 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 06 May 04 - 12:42 AM I'll probably post in more detail later, but, "Bush is "not satisfied" and "not happy" with the way Rumsfeld informed him about the investigation into abuses by U.S. soldiers at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison or the quantity of information Rumsfeld provided, a senior White House official said.", Full story here, and that "Secretary of State Colin Powell is exhausted, frustrated, and bitter, uncomfortable with President George W. Bush's agenda, and fatigued from his battles with the Pentagon" ....PR Newswire. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Ebbie Date: 06 May 04 - 01:15 AM Interesting article. In a word: YES |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 06 May 04 - 01:24 AM The Washington Post article, may be subscriber-only... Here! is a similar one from USA Today. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Amos Date: 06 May 04 - 01:46 AM The faster the better. And he should persuade Wolfowitz, Rice, Ashcroft and Cheney to come with him and start a consciousness-raising seminar company. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST,Boab Date: 06 May 04 - 05:12 AM An honourable exit for Donald--a stroll into Saddam's cell with a bomb-belt strapped around his waist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Wolfgang Date: 06 May 04 - 09:37 AM Yes Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Little Hawk Date: 06 May 04 - 01:38 PM Yes. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Blackcatter Date: 06 May 04 - 01:38 PM Hell, he should be tortured, excuse me - abused. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 May 04 - 02:06 PM Well he should. But then so should the man who picked him in the first place, and he isn't going to. The normal way to deal with this kind of situation is promote the man in question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Amos Date: 06 May 04 - 02:19 PM ANd of course, the question turns on the issue of who would be likely to replace him. I think all th ebums should be thrown out for degrading the office of their various titles, sullying the name of the nastion, murder premeditated with blunt instruments, and gawd knows what else. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 06 May 04 - 02:20 PM Well if a week is a long time in politics, seven months must seem like an eternity. Perhaps it is just wishful thinking, but I actually think it might come to pass. If it does, I think it could damage Bush's re-election campaign irreparably. We're not looking at a 'disgruntled former official', here, so his 'credibility' cannot be called into question so easily by the Bush PR machine. The whole affair must alarm even the staunchist Republican supporter, what with all this talk of a new era, as regards the sharing of Intelligence. Either way he's toast, as far as a team player is concerned. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Chief Chaos Date: 06 May 04 - 02:32 PM Given the amount of turnover in this administration (don't know if it's greater or less than any other, but it has sure been more public), and the fact that I have heard that the man surrounds himself with people in the know because he hasn't got a handle on all situations (to put it nicely), when is the finger of blame going to start pointing inward? I think it's time that Rice, Powell and the other cabinet members have a coupe and install McCain as Pres. and Powel as Vice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: michaelr Date: 06 May 04 - 02:32 PM Yes please! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Rapparee Date: 06 May 04 - 03:00 PM At this point I don't think that he's doing the Bush Administration any good. But who would replace him? Wolfowitz? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 06 May 04 - 03:09 PM Hopefully with nobody who thinks like this: "the Iraqi opposition is kind of like an MRE. The ingredients are there and you just have to add water, in this case US support." Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Ebbie Date: 06 May 04 - 03:13 PM MoveOn is asking people to call the President's office (202.456.1111 or202.456-1112) urging him to fire Rumsfeld, as well as asking us to call our reps and senators. Here's the message I left with my two senators and one representative: "I'm calling from Alaska to (ask you to) urge the president to recognize that it is time for Donald Rumsfeld to either resign or be fired. He has demonstrated a serious lack of integrity and sensitivity and any understanding of its impact on a watching world. Thank you." I couldn't leave a message at the President's office- his voice mail box was full. I wonder why?? Poor bush, poor poor bush... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 May 04 - 03:28 PM But if he's fired he might even start telling some truths about Bush. For example letting in the light on what lies lie behind reports such as "President Bush complained to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld for his failure to inform him about the photographs." So there is no possibility of his being sacked. I suppose his resigning might be arranged, if it was seen as essential to help Bush get back into the White House, he might do that. After all, if thta doesn't happen, Rumsfeld is among those who stand to be able to take a lot less money. Or of course, if things got really hairy, he could always be suicided... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Sorcha Date: 06 May 04 - 03:49 PM All of the above. Please and thank you. I am ashamed to call myself an American right not. Hard time to be away from home. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Peace Date: 06 May 04 - 03:51 PM Rumsfeld should get a sharp knife, kneel facing east and figure it out from there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Bill D Date: 06 May 04 - 06:30 PM resign? naaaww...he should go to Iraq and walk up & down the streets, preferrably alone and at night, offering his sincere apologies for the terrible sad and inconvenient events. I'm sure that will settle things! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: mg Date: 06 May 04 - 08:44 PM Yes. Certainly one of the first things you do in military planning is to plan for securing of prisoners. You do not have soldiers who appear to have been recruited by Jerry Springer guarding them, and you do not have the guards put themselves in such unsecure situations, and you do not mix up the genders, and you let the Red Cross in from day one and listen to what they say. YOu make sure they have access to adequate food, water, shelter, medicine etc. If there are troubles you yank the troublemakers like that. Apparently the worst of the soldiers haven't even been removed from duty or reassigned yet..although I do not know that for sure. Have them sort mail or do laundry or something in the meantime. You ask to see the inspections that should have been taking place. Apart from putting prisoners, who you do not know to be part of any insurrection etc. and could be just people in the wrong place at the wrong time, in humiliating and deadly situations, you don't leave yourself exposed to them deciding they do not like this and could up and turn on you. If I had been a prisoner I would have killed one of the guards I do believe. You think about the consequences to your own prisoners of war who can follow after. We have set a precedent that will take generations to undo. Something is really really rotten and I do not believe it is just a few people. In addition, as a former WAC, someone needs to be supervising those women. In the first place, there are places where mixing male and female troops is OK, sometimes it is more than OK, sometimes females should take over and sometimes males. But this whole shameful episode brings in a sexual component that is dirty, sacriligious to their religion (and ours), obviously abusive etc. etc. And where is Cheney in all this? mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Bobert Date: 06 May 04 - 09:19 PM Yes, followed by his boss.... They are all in this thing together.... Cheney should resign, also, since his big mouth bravado crapolla sent the wrong message to the troops who actaully carried out the orders. Plus, he is a bird killer. And Sadcalia should resine from the Supreme Court, too, since he is a bird killer as well... Okay, that makes Bush, Rumsey and Cheney... Hmmmmmmm, like who else. Okay, where are them two little weisels who got US into the mess in the first place, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearle... Yeah, type up the resignation papers for those two jerks and also be sure that when this sad chapter of American policy is written, they get front-and-center credit for they have worked mighty hard for it... Well, geeze, Bobert.... Let's not forget Condi "Mushroom Cloud" Rice fir her hand in this mess... Sign here, Condi... Did I leave anyone out? Hmmmmmmmm? Powell? Nah, at least he was tryin' to get Rumsy in line... Yeah, that will do it for now... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Blackcatter Date: 06 May 04 - 09:45 PM Ebbie - Bush's voice-mail is full casue he doesn't know how to check it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: DougR Date: 07 May 04 - 02:22 AM No. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 07 May 04 - 02:27 AM So you are in favour of Bush being on a 'need to know' basis, then, Doug? Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: dianavan Date: 07 May 04 - 02:42 AM I think the punishment should fit the crime. They should form a naked, human pyramid of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all the rest with Condi standing by laughing and pointing at their genitals. There you go Donuel. Get busy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 07 May 04 - 02:52 AM With women's underwear over their heads.... Powell though, to expand on what Bobert has said, more than likely will not be available for any eventual 2nd term; being "exhausted, frustrated, and bitter, uncomfortable with President George W. Bush's agenda, and fatigued from his battles with the Pentagon". Will he go down in history as a 'disgruntled member of the Administration', I wonder? Pity he wouldn't write a book.... Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: dianavan Date: 07 May 04 - 04:28 AM I still don't know how to make a blue clicky. I found this and some other poems by Rumsfeld. You'll have to find them by searching Google. The Unknown As we know, There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know There are known unknowns. That is to say We know there are some things We do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know We don't know. Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 May 04 - 05:54 AM I am pretty certain that in this country in these circumstances, and in most democratic countries, the equivalent of Rumsfeld would have no alternative but to offer his resignation. Perhaps he has. However since the man ultimately in charge, with whom responsibility should rest is Bush, having his obedient servant resign on his behalf would be a bit hypocritical. It seems pretty evident that this abuse is in fact part of a policy of mistreatment of prioners which is authorised at very higher level indeed. By publicly backing Rumsfeld in the way he mow has, Bush has accepted responsibility for what he has dien and failed to do. The man who should go is Bush, and in an honourable political culture he would not wait until he is sacked by the electorate to resign. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 07 May 04 - 06:41 AM Jim, Doug has always believed that for honorable people to treat suspected scum the way they deserve, they too must behave like scum. That's his entitlement, and thank goodness someone in this forum is prepared to stand up and be counted as a crackpot. My money is on Rumsfeld hanging in, simply because his resignation would bring the whole mess right up to the presidential desk. But how he copes, later today, with containing his arrogance and tucking into a hearty meal of humble pie is going to be interesting to behold. To answer Jim's question, yes I think he SHOULD resign. Even if the stories of Powell's warnings are unfounded, Rumsfeld should have had the drains up as soon as he did know. Whatever action he did take was too little and too late. One wonders if he even took it seriously. Incidentally, I am disappointed by what seems to have been a crassly supine approach to this saga by the US media, and not only CBS. I gather that when newspapers eventually got round to running the pictures, several buried them on inside pages. Has US patriotism really run honorable values that far off the rails? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST Date: 07 May 04 - 06:54 AM "Has US patriotism really run honorable values that far off the rails?" The answer is yes. And no. The behavior of the US media isn't about patriotism, but pandering to the government's propagandist uses of patriotism to make a profit off the dumb fuck American public that will buy redwhiteandblue toothpaste to 'support the troops'. And political patronage, of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Pooby Date: 07 May 04 - 11:19 AM Asking if Rumsfeld should resign is like asking "should I get laid tonight?" The answer is the same: Sure, but I don't think it's gonna happen... Pete |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST Date: 07 May 04 - 02:50 PM The Washington Post poll today says the majority of Americans don't think he should. But the political movers and shakers, especially those who are in tune to world opinion and foreign policy making, know the writing is on the wall. Rumsfeld will have to go, or the Bush administration will be totally isolated by June 30th, and the few remaining coalition members will have pulled out of Iraq. This human rights scandal was never going to be about American opinion, because the military propaganda efforts of the past 3 years have been too effective. Americans will support the troops, and in this case, the top military commander, even if our troops are committing war atrocities. Bush needs Rumsfeld's head for the sacrifice to the court of world opinion, particularly the Arab world opinion. They aren't going to settle for anything less. Today's NY Times editorial is calling for his resignation, and saying Wolfowitz can't be the replacement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: DougR Date: 07 May 04 - 03:40 PM No, Jim I don't. Had everyone so incensed about "just now hearing about this" paid attention to the news, they would have read about it in January of this year. It is very clear that the Army command in Iraq reported these outrages at that time including holding a news conference which was reported on world-wide. No pictures, of course, but the existence of pictures was not known at that time. Rumsfield has done an outstanding job and will continue to do so. Those of you crying for his head would find fault with whoever replaced him. He has far more important things to do than spend a whole day in the Senate and then the House so that members can beat up on him. One hearing, in my opinion, would have been enough either in the House or Senate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Amos Date: 07 May 04 - 03:51 PM Rumsfield has done an outstanding job and will continue to do so. Excuse me, but this outstanding job included planning for an exit strategy? No. Predicting the logistic, military and political ramifications of the overthrow? Well, not really. Understanding the training requirements of the mission? Seems not. Understanding the difference between his military mission and his police mission afterwards? Well..hard to distinguish... I differ roundly with you, Doug -- I think his job has been one of acute mediocrity laced with PR. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Little Hawk Date: 07 May 04 - 03:55 PM War crimes, war crimes. Well, all offensively directed war is a crime, and a pre-meditated one at that, if you are the attacker. It's assault with deadly weapons, assault with intent to kill, murder, trespassing, arson, property destruction, and robbery...frequently accompanied by rape, kidnapping, and torture. It is abrogation of normal human decency in favour of winning the spoils. It is the common behaviour of criminal, sociopaths, and despots. Because it is all these things, and is yet deemed necessary and expedient, society dreams up all kinds of wonderful and noble things to sanctify it: a flag, duty, loyalty, patriotism, tradition, decorations, and so on. If you don't support it you are called a "traitor". A traitor to what? Certainly not to the greater humanity. And certainly not to your own conscience, which tells you better than to go off to someone else's country and enforce your will upon their people at the point of a gun. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST Date: 07 May 04 - 04:27 PM "Had everyone so incensed about "just now hearing about this" paid attention to the news, they would have read about it in January of this year." Well then, by his own admission, our President doesn't pay attention to the news! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Deda Date: 07 May 04 - 05:23 PM Should he? Sure. And I should be a ga-zillionaire, cuz I'm so cool. And my sick nephew should suddenly be well, and my mentally ill friend should suddenly heal by magic, and the ozone layer should be restored, and the nasty greenhouse gasses should leak out of the biosphere into the farthest end of the galaxy, closing the leak behind them as they leave, and the poor, miserable, and sick people of the world should all get visits from their fairy godmothers. Cruelty and terror should evaporate, and .... oh, OK, OK, I'll shut up now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 07 May 04 - 06:29 PM "Well then, by his own admission, our President doesn't pay attention to the news" Not only that, GUEST, but Mr. Rumsfeld cannot remember when he told the President, if he told the President... or if somebody else told the President (because he doesn't take notes, himself, doncha know). And get this... He doesn't remember what the President told him (or somebody else) to do about it. You are a very understanding man, DougR. Will you be as understanding of a Democrat SOD, this time next year, if he/she finds themselves in a similar situation? There is a fat lady in the wings. I wonder does she have the same laryngitis as Senator Byrd has.....? Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Bill D Date: 07 May 04 - 06:42 PM You can bet yer boots that if a Democrat Sec. of Defense were in the same position, conservatives from Rush Limbaugh to Orrin Hatch would be SCREAMING for his head on a platter...after he resigned! (I heard Rush today blathering about how this is 'just a political ploy' by the Democrats to try to embarass the 'good guys' in an election year!...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 May 04 - 06:54 PM At least Reagan had good reason for not being able to remember stuff. "Don't ask, don't tell" may have something to be said for in regard to gay soldiers - but it's one hell of a way to run a country. Doug thinks that Runsfeld should be congratulated because back in January they responded to evidence about torture in Abu Ghraib. It's now come out that the International Red Cross rang the alarm bell about it a whole year ago. Red Cross describes systematic abuse in Iraq Here's what its director of oprations hasa to say: It is clear that our findings do not allow to conclude that what we were dealing with here in the case of Abu Ghraib was isolated acts of individual members of the coalition forces. What we have described amounts to a pattern, a broad system." I watched Runsfeld on the news, saying he accepted responsibility for what happened, and adsmitting that it happened on gis watch. And then saying he was not offering his resignation. That's the very least any honourable person in his position should do. If Bush wants to refuse to accept it, and asks him to stay, that's his right; and if Runsfeld withdrew his resignation in the face of it, that's the kind of thing politicians do. But not even offering to resign - that really is a very extraordinary way to carry on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Beardy Date: 07 May 04 - 06:57 PM YES |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 07 May 04 - 07:01 PM Though he did admit that if he were to resign, it 'probably' would go some way to repairing the damage. I would imagine that would 'probably' depend on the extent of the eventual damage. A week is a long time in politics, and that's no lie. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 May 04 - 07:46 PM Maybe a better question to ask might be, "Would an honourable person in that situation feel honour bound to offer their resignation?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: dianavan Date: 07 May 04 - 07:54 PM I don't think anything Rumsfeld can say or do will repair the damage. The damage has been done. The U.S. military has been there a year. These pictures are only the tip of the iceberg. ...unless he's simply talking about the damage to the reputation of the Bush administration. I think thats all he really cares about. I think that the U.N. should demand that the U.S. get out of Iraq or face charges of war crimes. Peaceful coalition forces could then begin to help re-build the country and Iraq could begin to re-establish their own political system. Simplistic? Perhaps. But I don't see how anything the U.S. does now will help. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 May 04 - 07:57 PM It's got to be the people of the USA who tell the government of the USA where to get off. They've got the power to do that, and they've got the duty to do that. A patriotic duty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Gareth Date: 07 May 04 - 08:06 PM And Kevin, they will have the opportunity to do so in November. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: dianavan Date: 07 May 04 - 08:06 PM McGrath - Do we have to wait for the election? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 May 04 - 08:23 PM You don't have a recall system for President like you do for Governors in California, do you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Amergin Date: 07 May 04 - 08:26 PM Send him to a certain prison in Iraq....and see how he likes giving blowjobs... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 07 May 04 - 08:48 PM "Would an honourable person in that situation feel honour bound to offer their resignation?" That's really the bottom line, isn't it? And I paraphrased Rumsfeld incorrectly; not 'probably'. He said (and I quote) "It's possible", but as you say dianavan, the damage has been done. CBS has said that they held the pictures back twice at the request of the Pentagon, which spanned a period of about a week and a half, I think. CBS showed the pictures only after telling the Pentagon that they were about to come into the public domain, elsewhere. Seems they could have sold a lot of cars and a lot of toothpaste... ... a lot earlier. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Ebbie Date: 07 May 04 - 09:57 PM Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld offered "my deepest apology" Friday to Iraqi prisoners abused by sadistic military personnel and warned that videos and photos yet to come could further inflame worldwide outrage. AP Photo Reuters Slideshow: Abuse of Iraq Prisoners Investigated Rumsfeld Takes Responsibility (AP Video) Latest headlines: · Libya Denounces U.S. Criticism of Trial AP - 6 minutes ago · US Soldier Says Her Job Was to Make Prison 'Hell' Reuters - 14 minutes ago · Fresh Charges of Prisoner Abuse Hit UK Troops Reuters - 23 minutes ago Special Coverage WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld offered "my deepest apology" Friday to Iraqi prisoners abused by sadistic military personnel and warned that videos and photos yet to come could further inflame worldwide outrage. AP Photo AFP Slideshow: Abuse of Iraq Prisoners Investigated Rumsfeld Takes Responsibility (AP Video) Latest headlines: · Rumsfeld apologizes for prison scandal; 20 Iraqis die in firefights http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040508/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_prisoner_abuse_9: WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld offered "my deepest apology" Friday to Iraqi prisoners abused by sadistic military personnel and warned that videos and photos yet to come could further inflame worldwide outrage. "It's going to get a good deal more terrible, I'm afraid," he said glumly in congressional testimony televised throughout the Arab world as well as in the United States. He said the Iraqis who were mistreated will receive compensation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Bobert Date: 07 May 04 - 10:20 PM Okay. let's do a little review here.... We invaded Iraq because it was getting ready to launch a nuclear attack on the US. Remember Condi "Mushroom Cloud" Rice's warnings? Well, that was a lie. No, we invaded Iraq because it had WMD's it was getting ready to unleash on the US. Well, that also was a lie. Links to Al Quida? Lie. So when all the the other lies wouldn't work Bush's folks came up with the "Saddam was a bad man" story and now they are not only doing the same stuff but doing it in the same prison in Iraq???? Hmmmmmmmmm? Just what am I missing here??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 07 May 04 - 10:34 PM "He said the Iraqis who were mistreated will receive compensation" Blood Money, I suppose. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 07 May 04 - 10:37 PM "Just what am I missing here???" Oh Bobert, get the ol' West Ginny Slide Rule, out there and let's all have a wee gander at it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Ebbie Date: 07 May 04 - 10:47 PM Hey, sorry. A lot of other stuff got picked up on my cut and paste excerpt. I especially liked "he said, glumly". On the other hand, they say if you can fake sincerity you got it made. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 07 May 04 - 11:00 PM 'glumly'.... Great word. Sort of denotes ... 'sad resignation' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: dianavan Date: 08 May 04 - 02:16 AM Compenstation? What kind of compensation can you give a Muslim (or anyone else for that matter) for that kind of humiliation? No Rummy - in the middle east, compensation and apologies do not equal justice. Justice will be served when Rumsfeld endures a similar form of degradation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 May 04 - 07:29 AM "Sad resignation" - yes please. Immediate sad resignation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST Date: 08 May 04 - 09:25 AM If ever there were a living example of instant karma, I think this baby qualifies. As Bobert says, first the reason for war was imminent threat of attack on the US and WMDs. Then when all of that was proved to be nonsense, Bush hit the road to say "Saddam Hussein was a bad man. Saddam Hussein tried to kill my dad". So word gets out that we are using the very same torture chambers Saddam used, for the same purpose, and... suddenly they're sorry??? And after that debacle of a hearing (maybe the pundits thought Rumsfeld did well, but it was glaringly obvious that all the DOD masters combined couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again. The kept mouthing the words 'chain of command chain of command AAWWKK!' and couldn't explain what exactly that chain of command was. They couldn't say who was in charge, who gave the orders, what the orders were... And the report had been sitting on their desks for two months. But the pundits aren't even talking about any of that. They aren't picking apart the testimony. They are saying "he apologized, and acted all humble". As if an insincere apology and contrived horror about the scandal was going to convince anyone of anything. Apparently he wasn't horrified enough at the suggestion of torture by our troops to read the reports or to bother to have a look at the photographs until the night before he was summoned to the Hill. So why aren't any of the pundits talking about this debacle in those terms? It is obvious the entire Bush administration Iraq strategy is dissembling before the eyes of the world, yet in Washington DC, they act as if nothing matters but the cynical, contrived mea culpas for the cameras. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST,jaze Date: 08 May 04 - 09:37 AM Rumsfeld told the committee he only saw the pictures seen round the world at 7:30 last night. I find that very damning. This wasn't an important enough issue to bother with? That right there shows the problem with this administration. I think it will be a long time before America lives down the shame of this unholy mess. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST Date: 08 May 04 - 10:05 AM Apparently, he either misplaced that pesky CD, or maybe the underlings just won't give him the photographs and videos. Rumsfeld's remarks, from today's Washington Post: "Summoned to Capitol Hill for a bipartisan trip to the woodshed over the Iraq prison abuse crisis, the man who has spoken so often of transforming the world's largest military testified that he has been trying for "days and days and days" simply to get a CD copy of the Abu Ghraib photographs and video -- but has not been able to find one. "The disc that I saw that had photos on it did not have the videos on it," Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. All the pictures, both stills and video, have been in the hands of military investigators since January, he told Congress. But the secretary has had trouble getting hold of them. Rumsfeld testified that he and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, finally saw the stills Thursday night, more than a week after CBS broadcast the first images of U.S. soldiers humiliating and threatening naked Iraqi prisoners. This image of a powerless secretary unable to summon up a cheap piece of plastic in the face of a "catastrophe," as Rumsfeld described the prison scandal, was a long way from the boldly assured Rumsfeld of a year ago. Back then, during the U.S. military's lightning drive on Baghdad, the civilian architect of two wars in two years described a computerized force in which data leapt from soldier to satellite to smart bomb, in which unimaginable firepower was just a few keystrokes away." ...yada yada yada |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST Date: 08 May 04 - 10:08 AM Sorry, I meant to include this part too, because the writing is just so snappy for the Post: "Rumsfeld was a sort of Achilles for the Information Age, and his bold assurance won him a place among People magazine's sexiest humans. President Bush nicknamed him "Rumstud." Like Achilles, he had a vulnerable heel. Rumsfeld returned over and over again to the idea that the military has effectively handled the prison crisis as a criminal matter but failed to realize that those pictures were, themselves, high-tech dynamite. One-stripe soldiers could zip the disastrous images through the ether, but the Pentagon could not get them onto Rumsfeld's radar screen at even an 18th-century pace." --------------------------------------- Anyone else hear the faint sound of "Taps" ringing in the distance? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: DougR Date: 08 May 04 - 11:47 AM AMos: you don't agree with me? So what else is new. I regret, though, that Rumsfield is probably going to have to go. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 May 04 - 12:33 PM Does that mean, Doug, that, while you regret that he will probably have to go, you accept that it is right that he should go? Or does it mean that you regret that he will probably have to go, and do not think that it is right that he should have to go? Rumsfeld has specifically said that he accepts full responsibility for what happened in the torture rooms. When we accept responsibility that normally implies that we accept that it is right that we should be penalised. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Charley Noble Date: 08 May 04 - 02:57 PM He's going, and there's no coming back, except for his book contract. And I do hope he makes good use of his poem as a preface. Of course, it would be tactically nice to keep him hanging around as Defence Secretary for the Bush Administration to further stink up the air during the General Election. But that's unlikely. At least Doug R. appreciates his sheer brilliance and that should provide Donald R. some solace while he's polishing his memoirs. Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: DougR Date: 08 May 04 - 04:36 PM McGrath: It means I regret that he probably will have to go. I think it depends, though, on how much pressure the media puts on him either to resign, or on Bush to fire him. While it's true the "buck" stops here (with Rumsfield)no fair minded person, I believe, thinks he condones such behaviour from our troops, and had he known about it sooner, I'm certain he would have nipped it in the bud. I do not believe either he, or the military command, can be faulted for not taking action as soon as they knew about the abuses. Sometimes, for the over-all good, a key executive should stick around rather than make a symbolic resignation in order to appease the critics. It has become a political thing now, and likely will be more so in the future. I just saw a Washington Post poll that showed that 69% of those polled thought he should NOT lose his job. With more, and likely, stronger stuff coming out in the next few days, though, that opinion poll result could change very quickly. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST,Frank Date: 08 May 04 - 05:39 PM Probably. But it won't make any difference on the ground in Iraq. That's still a lost cause. Rumsfeld can be replaced by someone equally disingenuous at the least and more obnoxious at the most. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Greg F. Date: 08 May 04 - 06:01 PM Yup, ya gotta love that there Dee-mocracy and Amerkun Way of Life life the good old U.S. of A is a-bringin to Eye-Rack. I'm sure they deeply appreciate it. God Help America. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 May 04 - 06:39 PM "Does that mean, Doug, that, while you regret that he will probably have to go, you accept that it is right that he should go? Or does it mean that you regret that he will probably have to go, and do not think that it is right that he should have to go?" "McGrath: It means I regret that he probably will have to go." That's what I call a neat politician's answer, Doug. Completely evades the question. I think there are a lot of people who suspect that the treatment given to those prisoners was the direct result of instructions given to the guards by people in military intelligence to soften them up before interrogation, and the techniques used were consistent with those which have been reported in many settings where US military intelligence have been involved - for example depriving prisoners of clothing as a way of humliating and disorientating them. I doubt if Rumsfeld paid any particular heed to the actual details of what people were doing in response to these kind of instructions. However I think he was in a position to ensure that stringent limits were placed on what subordinates could do, and that it was part of his responsibility to ensure that this was effectively done. And on a normal understanding of language, he has accepted this - he has stated that he accepts full responsibility, and I cannot see how this can mean anything less than that. ................... "...no fair minded person, I believe, thinks he condones such behaviour from our troops, and had he known about it sooner, I'm certain he would have nipped it in the bud. I do not believe either he, or the military command, can be faulted for not taking action as soon as they knew about the abuses. Well, maybe - but here once more is a link to that And here is what the IRC director of operations has to say: "It is clear that our findings do not allow to conclude that what we were dealing with here in the case of Abu Ghraib was isolated acts of individual members of the coalition forces. What we have described amounts to a pattern, a broad system." I think most people would see him as a "fair-minded person". I think there are a lot of people who suspect that the treatment given to those prisoners was the direct result of instructions given to the guards by people in military intelligence to soften them up before interrogation; and the techniques used were consistent with those which have been reported in many settings where US military intelligence have been involved - for example depriving prisoners of clothing as a way of humliating and disorientating them. I doubt if Rumsfeld paid any particular heed to the actual details of what people were doing in response to these kind of instructions. I am sure he was surprised to see the photos, andnthat he found them very distressing. However I think he was in a position to ensure that stringent limits were placed on what subordinates could do, and that it was part of his responsibility to ensure that this was effectively done. And on a normal understanding of language, he has accepted this - he has stated that he accepts full responsibility, and I cannot see how this can mean anything less than that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 May 04 - 06:41 PM "Does that mean, Doug, that, while you regret that he will probably have to go, you accept that it is right that he should go? Or does it mean that you regret that he will probably have to go, and do not think that it is right that he should have to go?" "McGrath: It means I regret that he probably will have to go." That's what I call a neat politician's answer, Doug. Completely evades the question. ................... "...no fair minded person, I believe, thinks he condones such behaviour from our troops, and had he known about it sooner, I'm certain he would have nipped it in the bud. I do not believe either he, or the military command, can be faulted for not taking action as soon as they knew about the abuses. Well, maybe - but here once more is a link to that And here is what the IRC director of operations has to say: "It is clear that our findings do not allow to conclude that what we were dealing with here in the case of Abu Ghraib was isolated acts of individual members of the coalition forces. What we have described amounts to a pattern, a broad system." I think most people would see him as a "fair-minded person". I think there are a lot of people who suspect that the treatment given to those prisoners was the direct result of instructions given to the guards by people in military intelligence to soften them up before interrogation; and the techniques used were consistent with those which have been reported in many settings where US military intelligence have been involved - for example depriving prisoners of clothing as a way of humliating and disorientating them. I doubt if Rumsfeld paid any particular heed to the actual details of what people were doing in response to these kind of instructions. I am sure he was surprised to see the photos, andnthat he found them very distressing. However I think he was in a position to ensure that stringent limits were placed on what subordinates could do, and that it was part of his responsibility to ensure that this was effectively done. And on a normal understanding of language, he has accepted this - he has stated that he accepts full responsibility, and I cannot see how this can mean anything less than that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 May 04 - 07:07 PM The link to the International Red Cross went missing in that last post. Here it is: Red Cross describes systematic abuse in Iraq |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: LadyJean Date: 08 May 04 - 11:33 PM Bush's whole God damned cabinet should resign and so should he! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Metchosin Date: 09 May 04 - 03:48 AM "(with Rumsfield) no fair minded person, I believe, thinks he condones such behaviour" Why would the the current US administration bother to set up Guantanamo, for the express purpose of circumventing US human rights laws, if it was not to condone this kind of behavior and avoid scruitiny? The telling thing regarding the Iraqi pictures, is that the pictures were taken in the first place. It indicates that those involved, obviously believed that the pictures would, be not only socially acceptable to their peers, (thumbs up) but acceptable to those of higher authority as well. The whole fiasco is tragic, including the fact that the lower ranks of the service people, who were involved, are going to be made the primary scapegoats for the whole situation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Amos Date: 09 May 04 - 12:38 PM Primarily, he and his deputy, as well as his senior, Mister Bush, dragged the nation in to a war that was not necessary, and unleashed the forces of violent, lethal American arms against innocent people. To justify all these horrible acts because we were "at war" is a complete whitewash of the fact that we had no business loosing the vicious dogs in the first place. There's the first crime (other than stealing the election and bribing the media). A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Ebbie Date: 09 May 04 - 01:08 PM Today's news says that 75 % of Americans think Rumsfeld should NOT resign. Which brings up a couple of questions to me: * Is it possible that "they" are right and I am wrong in my opinion of this matter? * Is it possible that "they" are right and I am wrong in my opinion of this Administration? How can I be sure? Every fibre of my being says that some of these things are so totally WRONG that there should be no arguing the point- but what if I am the one who is wrong? Convince me, OK? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Amos Date: 09 May 04 - 01:26 PM Wrong about what, Eb? That murder is barbarous? That unilateral invasion is uncivilized? That the leader of the so-called free world ought to be literate? That torturing people is criminal? No, I think you are perfectly right. It's just you can't expect mass majority approval of your analysis if the popular position depends on avoiding analysis at all costs. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 May 04 - 02:40 PM There may be some of Americans who don't think that Rumsfeld has done anything that should make him resign (or be sacked) - but I think you'd find precious few other people on the planet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Peace Date: 09 May 04 - 02:59 PM The soldiers involved in that type of interrogation should be yanked aside by their short and curlies, tried and sent to jail. What's the problem? The leaders of the soldiers involved in that type of interrogation should be yanked aside by their short and curlies, tried and sent to jail. What's the problem? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: DougR Date: 09 May 04 - 03:19 PM McGrath: Sorry you felt I did not reply to your question. I'll try again. I think Don Rumsfield is a very effective Secretary of Defense. I think he has done a good job, and could continue to do a good job. If he resigns or is fired, it will be because of political expediency not because he is inept. Now. Is that clear? Unfortunately, we are in an election year here in the U. S. The Democrats have seized on this issue because they don't have much else to fault Bush for. The economy is booming, if the present trend continues, the loss of jobs experienced since Bush took office will be completely back to where they were prior to the last election, and if things continue to improve in Iraq (and they are!)Bush will re-elected. The one issue that could sink him in my opinion is this one with the cruelty of treatment of prisoners. If the Democrats are successful in keeping this alive in the press, it could be the undoing of the president. I think it's time to drop it, give the military an opportunity to clean up their own mess and move on. There are few countries in the world where something like this would be aired in public. That is the U. S. A. way. It will be some time before the scars are healed, perhaps they never will be because it gives the U. S. bashers both hear and abroad ammunition to berate our country. We need to get back to fighting the terrorists and forget the politics. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Ebbie Date: 09 May 04 - 03:32 PM "If the Democrats (?? are successful in keeping this alive in the press, it could be the undoing of the president. I think it's time to drop it, give the military an opportunity to clean up their own mess and move on. "We need to get back to fighting the terrorists and forget the politics (?? )." Doug, I would be embarrassed to think of this "mess" in partisan terms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 May 04 - 03:35 PM Here is a link to an opinion piece in the Daily Telegraph, the quality right-wing newspaper in England: "...I found it rather confusing, however, when Mr Rumsfeld also indicated that he would "resign in a minute" if he felt he could not be an effective leader. On that basis, he should be gone already: he has already proved an ineffective leader, and will be much less effective in the wake of this miserable scandal. For what has leaked out of Abu Ghraib, along with the stomach-churning whiff of chaos and sadism, is the fundamental incompetence in the running of the US military from the top down... "...There are stupid, small-town bullies with sadistic impulses in every army. The true test of an army is whether its command structure can keep the worst impulses of its soldiers in check. Mr Rumsfeld told America ruefully last week. 'It happened on my watch.' No it didn't. It happened while he wasn't bothering to watch, and that is the most disturbing thing of all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST,guest from NW Date: 09 May 04 - 04:02 PM one of the most heinous things about this whole mess is that this administration and dept. of defense are hiring out prisoner interrogation to private firms that are not accountable to military law. this is reprehensible and indicitive of the lack of control, lack of morality, and sheer callousness of these criminals. and that's what they are. of course the repubs want to spin it as "political, no big deal, it's being taken care of so get back to your SUVs and wal-mart shopping, etc." but it cuts to the core of the immorality of these crooks. nothing matters but their agenda. the methods of humiliation used on the prisoners indicate a deeper understanding of muslim taboos than the privates and seargents, who never even heard of the geneva convention according to their words, could possibly have. in other words, they were told to do these things by some superior authority. did you notice in the senate hearings how, when questioned on the chain of command by mccain, rumsfeld asked his general in an aside "did we bring the chart we made up for that", the general replied " oh, no i forgot it!", rumsfeld goes "oh,my" and proceeds to evade the question mightily. could even a person as partisan as dougR, who maintains the competance and effectiveness of rumsfeld, believe that when coming to a hearing of this magnitude where this subject was so important and anticipated that they charted it out, that someone would "forget" it? c'mon. if rumsfeld actually accepted responsibility for anything he would resign immediately. he's a liar and a criminal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Big Mick Date: 09 May 04 - 04:17 PM Doug, you know that I think well of you, but you have got to be kidding. I am not asking this in a demeaning manner, but have you ever been in the military? Maintaining a sense of honor, decency, and respect for the dignity of others is very difficult in a war zone. Especially a warzone where one cannot distinguish the enemy from the friendlies. And most of the time the enemy/friendly designation is fluid, due to the simple need to survive and protect one's family. Soldiers are usually very young, or very inexperienced, and facing life and death situations for the first time in their lives. The only thing, other than their survival ability or will, that they have to rely on is the senior non coms and officers. It is up to them to establish the type of regimen and discipline necessary to retain one's sanity, soul, respect for others (especially the indigenous civilians)and still be effective in the fight. Remember that fighting and killing is the worst job one can be asked to do. Without effective leadership and systems, warriors will slip into the darkest areas of their personalities. This is inevitable when one is killing and watching buddies be killed. In other words, it is up to the Commanders to be moral people, establish that standard, and have systems in place to protect that. When we go to war, supposedly it is in support of, and for the furtherance of, universal ideals of decency and is a reflection of what we stand for. That is why it is NEVER OK for someone claiming the moral high ground to use the excuses that Rumsfeld is making. It does not matter how effective he has been. He failed in the critical test. The whole mission was to bring our supposed superior society and its benefits to these Iraqui's, freeing them from that which they had suffered under. Yet our troops, led by General Karpinski, Military Intelligence, and Rumsfeld, demonstrated the hypocrisy of our views. They committed the act that soldiers taking the high moral road cannot, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, make. They used the ends to justify the means. But the means were in direct conflict with the mission. He must go. There is no other option. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST,peedeecee Date: 09 May 04 - 04:22 PM Question: everyone on the board knows Doug R better than I do: does he live in the same reality as everyone else? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: dianavan Date: 09 May 04 - 04:49 PM Whenever there is war, there is always a thriving black market. In this day and age, porn is very lucrative. What is most disturbing about these videos are the ones that haven't been seen by the public at large. I have resisted expressing this very scary thought but we all know that this is just the tip of the iceberg. "Snuff" videos are sure to follow. If the Bush Admin. ordered the media to withold these pics for weeks (maybe months), I am sure there are videos and pics that will never be made public. Please bring home the troops. Nobody signed on to go to hell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST Date: 09 May 04 - 04:53 PM just do a search on kazzaa |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 May 04 - 05:01 PM Picking on Doug in this instance is to miss the point entirely. The point being that, according to the polls, 70 per cent of Americans share his view that, regardless of the things that have gone wrong "on his watch", for which he has admitted "full responsibility", Rumsfeld should not resign. However Doug is a lot more in touch with reality than most of them, it appears, since he accepts, while regretting it, that in fact Rumsfeld will have to go. I'd say that's pretty certain. People just don't survive these kind of things without resigning. Possibly "for reasons of health" or something like that. If anyone wants to put a bet on whether he goes or stays, this site is the place. (Just put Rumsfeld in the search engine.) I reckon a bet on him going would be a reasonable investment, whether you welcome his going or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Amos Date: 09 May 04 - 05:24 PM The Democrats have seized on this issue because they don't have much else to fault Bush for. The economy is booming, Forgive me, DougR, but you must be dreaming. There are scores of major offenses, negligence and downright crimes for which George Walker Bush could be cited. Invasion of foreign countries on false pretenses; corrupting the electoral process; bearing false witness; dereliction the duty to defend the Constitution; causing the death of subordinates through negligence; murder of civilians by proxy. Those are just a few of the larger items. He should have been impeached before our first tank crossed from Kuwait into Iraq. Why? Because he is a liar and a fraud as well as a murderous, double-faced son of a bitch. That's why. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Peace Date: 09 May 04 - 06:10 PM Two things. DougR usually thinks about what he says and believes what he says. He and I do not agree on much, but I know where he is coming from and I think he has integrity. Amos, if I could agree with you more, I don't know how. Ditto that. I am glad you said what you did about the present American administration, because I know that if it had been me I would not have been as polite as you. Bruce Murdoch |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 04 - 07:25 PM Amos: "He should have been impeached before our first tank crossed from Kuwait into Iraq. Why? Because he is a liar and a fraud as well as a murderous, double-faced son of a bitch. That's why." We already established, in the previous administration, that none of these things are reason to remove a president. Funny how the actions of a political party in the past come back to bite them in the ass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Amos Date: 09 May 04 - 07:44 PM Oh -- bb -- really, now!! Your innuendo is so off-base it can't even stretch!! You imply that somehow the democratic party was just experiencing its own karma when its people got dragged into an injust war? Just cosmic payback? I wouldn't have dreamed it in a million years!! Besides, what we demonstrated in the previous administration, if you will recall, is that an impeachment process should be undertaken for Presidents who lie in office. Now, as the latest bumper sticker has it, "We are ALL wearing the blue dress". A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 09 May 04 - 08:01 PM I'm hearing faint rumblings that some British MPs are calling for Blair's resignation. Don't know what to think about that, just yet... Geoffrey Hoon (Secretary of State for Defence ), maybe; but he should have gone long ago, in my opinion. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST,TIA Date: 09 May 04 - 10:04 PM BeardedBruce: I agree that lying about a blowjob is every bit as evil as lying several nations into a war costing hundreds on one side and thousands on the other, and replacing a torturing tyrant with torturing occupiers. Unfortunately, unlike most other males, I have lied about a blowjob, so I am doomed to hell with the warmongers and torturers (and it wasn't even that great a blowjob). But, I suppose that I am now free to kill and torture for the rest of my life with no fear of the everafter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 04 - 10:40 PM So, let me understand this. If a president commits purjury in order to benifit himself, this is ok and no action should be taken. If a president makes a decision based on the information he has, and that information is later found to be suspect, it is an impeachable offence? Of course, at the same time he should have taken action to prevent something that he did not have actionable information, to prevent a terrorist action. I think I see a double standard... BTW, check the articles of impeachment for Nixon and Clinton... I guess one might have to say that Nixon was a more honorable person. Must have been the Quaker in him ( see other thread) Anyway, the term was " liar and a fraud as well as a murderous, double-faced son of a bitch. " Does any of this NOT apply to Clinton? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 09 May 04 - 10:49 PM "If a president commits purjury in order to benifit himself, this is ok and no action should be taken" I think action was taken, wasn't it? Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 04 - 10:59 PM Impeachment is the act of bringing the charges. The Congress determined that no action was needed. That is what I meant when I said "We already established, in the previous administration, that none of these things are reason to remove a president" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 09 May 04 - 11:04 PM I would imagine things like that should be decided on a 'case-by-case' basis, wouldn't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 04 - 11:08 PM My major complaint over the House proceedings was the inconsistant efforts of some Democrats. Just the week before the story about Clintomn broke, there was a half-page editorial by the woman congresswoman from CA about a high-ranking (single) general who asked out a (somewhat)lower ranking woman officer. She DEMANDED that he resign, and threatened charges against him as well. This woman later stood in the House and said that the purjury in a court of law was a "personnal matter" and should not be brought to trial ( in the Senate). The Democrats have thus stated that the rule of law does not apply to the sitting president. I think it is important for BOTH parties to remember that the precedents that they establish can be used against them at some other time. American law is built on precedent. I truely fear the Patriot act, not because of what the current administration might do, but because of the precedent. If President Hillary decides that children should be removed from parents and raised by the state to get the "proper" environment, there is a lot less room to complain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 04 - 11:13 PM Jim- we crossposted. I agree, a case by case basis. But the law acts by precedent. Perhaps individuals SHOULD resign- but perhaps not. Clinton felt he didn't need to- are you saying that Republicans do not have the same rights to make decisions as Democrats? If charges are brought, and there are convictions, they WILL be removed from office. If there is not enough evidence to do so, the decision to resign rests with them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 09 May 04 - 11:26 PM Oh no, I'm not suggesting that Republicans should not have the same rights..., and as not being from the US, I hold no particular coat for the Democrats, neither. And it is true that as I am not as fluent in US body politic as you all are, some of the subtleties may escape me, from time to time. But too much precedent is wrong, whichever way that goes, in my opinion, and two wrongs don't make a right. Especially when the stakes are so high. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Amos Date: 09 May 04 - 11:29 PM Well, somehow I think lying about the private fellatio and the stain on the blue dress -- a situation which should probably never have gone beyond three people -- is a LOT different thyan ltying about a dramatization that spills gore on the sand and ends thousands of lives, including those of chioldren, women, civilian bystanders and maintenance personnel. The order of magnitude is just completely incomparable. Surely this is blindingly obvious? Are we so addicted to the mechanisms of rationalization and justification and selective ignoral that we can really entertain the assertion that the two lies are of comparable weight? My Gawd. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 04 - 11:31 PM The problem becomes determining what is wrong and what is right. Reasonable people have been know to disagree about this. When the missing weapons of mass destruction are found, say after being used in France or England, will everyone then decide that the US did not act swiftly enough to invade Iraq? We did give him plenty of time to remnove/hide them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 04 - 11:33 PM Amos: The charge was purjury in a Federal Grandd jury- something the rest of us would be thrown in jail for a number of years for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 04 - 11:37 PM The Grand Jury was investigating another case. This was NEVER just between three people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 09 May 04 - 11:37 PM Well, I suppose we will cross that bridge again, when we come to it.... At the minute Rumsfeld has admitted that the buck has stopped at his desk, for the time being. Given the precedent that could be set if he doesn't resign, what are your hopes for the future? Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 04 - 11:49 PM My hopes???? Whirled peas. The problem is that there are still people out there who would kill me, not for what I have done, but because I am not like them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 09 May 04 - 11:57 PM "Anyway, the term was " liar and a fraud as well as a murderous, double-faced son of a bitch. " Does any of this NOT apply to Clinton? " --bb "Murderous," I think does not apply. "Liar and a fraud" applys to some degree to all our presidents. I believe George Washington padded his expense accounts. And there are different degrees of lying: I was raised in the old school, where a decent man does not mention the woman's name in a case such as this. But if it all should apply to Clinton, plus arson and sabbath-breaking, that does not excuse Bush's actions. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 10 May 04 - 12:01 AM Vince Foster... and there are other suspicious deaths related to the Clintons... Not much hard proof, but that has not been needed to accuse Bush, has it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 10 May 04 - 12:05 AM Well, maybe we should make the next move, beardedbruce, and stop killing them, first. As there'll always be someone around wishing to kill us; be it a mugger on the street, a kid with a gun, or a terrorist from wherever, don't you think we should try to stop the cycle a bit? Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: dianavan Date: 10 May 04 - 12:07 AM beardedbruce, you say, "When the missing weapons of mass destruction are found..." You are a true believer if I ever heard one! Given that statement coupled with, "...there are still people out there who would kill me, not for what I have done, but because I am not like them", I'd say you are a victim of fear as well. I am truly sorry for that because it has obviously clouded your judgement. Some people put their faith in God, others seem to have put their faith in George Bush and his administration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Ebbie Date: 10 May 04 - 12:09 AM Oh, horse pucky. Read www.snopes.com. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 10 May 04 - 12:11 AM So, I should let them kill me without a fight??? I guess that is one way- but the Jews learned in WWII that that did not stop them. They killed us when we fought, too, but why make it easy for them? I do know how to insure world peace- but total destruction of the world is a little more than I want. I think that I shall reserve the right to kill anyone who attacks me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Amos Date: 10 May 04 - 12:13 AM At least take the fight to the right ones, there, BB -- or you'll end up multiplying the numbers of those who would like to see you offed. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 10 May 04 - 12:15 AM I think I shall too, Bruce. But I don't think it is right to kill a lot of people, in the off chance that some of them might be thinking of killing me. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 10 May 04 - 12:16 AM Dianavan: I have little faith in either God or G Bush. But you cannot ignore the facts: Saddam had WMD, used some, and was unable, or unwilling to show even under threat of invasion that he had destroyed the remainder. When they are used, it will be a little late to say "I told you so." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 10 May 04 - 12:22 AM Jim, "Well, maybe we should make the next move, beardedbruce, and stop killing them, first." I thought we had, unless they shot at us. I guess the 4 contractors killed, being on our side, are not really human? We HAD stopped shotting, unless attacked. They attacked us, we shot back. This does not take a rocket scientist to understand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 10 May 04 - 12:22 AM Well until they are found, beardedbruce, they cannot be used as 'evidence', unfortunately, and we have had too mant 'leaps of faith' already in this war. Remember the precedents.... Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 10 May 04 - 12:28 AM True. But we WERE in a state of war with Iraq, from 1991. When they violated the terms of the ceasefire, under UN mandate we had the right and responsibility to invade. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 10 May 04 - 12:29 AM I think all this killing started when we went in there, bb. The civilians had their water supply poisoned from Day 1, remember? The war started long before Fallujah. How much did you expect them to take? Rumsfeld directed this war, beardedbruce, and his judgement has been called into question on several occasions. We are supposed to be the civilised ones. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 10 May 04 - 12:30 AM "under UN mandate we had the right and responsibility to invade" Not on your own, you hadn't. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 10 May 04 - 12:32 AM They invaded Kuwait back in 91, remember? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 10 May 04 - 12:35 AM Jim, Actually, we did. The ceasefire was a TEMPOARY end to hostilities, based on certain things being done by the Iraqis. When they failed to do them, the original resolution authoizing force was still in effect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 10 May 04 - 12:36 AM Still wasn't your call, bb. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 10 May 04 - 12:39 AM Temporary end to hostilities? Hostilities will only end when we all get out of there, and maybe internationalise it a bit better, bb. Have you not figured that out, yet? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 10 May 04 - 12:57 AM I did not make the call- the US did. And I was talking about the 91 cease fire... "Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan - PM Date: 10 May 04 - 12:39 AM Temporary end to hostilities? "Hostilities will only end when we all get out of there, and maybe internationalise it a bit better, bb " And the UN was so effective in Serbia, and Rwanda, and Cambodia... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST,Jim McCallan Date: 10 May 04 - 10:13 AM "I did not make the call- the US did Yes, and I said it was not their call to do so. "And the UN was so effective in Serbia, and Rwanda, and Cambodia... Well the US have proved (even though they promised that this was not the case at the beginning of hostilities), that they can't go it alone. But by all means, beardedbruce, have your country go it alone. If it was up to me, with the arrogance I see attached to some people's view of America's involvement in Iraq, I would be inclined to say: "There you go, boys.... good luck!" Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: dianavan Date: 10 May 04 - 11:40 AM beardedbruce - The U.S. has weapons of mass destruction. They have used them before but I don't where they are. Since they have an unelected president with a religion different than mine, does that give me the right to invade in an effort to restore democracy? Does that give me the right to kill innocent people and to subject prisoners to abuse and degradation? If I don't, do you think they might kill me? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST Date: 10 May 04 - 11:56 AM Good point dianavan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST Date: 10 May 04 - 12:00 PM Bush is giving Rumsfeld high praise in a current new conference. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 May 04 - 12:09 PM I imagine he's been told that losing Rumsfeld would be even more damaging to Bush's chances in the election than keeping him. I suspect he's wrong there. In fact, I think it's pretty certain that, after holding on a while, there'll have to be a u-turn, and Rumsfeld will have to go anyway, which is the worst outcome of all for Bush's administration. Which makes it the best outcome. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST Date: 10 May 04 - 12:16 PM Bush will just not admit a mistake involving him or his Cabinet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Chief Chaos Date: 10 May 04 - 12:24 PM Should I point out that the perjury case only existed because lawyers for Paula Jones violated "discovery" rules? Should I point out that the perjury case only existed because Ken Starr involved himself without authorization into the Paula Jones case and provided the evidence that the Paula Jones lawyers used and violated discovery rules? Should I point out that it was a Republican held house and senate that decided not to force Clinton from office (most likely because it would have given Gore a chance to prove that he could lead effectively, put him in the incumbent position at election time, and effectively ended their one "moral high ground" playing card before the election?). What Clinton did and what the current Pres. is accused of, while being the same in literal interpretation are miles apart in severity, culpability and gravity. If it is true that he lied, falsified reports, misled the American public and the world in order to go after Saddam Hussein, then he is responsible for all that has followed. If he has kept people out of the loop and others have kept him out of the loop, then he is not an effective leader and is responsible for allowing this situation to occur. It isn't a blame game, its simply a case of "The buck stops here". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Wolfgang Date: 10 May 04 - 01:29 PM The secret ICRC report is now available in the web (Wall Street Journal). Rice has been informed personally, Powell has been informed personally, Wolfowitz has been informed personally. And they all did keep that to themselves? Not easy to believe. Some people in the government have done more damage to the long term interests of the USA than any group explicitely planning to do that. Rumsfeld will have to go, and I guess quite soon. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Amos Date: 10 May 04 - 01:35 PM Now that brazen two-faced SOB has the gall and flat effrontery to assert that Rummy is owed a debt of gratitude by the United States. For what? Why, for helping Bush launch a uniulateral invasion and spill the guts of thousands on the sands of ancient nations, deprive hundreds of Americans of their sopns and daughters and wander into a swamp of political quicksand with nothing but very expensive exits. Wodda debt o' gratitude that is. The pack of them should fold their tents and get the hell out of town. I spit. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: DougR Date: 10 May 04 - 01:53 PM Mick: yes, I served one year of active duty with the 2nd Armored Division and four years in the active reserve (National Guard). Ebbie: stop stealing my lines (horse pucky!) :>) And also if you think this thing is not being politicized by the Democrats, turn on your TV to CNN or Fox News Network. Amos: your charges against Bush are just that. They are YOUR opinion, nothing more. True you have a lot of followers here on the Mudcat who agree with you but that proves nothing. You may be the only person on this forum who is more opinionated than I am. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: CarolC Date: 10 May 04 - 02:31 PM DougR, the impression I am left with after reading your posts to this thread (based on your opinion that Rumsfeld is doing a "competent" job as Secretary of Defense, is that, in your opinion, torture and abuse of prisoners, and violations of the Geneva Convention by representatives of the US (both governmental as well as "private contractors") is a good thing and that these things are a part of what constitutes "competence" in a Secretary of Defence. Whether or not you intend this to be your meaning, that's the way it comes across to me, at least. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Amos Date: 10 May 04 - 03:03 PM Doug: I am honored, sir. I grant you that it is only my opijnion that Mister Bush is a two-faced murderous son-of-a-bitch, although I believe others who know the senior Ms Bush would confirm the only part in doubt. It is not my opinion how many lives have been wasted because of his actions. It is not my opinion how much money it has cost us to worm our way deep into Mesopotamia and fend off the incensed locals. It is not my opinion that so far, we seem to have done more harm than good, with the sole exception of overthrowing the Baathist regime. It is not my opinion that he falsified information repeatedly to support his desire to start a war. Think of it as you will, if he had any alternative, he has blood on his hands. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 May 04 - 03:59 PM Simplest explanation for Bush's "loyalty" - presumably Rumsfeld knows where the bodies are buried. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Don Firth Date: 10 May 04 - 08:36 PM It never fails to amaze me how, when some Republican comes under fire for whatever reason, Repulicans and conservatives haul that sillyassed blue dress out of the closet and wave it around. If they don't manage to get us all killed in the meantime, it looks like we'll still be hearing about it five hundred years from now. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Ebbie Date: 10 May 04 - 09:23 PM I have finally thought of a usable title: Precedent Bush. And now that precedent has been set, all the Supreme Court's admonitions not to apply it in the next case will sound emptily into hollow canyons. (Doug, you're right- I appropriated horse pucky from you- if you are using it for the same reason I am, we're both sparing the Mudcat some strong language.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST Date: 10 May 04 - 10:50 PM No.... The Military/Civilian personnel who are involved in doing these crimes should be subjected to Court Martial. Senior Officers who are responsible for the conduct of their soldiers actions in these prisons should resign immediately. Rumsfelt and Bush are losing all credibility. The USA has been degraded and demeaned internationally because of the illegal actions of these people. The voters can deal with them. Unless these people are brought to trial and delt with severely, the USA will never regain face. A stern example should made of their cowardly and inhumane treatment of prisoners. The USA will never again get international support for military action if these crimes go unpunished. These photographs show a degree of inhumanity that cannot be condoned. It is one thing to use force when unavoidable, it is altogether another thing to "enjoy" doing it. Somewhat reminiscent of Nazism, and as such has no place in the modern world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: DougR Date: 11 May 04 - 12:39 AM Ebbie: you have my blessing to use "Horse Pucky" anytime you think it is an appropriate response. Carol C: If that's how you interperet my posts to this thread, that's your problem. I am as upset about the prisoner abuse as anyone else. I do not view it as Rumsfeld's fault. I think he was in Washington at the time. As CEO of an organization employing over a million people, I doubt it would be possible for him to know everything that is going on in every facet of the Defense Department at any given moment. The people who should be held responsible are the people who were directly in charge, and could have stopped the abuse. Amos: still only opinions, my friend, just opinions. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST,noddy Date: 11 May 04 - 11:41 AM YES YES YES A THOUSAND TIMES YES! Do I make myself clear? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Chief Chaos Date: 11 May 04 - 11:54 AM DougR - The military is famous for the phrase "The Captain Goes Down With The Ship" (Not to be confused with the Capt. Goes Down on the ship which is totally different, and also violates the don't ask don't tell regs.) Quite a few skippers have been scuttled because the persons in their charge ran into another vessel or did something while they, the captain, were asleep in their cabins. It happens all the time. What happened, happened. That he may or may not have known what was going on doesn't necessarily matter. According to accounts from the Red Cross they warned the pentagon months ago that this sort of abuse (torture) was going on. That the people they told didn't pass it up the chain is as telling as Rumsfeld not checking on the conditions of the prisons. Certainly someone up above must have thought about it once in awhile. Holding a portion of the indiginous population and caring for them must be somebody's concern. Or was it as half assed as the rest of this seems to be? So where does the buck stop? I can tell you that if it were my ship I'd be writing my last will and temperment! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Don Firth Date: 11 May 04 - 01:08 PM After reading THIS, I find it difficult to believe that the "abuse" engaged in during interrogations is not a matter of policy. For those who can't seem to distinguish between "abuse" and "torture," this article might shed some light. We don't use thumbscrews or the rack anymore. We're a lot more sophisticated than that. By the way, I've heard tell of "interrogation booths" at Guantanamo. Anyone curious about what's been going on there within the last few years? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: DougR Date: 11 May 04 - 01:09 PM Chief: I recognize your right to believe as you see it, we just don't agree that's all. I believe you do not sacrifice a good CEO for political expediency. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 May 04 - 01:36 PM Are there any circumstances under which you'd think Rumsfeld should be sacked, Doug? Leaving aside the situation in which he was actually in the room where prisoners were being tortured? Would presiding over a system in which torture of prisoners, as defined by the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984, was regularly practised be sufficient? Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 Article 1 1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. That sounds like what has been happening in Guantanamo Bay, just for starters. let alone Abu Ghraib. ......................... "Horse pucky" was an expression frequently used by Colonel Potter, the commanding officer in MASH. Normally with very good reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 11 May 04 - 07:29 PM dianavan: "The U.S. has weapons of mass destruction. They have used them before but I don't where they are. Since they have an unelected president with a religion different than mine, does that give me the right to invade in an effort to restore democracy?" When you have multiple UN resoulutions saying thet the US has to give the WMDs up, and find the US in violation of the terms of a UN ceasefire. We have an elected president, and we are not a theocracy (yet). You may choose to invade: there seem to be a large number of people who want to come here illegally, already. What are a few more? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: DougR Date: 11 May 04 - 07:36 PM McGrath: should evidence be found that Rumsfield personally ordered such treatment of prisoners, or approved it, he should be fired. I don't believe such evidence exists. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 May 04 - 07:54 PM Ordered or approved it, clear enough - but how about if he tolerated or condoned it? Or failed to follow up reports that indicated that torture, as defined in that Convention, was being carried out in the course of interrogation by or on behalf of miitary intelligence? What puzzles me is how Eunsfeld can say he accepts responsibility for things that have gone wrong - and yet that he will not offer his resignation. It seems to me that "accepting responsibility" in such circumstances has to imply doing that. Otherwise I can't see how it really means anything at all. If this had happened in the United Kingdom, I have no doubt whatever that he would have inevitably resigned. It seems these things work differently in the States. (And if Clinton had been Prime Minister there is no doubt he'd have had to go.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: freda underhill Date: 11 May 04 - 08:00 PM If military intelligence is conducting torture without approval from the government, yet on behalf of the government, who the hell is running the country? does intelligence run the country or the government? at every level, the government gives directives and leads - and always has to take responsibility. if George Bush has been foolish enough to highly praise Rumsfeld after these photos have come out - then, he is condoning what has happened. Because he didnt sack Rumsfeld, he too should resign. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Bobert Date: 11 May 04 - 08:16 PM Well, it ain't no secret that I think Rumsey is an arrogant jerk but I was gonna *half* give him the benefit of the doubt until I read where Bush ahs declared Rumsey the best Secretray of Defense and that sealed it fir me... If Bush is too much of a wimp fir the job then he should call Donald "Yer Fired" Trump to do the job... Either way, it's 3 1/2 years overdue... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Ebbie Date: 11 May 04 - 09:07 PM "McGrath: should evidence be found that Rumsfield personally ordered such treatment of prisoners, or approved it, he should be fired." DougR, you are already on record as implying that if one is not caught doing something, one is not guilty. Is this what you are saying in connection with Rumsfeld's role? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Ebbie Date: 11 May 04 - 09:11 PM I meant to add that in discussion with a friend, he said that he is NOT in favor of Rumsfeld leaving his post, for two reasons. #1: Who will take his place? #2: No longer being in the public eye, he will no longer have to take flak for his omissions and/or commissions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Bobert Date: 11 May 04 - 09:21 PM Abusin' and torturin' folks is somethin' that the US has down to an art. They are doing it in Iraq, in Afganistan and in Guantonimo Bay... In this morning's Washington Post there was a long article about it entitles "Secret World of U.S. Interogations" by Dana Priest and Joe Stephens. While not goig into detail, it would seem that the US has created a model of interogatin' folks... Unfortaunately, most of the components violate international law and Geneva Convention... But like who cares? And of those that do, who can stop US? This is precisely what I was talking about on another realted thread in why the US will not only loose its war on terrosism but will also self destruct in the process... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Ebbie Date: 11 May 04 - 10:13 PM Is it true that a people have the government they deserve? I hope not. What you say, bobert, rings true but I hope we, the people, would take to the streets and demand change before we went absolutely belly up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Chief Chaos Date: 11 May 04 - 10:24 PM DougR - Fair enough. But when will the man in charge of the corporation actually be held responsible for whats going on in the corporation? The reason that the skipper goes down with the ship is that he is responsible for everything (let me say that again - everything) that goes on on the ship. He is the onoe that sets the course and approves of the personnel manning all stations. Whether the screw up was the lowliest seaman or the best trained executive officer he's ever had. The Captain is the responsible party and will be held accountable. The military, all five branches, is not a corporation. Rummy knows this. Rummy knows that it isn't a matter of bad investments losing the company money. It's soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and yes coasties, lives on the line. And every bad or hastily made decision costs lives. I happen to believe that the terrorists (not necessarily the Iraqis) will use any excuse to commit whatever attrocities they can. Why the hell did we go and hand them a few more reasons? The civilians in employ to the US Military are not subject to the UCMJ and can't be courts martialed (and thank your lucky stars that civilians can't be held to it.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 11 May 04 - 11:27 PM New Anto-Bush Election Button VOTE RUMSFELD OUT! ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: DonMeixner Date: 11 May 04 - 11:38 PM I think Rumsfeld should go and do it quick. He has had numerous reasons to be gone before this torture and embarrassment issue came to light. The arrogance of going to Iraq in the first place is enough for me. But then commiting under trained and poorly supplied American soldiers to a war in a land they aren't wanted in all the while telling them they'll be home before they know it is a recipe for disaster, or at least a sandy Viet Nam. Maybe he could take John Ashcroft along with him. It would make my day. Don |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 12 May 04 - 05:21 AM We get a US PBS curent affairs show here on SBS (in Oz) a day later. They went into great details about previosu US behaviour, including the history of US military atrocities going back to the Civil War, when both sides waged a guerilla action in Missouri with both sides combatants riding around with scalps and other body parts hanging from them. Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST,Whistle Stop Date: 12 May 04 - 08:46 AM Despite what the Chief says, the whole "skipper goes down with the ship" business simply is not followed nor encouraged these days, nor should it be. To play the metaphor out, even when the ship is sinking, the skipper has a role to play; to command the crew in damage control operations, to oversee the progress of the launching of the lifeboats, to command the flotilla of lifeboats once they're launched, and to explain what happened before the inevitable board of inquiry. We don't have a military tradition of hara kiri in this country, because, despite how devastated the skipper may feel about the loss of his ship (and his personal responsibility for it), he still has duties to perform. So does Rumsfeld. A balanced appraisal of his peformance as Secretary of Defense would conclude that he has done some things very well (the first phase of the war was brilliantly executed), and some rather poorly. I have no doubt that Rumsfeld wishes this prisoner abuse had never happened, and I also have no doubt that serious questions will be asked about why it happened, and how we can best ensure that it doesn't happen again. It's pretty clear that this was more than a few bad apples, but was probably a systemic breakdown in training, supervision, discipline, and the communication of US policy to all levels of the command structure. Maybe the military command structure focused its attentions on some issues and neglected others; that certainly seems likely. Clearly, the Secretary of Defense has a responsibility to ensure that these systemic problems are identified and fixed, and the President has an obligation to demand that this happens. The only real question is (or should be) whether Rumsfeld is the right person to oversee this process, or whether his replacement (Wolfowitz, unless he also falls on his sword) would do a better job going forward. This isn't about our the wisdom of our overall policy or strategy in Iraq; the President is the one who decides that, and the Secretary of Defense advises him on the military's ability to accomplish the missions they are given, and then ensures that the military aspects of the strategy are carried out. It also isn't about whether Rumsfeld should be punished; in fact, it really isn't about Rumsfeld at all. It's about us, and whether we will be better served by having him stay on as Secretary of Defense, or by his replacement. I understand and share everyone's anger and revulsion over what occurred, but ultimately we really need to just recognize where we are today, and figure out what is the best approach to take from here. Sure, sacking Rumsfeld would probably hurt his feelings, and in so doing it might make a lot of the rest of us feel better. In situations like this it's gratifying to have an individual to focus our anger on. But even if Rumsfeld resigned tomorrow, we would still have a bad situation on our hands, and a lot of difficult problems to solve. That's what we really need to be thinking about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 May 04 - 08:51 AM Noone is actually suggesting Rumsfeld should kill himself. I think that "down with his ship" was an analogy. Just that, having accepted responsibility in words, he should follow through and do what that implies, tender his resignation. Otherwise those words mean absolutely nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST,Whistle Stop Date: 12 May 04 - 09:12 AM McGrath, I wasn't implying that most people on this thread were calling for Rumsfeld to kill himself (although a few did so explicitly). I recognize a metaphor as well as the next guy does, and in fact that is how I referred to it. What I was saying was that expecting to solve this problem by a punitive forced resignation is kind of short-sighted. Yeah, the military screwed up pretty badly, and as their top civilian leader (except for the President), Rumsfeld is responsible for it. But the most important thing to do now is to fix what is broken, not to demand the (metaphorical) head of Rumsfeld and then declare that the problem has been solved. Anyway, my guess is that Rumsfeld has offered his resignation -- privately. And the President has rejected it, at least for now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Amos Date: 12 May 04 - 09:16 AM Whistle Stop makes sense; the best way to handle Rummy is to have his party voted out. Better the devil we know and can see for now... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 May 04 - 09:36 AM I'm torn two ways on this - logically Rumsfeld should resign, and if he doesn't, it dramatically lowers the standard for what can be expected of public servants. (In the same way that Clinton did by hanging on.) On the other hand, if he stays, that makes it worse for Bush, because it ties the responsibility more clearly to him. So I think he should resign, but I'll be rather glad if he won't, and if Bush refuses to sack him. But I think that, sooner or later, one of those things will in fact happen. And the more it is delayed, the more harm it does Bush. So that's OK. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: dianavan Date: 12 May 04 - 01:04 PM Rummy should resign. Bush should too. We all know thats not a gonna happen. I would hope, however, that they would take a long hard look at what is acceptable interrogation procedures and the insanity of hiring private contractors to perform the dirty deed. They also need to review the fact that soldiers were taking orders from the private contractors. They also have to realize that the culture of the military needs an overhaul. Its not just the soldiers who bear the brunt of performing atrocities, it is also their families. Don't forget, these soldiers will be coming home. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Ebbie Date: 12 May 04 - 04:29 PM Seymour Hersch: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040517fa_fact2 "When he did, they were "hard to believe," he (Donald Rumsfeld) said. "There are other photos that depict . . . acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel, and inhuman." Later, he said, "It's going to get still more terrible, I'm afraid." Rumsfeld added, "I failed to recognize how important it was." "One of the employees involved in the interrogations at Abu Ghraib, according to the Taguba report, was Steven Stefanowicz, a civilian working for CACI International, a Virginia-based company. Private companies like CACI and Titan Corp. could pay salaries of well over a hundred thousand dollars for the dangerous work in Iraq, far more than the Army pays, and were permitted, as never before in U.S. military history, to handle sensitive jobs. "...The photographing of prisoners, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq, seems to have been not random but, rather, part of the dehumanizing interrogation process "...Ryder may have protected himself, but (General) Taguba did not. "He's not regarded as a hero in some circles in the Pentagon," a retired Army major general said of Taguba. "He's the guy who blew the whistle, and the Army will pay the price for his integrity. The leadership does not like to have people make bad news public." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 May 04 - 06:42 PM That's an article well worth reading. And I liked the way Seymour managed to keep cool in what he wrote. That gives it far more impact that if he'd written in emotive language. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST Date: 12 May 04 - 10:17 PM How could he think the acts "terrible" speaking to the commission ,and now say they were "approved"?, and theat he backs them????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Donuel Date: 13 May 04 - 12:45 AM http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/americangothic.jpg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST,noddy Date: 13 May 04 - 10:45 AM "If you cant blind them with science baffle them with bulshit" and Rumfeld seems to have plenty of it at his disposal. Pity its only up to his neck! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Ebbie Date: 13 May 04 - 01:27 PM "How could he think the acts "terrible" speaking to the commission ,and now say they were "approved"?, and theat he backs them????? " Simple. He flipflopped. And I'm hoping that the BS he is up to his neck to has him in a headfirst position. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Metchosin Date: 13 May 04 - 01:44 PM flip flopped? Yeah, I guess it's pretty hard, on the one hand, to have your lawyers arguing in court that Guantanmo needs to be out of American judicial jurisdiction, so that the military can use torture and summary execution with impunity, if needed, and on the other hand, view what kind of shit that really entails. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: dianavan Date: 14 May 04 - 01:28 AM Meanwhile, in Iraq, Rumsfeld has arrived to "shore up the troops." He seems quite happy that Iraq has soccer players that will play in the Olympics. I guess this is his idea of democracy. Haven't heard much else except that he told the troops he stopped reading newspapers. I can't stand the way he and Bush 'talk down' to Americans. Even worse, I can't stand the way Americans seem to eat it up. (Of course I don't mean most of you mudcatters) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: ard mhacha Date: 14 May 04 - 08:41 AM I watched Rumsfeld`s performance on C4 News last night, how the hell do the people of the US stand this man,do you watch him and squirm?, and the thickos in uniform applauding every word was really the limit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 May 04 - 11:25 AM I don't think, ard macha, you can necessarily blame the soldiers who had been placed in front of the cameras and ordered to applaud on cue. This is the army, after all, and this was a photo-op for Rumsfeld. I suspect that, if they are still there in November, a lot of those soldiers will be voting to get rid of Bush and Rumsfeld. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: dianavan Date: 14 May 04 - 09:55 PM ...and so they should! It was Rumsfeld that sent the message to the troops that "anything goes" in their handling of prisoners. In 2002 he declared that the prisoners were not POWS that they were enemy combatants and therefore there weren't really any rules governing their conduct in Iraq. He got them into this mess and he continues to smile while they slowly sink. Some warrior! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rumsfeld Approved Interrogation techniques From: freda underhill Date: 15 May 04 - 08:58 PM A US report claims US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved interrogation methods in Iraq (AFP) http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1109140.htm US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved a plan that brought unconventional interrogation methods to Iraq to gain intelligence about the growing insurgency, the New Yorker magazine reports. The magazine reports that Mr Rumsfeld, who has been under fire for a prisoner abuse scandal, gave the green light to methods previously used in Afghanistan for gathering intelligence on members of Al Qaeda. Pentagon spokesman Jim Turner says he has not seen the story and could not comment. The article hits newsagencies tomorrow. US interrogation techniques have come under scrutiny amid revelations that prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad were kept naked, stacked on top of one another, forced to engage in sex acts and photographed in humiliating poses. Mr Rumsfeld, who has rejected calls by some Democrats and a number of major newspapers to resign, calls the scandal a "body blow".Seven soldiers have been charged. The abuse has prompted worldwide outrage and has shaken US global prestige as President George W Bush seeks re-election in November. Mr Bush has backed Mr Rumsfeld and says the abuse was abhorrent but the wrongful actions of only a few soldiers. The US military has now prohibited several interrogation methods from being used in Iraq, including sleep and sensory deprivation and body "stress positions".The New Yorker reports the interrogation plan was a highly classified "special access program", or SAP, that gave advance approval to kill, capture or interrogate "high-value" targets. Such secret methods were used extensively in Afghanistan but more sparingly in Iraq - only in the search for former President Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. As the Iraqi insurgency grew and more US soldiers died, Mr Rumsfeld and Defence Under Secretary for Intelligence Stephen Cambone expanded the scope to bring the interrogation tactics to Abu Ghraib. The magazine, which bases its article on interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, reports the plan was approved and carried out last year after deadly bombings in August at the UN headquarters and Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad. -- Reuters Sunday, May 16, 2004. 9:58am (Australian time) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 16 May 04 - 01:14 AM Seymour Hersh's article in The New Yorker Magazine Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: freda underhill Date: 16 May 04 - 08:35 AM Donald Rumsfeld made a surprise visit to Baghdad where he visited Abu Ghraib prison. Apparently, the visit was going well until Rumsfeld took out his camera and said, 'Hey, how about a few pictures?' Donald Rumsfeld said he just happened to be visiting Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. How much stress is this guy under when he goes to Iraq to unwind? Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told senators that the Geneva convention on prisoner's rights applies in Iraq, but not for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay. When asked what the difference was Rumsfeld said that nobody has pictures of Guantanamo Bay. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 16 May 04 - 09:11 AM Of course, Bush doesn't want Rumsfeld to resign. If they don't stand together, they may hang together... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: dianavan Date: 16 May 04 - 11:58 AM Yes - He will have to go. Looks like even the CIA is pointing fingers at Rummy. Read the most recent articles by Seymour Hersch in the New Yorker. I almost feel sorry for Bush for putting his 'faith' in Rummy the omnipotent. Poor Bush, he's such a fool. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Ebbie Date: 16 May 04 - 11:54 PM "When asked what the difference was Rumsfeld said that nobody has pictures of Guantanamo Bay." http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/051704A.shtml U.S. Guards 'Filmed Beatings' at Terror Camp By David Rose and Gaby Hinsliff The Observer U.K. Sunday 16 May 2004 Dozens of videotapes of American guards allegedly engaged in brutal attacks on Guantanamo Bay detainees have been stored and catalogued at the camp, an investigation by The Observer has revealed. The disclosures, made in an interview with Tarek Dergoul, the fifth British prisoner freed last March, who has been too traumatised to speak until now, prompted demands last night by senior politicians on both sides of the Atlantic to make the videos available immediately. They say that if the contents are as shocking as Dergoul claims, they will provide final proof that brutality against detainees has become an institutionalised feature of America's war on terror. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST,Ken the Gunner Date: 17 May 04 - 05:25 AM Last week I suggested that Tony Blair was losing credibility with the people in the UK, I see my predicitions were very close to the mark as it seems like some of his own party members are beginning to believe that Tony would be a bad risk as a leader of the Party. The close ties with the Americans is the main cause of this, it seems now that those who backed the War are having second thoughts, the British government would wish they hadn`t ventured into this maze, but they cannot now find a way out, it reminds me of Tonto reply to The Lone Ranger when they were surronded by hostile Indians, " Not so much of the we, paleface.". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Chief Chaos Date: 17 May 04 - 02:10 PM Come on Whistlestop, I know where you're coming from, but I've seen too many examples of CO's going down because a subordinate did something wrong or even when a superior did something and he was held responsible. A year or so ago a carrier (can't remember which) missed a deployment to the Gulf because of years of maintenance periods being hacked away because of monitary and mission needs. When she finally broke down they blamed it all on the skipper. But you know I have seen one too many times where a subordinate was given a harsher punishment than the senior who was supposed to be leading declined to do so or just completely ignored the situation. I just happen to believe that a good leader accepts responsibility for this in his charge and passes on credit to the troops when things go right. The leader might not be "responsible" for what happened, and the leader might be responsible for everything going right, but that's just my two cents. Hari Kari? Waste of a good blade if you ask me. Remember Admiral Borda a few years back? I know there were other things going on but all the world knows is that he killed himself because he had not technically earned a couple of v's on his ribbons. Such a waste! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST,Whistle Stop Date: 18 May 04 - 09:58 AM Chief, I don't disagree with you. Even though the skipper no longer goes down with the ship literally, there are certainly plenty of examples of the skipper taking the blame and punishment when something goes wrong under his command, and that is as it should be. The US submarine that surfaced in the Pacific last year under a Japanese fishing boat filled with high-school kids was a good example; I believe the skipper took the fall for that (appropriately), and it ended his otherwise exemplary career. I'm just saying that this is -- or should be -- less about Rumsfeld as a person, and more about what we need to do to fix what's wrong and move on. The more we learn about what happened and why, the more we'll know whether removing Rumsfeld is the right decision in this case (whether or not Bush actually does it is another question). If this incident, or series of incidents, reflects a basic flaw in Rumsfeld's leadership, then he should go -- for the good of the service and the country, primarily, and only secondarily as punishment (it would only be punishment insofar as his pride and reputation would be affected; he's a wealthy man, and so far nobody in a position of power has suggested sending him to prison). If it reflects a pervasive between-the-lines message from the Bush administration to the CIA and military about the way to treat captives generally (which is increasingly being suggested), then Rumsfeld should go, and Bush should also be held directly accountable, as the guy who signs off on our policy towards prisoners of war, "illegal combatants," or what have you. If further analysis shows that it's a more-or-less inevitable outgrowth of Rumsfeld's cherished revamping of the military and scaled-back troop numbers for the invasion, and of the privatization of many functions formerly handled directly by the military -- which also appears likely -- then Rumsfeld and others who pushed for those changes should recognize the flaw in their earlier reasoning, and make adjustments in future war plans. In other words, what is important is that we identify the cause(s) of this appalling incident, and take corrective action. Sure, a lot of us would like to see heads roll over this (metaphorically), and it may be that we have to offer up a high-level sacrifice like Rumsfeld to show the rest of the world that we are taking this seriously. But firing Rumsfeld isn't enough, and may in fact be counter-productive, by shaking up the top levels of our leadership when we're still in a shooting war, and -- more importantly -- by allowing everyone to avoid the more crucial issues about what brought this on. If further investigation shows that this was a limited, localized problem, then Rumsfeld should continue to take public responsibility for it, and implement changes to ensure that it doesn't happen again, but not necessarily resign his post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Chief Chaos Date: 18 May 04 - 01:48 PM I don't know if they're personally responsible for any procedures at this time. I hope it all comes out in the wash (for good or bad). The last thing we need to do with this is allow it to be hushed. I think I might be personalizing this as well. The way he tap dances around questions and doesn't really answer bothers me. Of course that's not any different than any other administration but it seems that they're being a little too secretive (not regarding sensitive info - they're supposed to do that of course). And with all the claims that the red cross has made, and the report that the CIA pulled it's people out of the jail in October '93, It's really starting to look like the situation was being ignored at the top levels. As has been said, regardless of why these people are there or what they have done, if you're the good guy, you have to act like the good guy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Rumsfeld Approved Interrogation techniques From: freda underhill Date: 21 May 04 - 07:06 PM Rumsfeld approved tough line: Pentagon; By John Hendren in Washington May 22, 2004; Los Angeles Times The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, personally approved aggressive interrogation techniques for suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners to extract more information about the September 11 attacks and help to prevent future ones, Pentagon officials said. Mr Rumsfeld was presented with a request in December 2002 by Army Major-General Geoffrey Miller, a general with the Pentagon's Judge Advocate General's office said. The JAG official, who declined to be identified, said that General Miller had arrived a month earlier to oversee prisoners at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to use a broad range of extraordinary "non-doctrinal" questioning techniques on a specific al-Qaeda detainee. The military officials did not detail the procedures General Miller sought to use or name the detainee, but said he was thought to have valuable information about future attacks by al-Qaeda. Pentagon lawyers and interrogators clashed over the proposed procedures, which some of the lawyers said would violate international law. The account confirmed some elements of media reports on the development of interrogation practices after the September 11 terrorist attacks. But it was the first official acknowledgment that Mr Rumsfeld was personally involved. General Miller was sent last month to oversee prison operations in Iraq following the revelations of torture in Abu Ghraib prison. General Miller also issued a report last year recommending changes at Abu Ghraib, including more effective interrogation of prisoners. The abuse scandal touched off congressional hearings that have widened from an investigation of misconduct by seven military police officers at a single cell block to the Pentagon's overall detention policy and interrogation practices. The methods General Miller sought to use at Guantanamo in 2002 were harsher than those used in standard military doctrine, and military lawyers in the Judge Advocate General's office at the Pentagon objected, the JAG official said. Intelligence officials, however, felt an immediate need for better information. The effort to define how far interrogators can go exposed the rift between interrogators and JAG lawyers, who considered some of the techniques proposed by General Miller to be illegal. "You had intelligence officials that might have been pulling in a direction that was different from the lawyers," the Pentagon spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, said. "It's a competitive process." Military lawyers successfully argued for the removal of some practices from the list, although some of those had already been used on prisoners, officials said. Mr Rumsfeld trimmed the list of requested interrogation techniques by about one-third, and required his personal approval for a "handful" of techniques, a senior Pentagon lawyer and the JAG official said. He approved the revised proposal in April 2003. "The final report did not raise any legal objections," the JAG official said. The officials stressed that Guantanamo prisoners are considered possible terrorists, rather than prisoners of war, but those held in Iraq are considered POWs. The Iraqi prisoners are covered by the Geneva conventions, while those being held in Guantanamo are not. Los Angeles Times |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: freda underhill Date: 23 May 04 - 08:52 AM Report Links U.S. General to Iraq Prison Abuse Case Sun May 23, 2004 01:07 AM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A lawyer for a soldier charged in the Abu Ghraib abuse case said a captain at the Iraqi prison has charged that Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez was present during some unspecified "interrogations and/or allegations of the prisoner abuse," The Washington Post reported on Sunday. Citing a recording of a military hearing obtained by the newspaper, The Post said the military lawyer, Capt. Robert Shuck, was told that Sanchez, the highest-ranking U.S. military officer in Iraq, and other senior officials were aware of what was taking place at Abu Ghraib. Shuck is assigned to defend Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick, one of the seven U.S. soldiers, four men and three women, accused of abuses at the prison. One pleaded guilty on Wednesday and was imprisoned. The Post reported on Saturday that Frederick had been accused by military police officers involved in the scandal of being an organizer of the abuse. The U.S. Congress and the Pentagon are both investigating the revelations of physical and sexual abuse of Iraqi inmates at the prison outside Baghdad that have surfaced in the past month. Details of the abuse, including graphic photos and sworn depositions, have shaken the Bush administration as it attempts turn back sovereignty to the Iraqis on June 30. The Post on Saturday published testimony of soldiers speaking of fun and sadistic pleasure in abusing prisoners. A day earlier it published new images, including video, of Iraqis being beaten and sexually humiliated. The newspaper said Shuck made the allegation regarding Sanchez at an April 2 hearing, stating he had been told that by the company commander, Capt. Donald Reese. "Are you saying that Captain Reese is going to testify that General Sanchez was there and saw this going on?" the military prosecutor asked, according to the transcript. "That's what he told me," Shuck said. A Defense Department spokesman referred questions to U.S. military officials in the Middle East. The spokesman told The Post that statements by defense lawyers or their clients should be treated with "appropriate caution." The hearing was held at Camp Victory in Baghdad, the newspaper said, and that it obtained a copy of an audio recording. Shuck was quoted as saying, "Present during some of these happenings, it has come to my knowledge that Lieutenant General Sanchez was even present at the prison during some of these interrogations and/or allegations of the prisoner abuse by those duty (noncommissioned officers)." The newspaper said Reese did not testify that day, instead invoking the military version of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Post said Reese has not been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony. © Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 May 04 - 04:14 PM I see they'd chopped General Sanchez. Excepy when you get chopped as a general you get promoted to a cushy number, not put on trial. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Ebbie Date: 26 May 04 - 05:20 PM Oh, but McGrath, when asked whether Sanchez's recall had anything to do with his being fingered as present and condoning the treatment of Iraqi prisoners, the unequivocal answer was "Absolutely not!" I believe him, don't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Ebbie Date: 26 May 04 - 05:50 PM http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040526/ap_on_re_us/gore_5 "NEW YORK - Al Gore delivered a fiery denunciation Wednesday of the Bush administration's "twisted values and atrocious policies" and demanded the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and CIA director George Tenet. Raising his voice to a yell in a speech at New York University, Gore said: "How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace! How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: dianavan Date: 27 May 04 - 12:57 AM My sentiments exactly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: dianavan Date: 05 Jun 04 - 03:17 AM Rumsfeld is far from resigning. Read this recent revelation: "In remarks to the Asia Security Conference, a gathering of nearly 200 security officials from 21 nations, Rumsfeld raised anew US fears that extremists were seeking weapons of mass destruction "Despite a great deal of progress, the reality is that today we remain closer to the beginning of this struggle than to its end," he said in the speech. He listed the bombings and other attacks that have been carried out since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, most recently in Saudi Arabia and Spain." |
