Fire Rumsfeld!!!!!!!

[RandFan]

That's the saddest part. Only after they 'come to light'? Not after they are known from investigating this twice before? He doesn't even tell Bush or Congress?

I hope you don't get upset at me Dorian. I'm just confused. Tell Congress what? There were 2 news conferences were they anounced the allegations and the investigation. Are you upset that he didn't tell congress about the pictures? I know that a number of congress were upset about that but why? The abuse was reported, why are the pictures so important?

Again, I am not attacking you. I understand that you are emotional and outrged about this but I'm not certain why you are so upset at Rumsfeld? If he knew about the abuse and facilitated or covered it up then he should resign. But failing to tell about pictures after he found out about it and launching the appropriate investigations and telling the world twice in a press conference is beyond me at this point.

I'm upset about the photos also. I don't just want scapegoats. I want everyone who was involved to be disimissed including leaders.

Anyway, again, please don't assume that I am defending this action or Rumsfeld. I just want to understand. And simply saying that he is at the top or that he failed at some level doesn't seem to be reason enough. I think leaders need to take responsibility and ensure that it doesn't happen again.

 

[reprise]

While it's true that as someone who lives in a nation which supports the doctrine (a doctrine which our current government has consistently ignored during its term of office) of ministerial responsibility I believe that Rumsfeld should resign, I think that the most compelling reason he should do so is so that he can be replaced as SecDef by someone US troops can be confident will not blindly lead them from one disaster to another. You can't expect your military to function efficiently and respect the chain of command if nobody has any confidence in the person at the top.

 

[RandFan]

While it's true that as someone who lives in a nation which supports the doctrine (a doctrine which our current government has consistently ignored during its term of office) of ministerial responsibility I believe that Rumsfeld should resign, I think that the most compelling reason he should do so is so that he can be replaced as SecDef by someone US troops can be confident will not blindly lead them from one disaster to another. You can't expect your military to function efficiently and respect the chain of command if nobody has any confidence in the person at the top.

Do you know that "nobody has any confidence" in Rumsfeld?

 

[RandFan]

I have not yet see the evidence the sole connects Don Rumsfeld to any personal guilt for what happend in the prisions of Iraq that would justify him leaving the office of secretary of defense.

--Sen. Joe Lieberman

Tony Snow radio show.

 

[reprise]

I have not yet see the evidence the sole connects Don Rumsfeld to any personal guilt for what happend in the prisions of Iraq that would justify him leaving the office of secretary of defense.

--Sen. Joe Lieberman

Tony Snow radio show.

"Personal guilt" is not the issue. Administrative or "corporate" guilt is the issue. Rumsfeld is ultimately responsible for everything which happens within the DoD, just as the CEO of a corporation is ultimately responsible for what happens in that corporation.

The Taguba report is something which should have been hand delivered to Rumsfeld the moment it was available (in the middle of the night, if necessary) and yet when the CBS story aired Rumsfeld maintained that he hadn't yet read the report (of which the administration had at least 2 weeks warning). While for reasons of security, the photos and videos were not furnished with copies of the report, the report listed where they were held and I'm pretty certain that the SecDef would have had no problem accessing them. This information was all available to Rumsfeld and he chose not to access it, and one has to ask "why".

A CEO facing a situation of comparable magnitude would have been dismissed by now.

 

[Troll]

Please. You're horrible. Irrelevant and a strawman. The defense secretary is in charge of military actions. Military personnel committed heinous acts while in service, while in charge of prisoners, and while expected to follow the rules. Rumsfeld is responsible for the actions of his men/women (in terms of their treatment of prisoners, for example). He shouldn't be fired for their crimes, but rather for being negligent in his duties - failing to notify the president, failure to notify congress, failure to notify anyone of any import until he absolutely had to due to public outcry.

Kobe Bryant's coach is only responsible for what he does on the court or otherwise representing the team officially. If anyone from the military is discharged and commits a crime, the military is no longer responsible for them. Whether the military and Rumsfeld, etc., are responsible for them while they are on leave is debateable.

That's the saddest part. Only after they 'come to light'? Not after they are known from investigating this twice before? He doesn't even tell Bush or Congress?

That's yet another red herring. The 'jury' you are talking about is going to be a military tribunal, not a civilian court. This is not OJ, or Michael, or Kobe, or Rush, or anything like that.

You must buy straw by the ton.

Nice try, but I didn't say you called for it, but that you were for it, and the quote bears that out, especially since it refers to the siege in the past tense.

Also, in a democracy everyone has an equal say, right? But according to you, we should kill certain people if they aren't going to vote our way. "These are people we needed out of the Iraqi gene pool and voting base." Nice.

So you fire people who notice an issue and investigate it and wait until they have more? There are limits as to responsibilty. No one can be all seeing and all knowing and as such, all responsibility having in anything that allows individuals to participate.

Should he have said something sooner? Questionable at best. he heard of allegations and began an investigation. Nothing has been concluded yet because there have been no judicial processes yet. Perfect world scenario he hears about it, has it looked into, people get tried, found guilty and are punished then the news tells you that some morons did some stupid things and got punished for it. We don't live in that world so things get done out of order. Do you seriously think that his waiting meant he didn't want to see anyone committing some sort of violation punished? Do you have some weird connection with the man's mind and thoughts?

Here's what we know about law, the military and responsibility. all individuals are responsible for themselves. There are lawful orders which must be obeyed and unlawful orders which should not be obeyed. These guys followed orders or acted on their own. Did Rumsfeld or Bush or Powell, or Kerry (he's a senator and as responsible for the military as the next guy) give those orders if any were in fact given? The buck stops with the individual or the one that gave the order and even then the individual is responsible to know the difference between lawful and unlawful orders. It is so much sweeter to disobey and take the chance in court if you question the lawfullness of an order than it is to take the fall for following an unlawful order.

What is so hard to understand about that? Hell, if anything you ought to be shocked and pleasantly surprised that he is taking any responsibility at all for this, which he is.

 

[Troll]

While it's true that as someone who lives in a nation which supports the doctrine (a doctrine which our current government has consistently ignored during its term of office) of ministerial responsibility I believe that Rumsfeld should resign, I think that the most compelling reason he should do so is so that he can be replaced as SecDef by someone US troops can be confident will not blindly lead them from one disaster to another. You can't expect your military to function efficiently and respect the chain of command if nobody has any confidence in the person at the top.

He sat there and acepted responsibility that he did not have to accept. Trust me, he earned respect of people in the military when he did that.

 

[corplinx]

The Taguba report is something which should have been hand delivered to Rumsfeld the moment it was available

That's a matter of opinion. In theory, he shouldn't be micromanaging the military justice system. There are 3000 court martials in process now.

Now, if he had known the sensational photos that are driving people into this emotional frenzy would be leaked to CBS, then he should have read the report. That's in hindsight however.

 

[reprise]

That's a matter of opinion. In theory, he shouldn't be micromanaging the military justice system. There are 3000 court martials in process now.

Now, if he had known the sensational photos that are driving people into this emotional frenzy would be leaked to CBS, then he should have read the report. That's in hindsight however.

Isn't the SecDef also the person who is ultimately responsible for the military justice system?

I agree that he shouldn't be "micromanaging" the military justice system, but I would also argue that he's the one who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that whole of the DoD (including the military justice system) is operating within the confines of the laws which govern it and fully discharging its responsibilities under those laws. His interest in reading the report was not simply in avoding the current media frenzy, the report might equally have found that the allegations didn't stand up under scrutiny and that there was no basis for recommending charges. It was just as important for him to know that information ASAP.

 

[Dorian Gray]

There were 2 news conferences were they anounced the allegations and the investigation.

Fair enough. Okay, the abuses took place between October-December 2003. Two investigations took place in the first quarter of 2004. Rumsfeld told the press nothing, told Congress nothing, told Bush nothing. Then someone gave pictures to CBS. It was only AFTER that, when everyone knew the graphic details of what happened and the circumstances surrounding it that Rumsfeld went before Congress, the House, Bush, and the media.

In other words, Rumsfeld only told everyone after he got caught, after everyone already knew. That is inexcusable, and makes it look like he was trying for a cover-up. Any investigation he mentioned at the conference would actually be the THIRD investigation into this incident.

I want you to notice that he has not mentioned any other prison, nor has he mentioned any other abuses except to allude to 'something much worse'. He is STILL not being forthcoming.

His excuse is that public opinion would be swayed, and the accused would be tried in the media. Quite frankly, that's too f-ing bad. It doesn't matter, because the accused in this case will be tried most likely by a military tribunal and not by our civilian court system, so public opinion doesn't come into play very much here. Rumsfeld is hiding behind that claim.

Troll:

Do you seriously think that his waiting meant he didn't want to see anyone committing some sort of violation punished? Do you have some weird connection with the man's mind and thoughts?

I don't. Neither do you. My speculation is just as valid as yours.

Rumsfeld began in investigation WHY? There was already a report sitting in his 'in' box for two weeks that he still hadn't read before the hearing that he knew he was going to be speaking at! An investigation had been done - actually two. What the hell is wrong with those? He didn't read the report. He dropped the ball.

You say Kerry is responsible for the military, but he's not on the Armed Services Committee, so you're wrong. What, anything to implicate a Democrat? Any spin it takes? I am not surprised that you like spin so much considering your avatar looks like one of the planes from the early 80s Atari game 'Combat'.

He sat there and acepted responsibility that he did not have to accept. Trust me, he earned respect of people in the military when he did that.

To paraphrase you, do you have some kind of weird connection with the minds and thoughts of the entire US military?

Corplinx

That's a matter of opinion. In theory, he shouldn't be micromanaging the military justice system. There are 3000 court martials in process now.

There are thousands of court cases in the US system also. Obviously, some of them get more notoriety than others, and QUITE often it is obvious which ones those will be. In this case, it is quite obvious that cases involving torture/abuse/rape/murder of prisoners by US or coalition forces in Iraq or Afghanistan would be of extreme interest to the world over, say, some private who broke into his ex-wife's house and beat her up or something like that. Rumsfeld should have paid more attention to this particular case for that reason, pictures or no, and at least informed the AFC of the Senate/House and Bush.

You say 'micromanage' but he should manage it. You seem to be implying that he has more important things to do. What might those be? I noticed that he spent 6 hours testifying the other day. I hope he finds time to do that other more important stuff.

 

[RandFan]

Fair enough. Okay, the abuses took place between October-December 2003. Two investigations took place in the first quarter of 2004. Rumsfeld told the press nothing, told Congress nothing, told Bush nothing. Then someone gave pictures to CBS. It was only AFTER that, when everyone knew the graphic details of what happened and the circumstances surrounding it that Rumsfeld went before Congress, the House, Bush, and the media.

I don't think so. Perhaps it is just something that I'm missing. Please forgive me Dorian,

US probes abuse of Iraqi prisoners Saturday, January 17, 2004. 11:50am (AEDT)

The US military has opened an investigation into "serious reports" of abuse of prisoners by US troops at a coalition detention facility in Iraq.

Larry DiRita, special assistant to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, says the abuses were reported within military channels and involved incidents on more than one day at a detention facility in Baghdad.

"These are serious, serious reports. They are taken seriously - commanders have indicated that they take them seriously, and intend to pursue them," he said.

He says the reports came to light "very recently" and have been referred to the Army's Criminal Investigations Division for investigation.

The military withheld details of the alleged abuse on grounds that disclosure could hinder the investigation.

"An investigation has been initiated into reported incidents of detainee abuse at a coalition forces detention facility," the US Central Command said in a statement.

A senior defence official, who asked not to be identified, said the alleged abuses were of such a serious nature "that it would be criminal activity if true".

Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the US military commander in Iraq, reiterated to troops under his command that coalition forces were "committed to treating all persons under its control with dignity, respect and humanity", the Central Command statement said.

"The investigation will be conducted in a thorough and professional manner," it said.

Coalition figures say about 9,300 detainees are being held in US-run prisons in Iraq.

That does not include 3,800 detained members of the Iranian armed opposition People's Mujahedeen, which enjoyed Saddam's patronage.

How can you say "nothing"?

 

[demon]

In my opinion, Rumsfeld has compounded the US/UK failure in Iraq by refusing to resign last week and pretending that his failure was a party political issue---particularly since he has not been elected to public office for nearly 40 years.
Like so many vain bureaucrats, he believes he is indispensable.

And yet he more or less signed his own death warrant professionally when he announced that there were hundreds more pictures and even some stuff that sounds like snuff videos.

They were dripping out again today (guard dog pix in the NYorker). Soon they will be dumped on the internet and maybe Democrats will even put them on ad hoardings all over the USA and his position will become untenable.

Wolfowitz, the mastermind of this mess, is hiding behind Bush and will have to slink off when Rumsfeld falls.

If Rumsfeld does not go...

 

[Bjorn]

From the NY Times yesterday:

Mr. Rumsfeld revealed that while he had known of the existence of the photographs, he had not until Thursday night viewed any but those broadcast by television or printed in newspapers and magazines.

"It is the photographs that gives one the vivid realization of what actually took place," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "Words don't do it. The words that there were abuses, that it was cruel, that it was inhumane, all of which is true, that it was blatant, you read that and it's one thing. You see the photographs, and you get a sense of it, and you cannot help but be outraged."

I think he's saying that he didn't realize how serious this was because he didn't look at the pictures (until they became public). Was there nobody to tell him about '60 minutes' coming up?

 

[dsm]

I don't think so. Perhaps it is just something that I'm missing. Please forgive me Dorian,

How can you say "nothing"?

Your quote says nothing about what Rumsfeld did. You can view Rumsfeld in two lights:

1. He knew what was going on and how serious it was, but chose to keep it low-key in the hopes that it would not become a firestorm.
2. He didn't know what was going on and, so, had not effectively communicated to his subordinates about what types of operations were to be avoided in order to maintain the reputation of the US.

On #2, he may even be (partly) responsible for setting a tone within DoD that the Geneva Convention (and the like) would not play a factor in post-war Iraq (and Afghanistan?) and, thus, setup the potential for the abuses that the pictures showed.

These are the things that Congress should and will be looking into.

 

[Bjorn]

Your quote says nothing about what Rumsfeld did. You can view Rumsfeld in two lights:

1. He knew what was going on and how serious it was, but chose to keep it low-key in the hopes that it would not become a firestorm.
2. He didn't know what was going on and, so, had not effectively communicated to his subordinates about what types of operations were to be avoided in order to maintain the reputation of the US.

It seems to me he's saying:

1. He knew what was going on but not how serious it was, because 'he hadn't looked at the pictures'. He chose to keep it low-key in the hopes that it would not become a firestorm.

Which it became, of course - as soon as the pictures were out, no surprise .....

 

[dsm]

It seems to me he's saying:

1. He knew what was going on but not how serious it was, because 'he hadn't looked at the pictures'. He chose to keep it low-key in the hopes that it would not become a firestorm.

Which it became, of course - as soon as the pictures were out, no surprise .....

But, of course, this shows a lack of leadership on his part in that he failed to effectively communicate to his subordinates what issues are important (and the degrees of importance). If it's true that he did not know how serious it was, then his subordinates were not doing enough jumping up and down. That could mean that (shades of Richard Clarke!) Rumsfeld told them that he didn't want to hear about it.

 

[Silicon]

These guys have been backing as far away from the Geneva Convention as possible since 9/11.

Gtmo, afghanistan, etc... one thing these guys can't stand, it's the rights of the accused.

It's amazing how these guys can on one hand claim that this is a war on terror, and so it requires suspension of habeus corpus, but ALSO that it's not a war, so there needs to be no POW status for "unlawful combatants."

These folks back away from Geneva any chance they get.

The president's legal counsel, Alberto Gonzales, reportedly wrote in a memorandum that the decision to avoid invoking the Geneva Conventions, quote, preserves flexibility in the war on terrorism.

Belittling or ignoring the Geneva Conventions invites our enemies to do the same and increases the danger to our military service men and women. It also sends a disturbing message to the world that America does not feel bound by internationally accepted standards of conduct.

Transcript of the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Iraq prisoners, May 7, 2004. Comments of Senator Levin.


http://www.herald-sun.com/nationworld/14-478494.html


They brought this shame on our nation, from Bush on down. They made the rights of prisoners a lesser priority than it has probably ever been in modern US history. Shameful.

 

[RandFan]

DSM, Bjorn,

I don't understand. Can you document your accusations? It seems that you are speculating. The facts as I understand them are that the abuse was discovered and an investigation was launched and the world was notified.

What did Rumsfeld do that was wrong.

 

[RandFan]

Your quote says nothing about what Rumsfeld did. You can view Rumsfeld in two lights:

1. He knew what was going on and how serious it was, but chose to keep it low-key in the hopes that it would not become a firestorm.
2. He didn't know what was going on and, so, had not effectively communicated to his subordinates about what types of operations were to be avoided in order to maintain the reputation of the US.

On #2, he may even be (partly) responsible for setting a tone within DoD that the Geneva Convention (and the like) would not play a factor in post-war Iraq (and Afghanistan?) and, thus, setup the potential for the abuses that the pictures showed.

These are the things that Congress should and will be looking into.

There were abuses and when discovered an investigation was launched. Your argument seems to be a non sequitur. Why do you make this claim?

 

[RandFan]

It seems to me he's saying:

1. He knew what was going on but not how serious it was, because 'he hadn't looked at the pictures'. He chose to keep it low-key in the hopes that it would not become a firestorm.

Which it became, of course - as soon as the pictures were out, no surprise .....

It seems to me that since it was an investigation the details were confidential. Aren't you putting in something that isn't there? Can you document this claim or are you only guessing?