europe. No, I don't really understand it, sorry!)
I can't quite put my finger on it, but for some reason reading about Rummy's sudden modest decision to stay away from NATO meetings brought Pinochet to mind. Not that Rummy would ever do anything craven like hide out here in the US, of course! Bring 'em on! That's been the Shrub's motto, and I bet Rummy's too.