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.