BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?

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."

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Jim McCallan
Date: 16 May 04 - 01:14 AM

Seymour Hersh's article in The New Yorker Magazine

Jim

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Donuel
Date: 13 May 04 - 12:45 AM

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/americangothic.jpg

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 11 May 04 - 11:27 PM

New Anto-Bush Election Button

VOTE RUMSFELD OUT!

;-)

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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