FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Rumsfeld should resign

   
Author Topic: Rumsfeld should resign
Alexa
Member
Member # 6285

 - posted      Profile for Alexa           Edit/Delete Post 
I supported the war and I think Rumsfeld is an incredible asset to America, HOWEVER, there is so much at stake in the Middle East that if the administration does not do something to show the rest of the world we abhor abuse, I fear Iraq will blow up and terrorists can manipulate the abuses to garner support.

Out of awareness of what kind of statement Rumsfeld removal would make, either Bush should axe him or Rumsfeld should resign. Stability is more important then one man's career.

The Iraq population is already weary of us, we need to do whatever we can to influence the public opinion in our favor so we/they can establish a stable government.

Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Troubadour
Member
Member # 83

 - posted      Profile for Troubadour   Email Troubadour         Edit/Delete Post 
The removal of Rumsfeld won't make a sod of difference to the average Iraqi on the street - if we're talking Iraqi public opinion, that is.

They didn't like us being there in the first place. They don't even know who Rumsfeld is. That's not ignorance on their part, it's just the way it is. If he resigns it'll be an empty gesture, appeasing only the people who are actually occupying Iraq, not anyone who's a citizen there. It won't make a damn of difference or make anyone who lives in Iraq any less weary of the occupation if he goes. It certainly won't establish any kind of trust, if that's what you're hoping.

Edited to ad any kind of clarity at my 1am posting time... god I wish I could sleep.

[ May 10, 2004, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Troubadour ]

Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Rumsfeld is one of the very few people in the Bush administration whom I respect; his resignation would be a loss to the country, IMO.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
Forget signals... Rumself should resign because he's been doing a very poor job. He should have been all over this scandal business, for one thing, and should have been sure the president was aware. But his stream of missteps goes back a lot longer than that - remember his "Old Europe" comment?

But then again, he's also not particularly worse than anyone else in the administration. I mean when the President and Vice President are giving misinformation as an excuse to start a war, you can hardly blame the Secretary of Defense for not keeping us well informed.

Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A Rat Named Dog
Member
Member # 699

 - posted      Profile for A Rat Named Dog   Email A Rat Named Dog         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, this mess has been kind of convoluted and politically charged from the start, so I've steered clear. But now it's apparently getting bigger. Can someone give me a concise reason why this is threatening Rumsfeld's career? I mean, from what little I've seen, it looks like some jerk soldiers humiliated and mistread some Iraqi prisoners. How did this get to be Rumsfeld's fault? Did he encourage it? Refuse to stop it? Or was he merely late in telling the press (a cardinal sin, if you happen to be the press)?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Geoff, it appears -- although it's by no means certain -- that the humiliation, including specific methods, was carried out on the orders of higher officers. Many people believe that this means the administration itself is unconcerned about humans rights abuses; I don't agree, but I think it does indicate the oxymoron inherent in the term "military police."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kasie H
Member
Member # 2120

 - posted      Profile for Kasie H   Email Kasie H         Edit/Delete Post 
Rumsfeld's mistake was not notifying or properly informing the right people when he found out the extent of the abuse.

The abuse in the prisons themselves, however, is the fault of the officers overseeing those prisons. It's those people, in my opinion, who should be most strongly punished.

Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
I believe the President said he was "not happy" with him because Rumsfeld did not inform him about the situation until the media came out with it.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
Rumsfeld is not in trouble for personally ordering or overseeing the misconduct.

He did three things wrong.

One, as over all head of our military, the final responsiblity of major problems is his. The true fault goes as high as at least one specific General.

Two, the prisons in Iraq are understaffed with undertrained people who have very limited supervison. Any person in corrections, or who has studied prison psychology can tell you that this combination will always result in abuse. After the first gulf war and the prisoners we collected then, apparently we still managed to not plan sufficiently for prisoners now. That planning is definately part of Mr. Rumsfield job.

Three, he let these pictures be published without warning the senate or President Bush. The flack that this has caused is the main reason people are trying to get rid of him. The day the pictures came out, Rumsfeld was in front of congress basically saying he had nothing new to report. This got a lot of senators upset as they were caught off gaurd.

You don't want to get a lot of senators mad at you if you want a career in politics.

President Bush has already slapped him down for not telling him about the problem. Now President Bush is ready to move on.

I listened to part of the testimony he did give Congress after the fact.

He was asked repeatedly if he should resign because of his mismanagement of this problem.

He said no.

However, when he was asked if he would resign if that would calm down many of the people in Iraq, stopping them from joining the insurgents, he said he would.

That took some bravery on his part and I applaude him for that answer.

That is the hook people are using to try and get him to resign, saying "Show that the Buck Stops Somewhere in the US. Resign and save our honor, and stop the insurgents from growing."

Whether that would happen is highly unlikely.

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
RND said:
quote:
Okay, this mess has been kind of convoluted and politically charged from the start, so I've steered clear. But now it's apparently getting bigger. Can someone give me a concise reason why this is threatening Rumsfeld's career? I mean, from what little I've seen, it looks like some jerk soldiers humiliated and mistread some Iraqi prisoners. How did this get to be Rumsfeld's fault? Did he encourage it? Refuse to stop it? Or was he merely late in telling the press (a cardinal sin, if you happen to be the press)?
That really doesn't reflect the issues being brought forth. Due to Rumsfeld's inattention and poor judgment, both Congress and President Bush had to hear about this from the media rather than from Rumsfeld himself.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, though.

Consider just some of this account from today's USA Today:

Early signs were given secondary priority

quote:
Over the secure line, Abizaid described the allegation of mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners reported on Jan. 13 by Army Spc. Joseph Darby, a reservist from Maryland. He told Myers about the disk, "Here's what basically the pictures might show."

Abizaid added, "This is a big deal."

This was the Pentagon's first explicit, high-level warning, but by no means its first hint that something had gone drastically wrong at the largest U.S.-run prison in Iraq. The now voluminous public record shows that the Pentagon received repeated reports of prisoner abuse but put a higher priority on extracting information about terrorist or insurgent attacks.

Although the specific abuses at Abu Ghraib occurred far down the chain of command from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, it was a chain closely supervised from the top. Indeed, in cases of high-level detainees, rules imposed by Rumsfeld dictated that Pentagon officials up to and including the Defense secretary be involved in approving the use of coercive interrogation methods.

Myers said in congressional testimony Friday that he alerted Rumsfeld almost immediately, though Rumsfeld said his memory was vague about when he first heard of the photographs. Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, Myers' deputy, told President Bush in early February that a prisoner abuse investigation was underway in Iraq, apparently without giving Bush much detail.
***

The facilities in Iraq, in Afghanistan, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia were set up under Rumsfeld's control.

Bush himself in early 2002 had ruled that terror suspects in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo would not be covered by Geneva Convention protections, though Rumsfeld said they would be treated humanely.

In December 2002, in two separate cases, Afghan detainees died as a result of blunt-force injuries delivered by their U.S. captors. Both cases were ruled homicides and are under investigation.

Beginning in March 2003, the International Red Cross began conducting spot-checks on U.S. prisons in Iraq and reported privately to the State Department, the Pentagon and commanders on the ground concerns about the ill-treatment of prisoners.

In July 2003, Amnesty International announced it had received reports of torture or ill treatment of prisoners by coalition forces in Iraq. And some weeks after a surprise visit to Abu Ghraib in October, the Red Cross reported to U.S. commanders some of the abuses that would later emerge in the criminal investigation. Rumsfeld said he could not recall hearing about this report.

None of these warning signs appear to have alerted Rumsfeld to the gravity of the developing crisis. In a day of testimony on Capitol Hill Friday, the Defense chief cited no memo, order or guidance issued by him reminding his subordinates about the importance of humane treatment of prisoners. Nor did Rumsfeld tell Congress that he had set up a system requiring Pentagon approval, sometimes his personal approval, for coercive interrogation of high-level prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, according to sources familiar with the system.

Rumsfeld instituted the system shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks in response to the sudden influx of detainees in the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan. It continues to be followed in Iraq, indicating a level of hands-on control of what was going on in the field far beyond what Rumsfeld has publicly described.

Two civilian Pentagon officials, a high-ranking military officer and a U.S. intelligence official — all with direct knowledge of the system and its rules — described the elaborate process for consulting with the Pentagon on interrogations. All spoke on condition they not be identified. It was unclear whether top Pentagon officials approved coercion or any of the abuses at Abu Ghraib. But the civilian, military and intelligence officials who described the process said that high-ranking Pentagon officials did approve coercive interrogation methods such as sleep deprivation for high-level detainees at other facilities in Iraq and elsewhere. Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita did not return several phone calls and e-mails seeking comment.

Hopefully, more will be emerging in the coming weeks - on the record, instead of off. But we do know that the Red Cross has been registering concerns for over a year. They appear to have been ignored.

At the very least the overcrowding, understaffing, and poor training at this prison was no secret - and a direct result of Rumsfeld's belief (along with his boss) that this invasion could be done on a budget plan.

I'm divided on Rumsfeld's resignation, though. I'm not sure I want the administration off to get off that cheaply for this.

Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
plaid
Member
Member # 2393

 - posted      Profile for plaid   Email plaid         Edit/Delete Post 
I posted this over in the other thread about Iraqi prisoner abuse, but it was the last post on page 3 and some folks may've missed it, so I'll post it here, too.

From a Washington Post editorial:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5840-2004May5.html

quote:

Mr. Rumsfeld's Responsibility
Thursday, May 6, 2004

THE HORRIFIC abuses by American interrogators and guards at the Abu Ghraib prison and at other facilities maintained by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan can be traced, in part, to policy decisions and public statements of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. Beginning more than two years ago, Mr. Rumsfeld decided to overturn decades of previous practice by the U.S. military in its handling of detainees in foreign countries. His Pentagon ruled that the United States would no longer be bound by the Geneva Conventions; that Army regulations on the interrogation of prisoners would not be observed; and that many detainees would be held incommunicado and without any independent mechanism of review. Abuses will take place in any prison system. But Mr. Rumsfeld's decisions helped create a lawless regime in which prisoners in both Iraq and Afghanistan have been humiliated, beaten, tortured and murdered -- and in which, until recently, no one has been held accountable.

The lawlessness began in January 2002 when Mr. Rumsfeld publicly declared that hundreds of people detained by U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan "do not have any rights" under the Geneva Conventions. That was not the case: At a minimum, all those arrested in the war zone were entitled under the conventions to a formal hearing to determine whether they were prisoners of war or unlawful combatants. No such hearings were held, but then Mr. Rumsfeld made clear that U.S. observance of the convention was now optional. Prisoners, he said, would be treated "for the most part" in "a manner that is reasonably consistent" with the conventions -- which, the secretary breezily suggested, was outdated.

In one important respect, Mr. Rumsfeld was correct: Not only could captured al Qaeda members be legitimately deprived of Geneva Convention guarantees (once the required hearing was held) but such treatment was in many cases necessary to obtain vital intelligence and prevent terrorists from communicating with confederates abroad. But if the United States was to resort to that exceptional practice, Mr. Rumsfeld should have established procedures to ensure that it did so without violating international conventions against torture and that only suspects who truly needed such extraordinary handling were treated that way. Outside controls or independent reviews could have provided such safeguards. Instead, Mr. Rumsfeld allowed detainees to be indiscriminately designated as beyond the law -- and made humane treatment dependent on the goodwill of U.S. personnel.

Much of what has happened at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay is shrouded in secrecy. But according to an official Army report, a system was established at the camp under which military guards were expected to "set the conditions" for intelligence investigations. The report by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba says the system was later introduced at military facilities at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan and the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, even though it violates Army regulations forbidding guards to participate in interrogations.

The Taguba report and others by human rights groups reveal that the detention system Mr. Rumsfeld oversees has become so grossly distorted that military police have abused or tortured prisoners under the direction of civilian contractors and intelligence officers outside the military chain of command -- not in "exceptional" cases, as Mr. Rumsfeld said Tuesday, but systematically. Army guards have held "ghost" prisoners detained by the CIA and even hidden these prisoners from the International Red Cross. Meanwhile, Mr. Rumsfeld's contempt for the Geneva Conventions has trickled down: The Taguba report says that guards at Abu Ghraib had not been instructed on them and that no copies were posted in the facility.

The abuses that have done so much harm to the U.S. mission in Iraq might have been prevented had Mr. Rumsfeld been responsive to earlier reports of violations. Instead, he publicly dismissed or minimized such accounts. He and his staff ignored detailed reports by respected human rights groups about criminal activity at U.S.-run prisons in Afghanistan, and they refused to provide access to facilities or respond to most questions. In December 2002, two Afghan detainees died in events that were ruled homicides by medical officials; only when the New York Times obtained the story did the Pentagon confirm that an investigation was underway, and no results have yet been announced. Not until other media obtained the photos from Abu Ghraib did Mr. Rumsfeld fully acknowledge what had happened, and not until Tuesday did his department disclose that 25 prisoners have died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. Accountability for those deaths has been virtually nonexistent: One soldier was punished with a dishonorable discharge.

On Monday Mr. Rumsfeld's spokesman said that the secretary had not read Mr. Taguba's report, which was completed in early March. Yesterday Mr. Rumsfeld told a television interviewer that he still hadn't finished reading it, and he repeated his view that the Geneva Conventions "did not precisely apply" but were only "basic rules" for handling prisoners. His message remains the same: that the United States need not be bound by international law and that the crimes Mr. Taguba reported are not, for him, a priority. That attitude has undermined the American military's observance of basic human rights and damaged this country's ability to prevail in the war on terrorism.


Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
Is this part of the "Us V.S. Them" mentality of the administration?

The Red Cross is a bit of a liberal organization. Amnesty International is definately a liberal group with a liberal agenda. So is that why President Bush's administration, including Mr. Rumsfeld ignored their reports?

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
Geoff,

I think that the largest crime that can be leveled at this Administration is the White House and the Pentagon creating an environment that is disrespectful of law in general and casual with the Geneva Convention in particular.

In 1992, when Bush, as commander and chief of the army and head of the federal government, dismisses the Geneva Convention as a bunch of legalisms, he sets a tone for everyone below, a tacit disrespect for procedure and the rule of law.

In my esteem, it was a bunch of "legalisms" that got him to this office, and a bunch of "legalisms" that safeguard the rights of Americans and reach to the very core of what it is to be an American.

In 2003, when Bush said, "All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries.

And many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way: They are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies. [smirk and applause]"

He put a premium on getting the job done at the expense of of doing a job correctly. By flouting international law, by confusing the terrorists in Al Queda with Afghan and Iraqi nationalists, he made permissible the use of any means necessary to achieve whatever information deemed necessary, by whomever felt qualified to judge. The White House was glib about the rule of a Law, and served as an example to all below.

If Rumsfeld is taking responsiblity, he needs to take responsibility. Either he needs to retire or he needs to articulate each and every decision he has made or overlooked that allowed these forseeable abuses to occur, including calling the Geneva Conventions outdated without installing a clear replacement to which civilian outsourced intelligence gathers were bound. Instead, he has "taken responsibility" by shugging his shoulders and saying, "I'm responsible, but there is really nothing I could have done."
____________________________________

The soldiers said that they were under orders from the outsourced Intelligence gathers from some civilian American Corp. Those civilians aren't accountable to International Law, US Law, and since there is no Iraqi Law recognized by us, yet, no law where in the land where the crimes were committed.

[ May 10, 2004, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
Geoff,

I don't know if you're actually reading this, but here's another analysis of the "Rumsfeld problem." It's not from a "liberal" or mainstream media - it's from Robert Novak.

Dysfunctional pentagon

quote:
While the White House officially vowed Rumsfeld's retention, there was no reinforcement in his natural political constituency. Last week, I talked to Republican members of Congress, GOP fund-raisers and contributors, defense consultants and even one senior official of a Coalition partner. The clear consensus was that Rumsfeld had to go. "There must be a neck cut," said the foreign official, "and there is only one neck of choice."

Don Rumsfeld is paying the price for the way he has run the Department of Defense for more than three years, but the price is also being paid by George W. Bush. From the first months of the Bush administration, I have heard complaints by old military hands -- some in uniform, some not -- that the new secretary's arrogance and insularity were creating a dysfunctional Pentagon. That climate not only limits the government's ability to deal with the prisoner scandal but also may have been its cause.

Rumsfeld is a man of extraordinary talents. When I first covered him almost 40 years ago, he was a House member from Chicago's North Shore whose future seemed limitless. But he alienated the party's Old Guard leadership, the reason why he left Congress in 1969 to head the Nixon administration's poverty program.

The Rumsfeld style was apparent when he was still in his 30s and President Richard Nixon named him ambassador to NATO. On his first day in Brussels, he publicly humiliated a young briefing officer with a barrage of questions he was not prepared to answer. It was a management technique he perfected in high federal office and as a successful corporate CEO.

In 2001, a few months after Rumsfeld was brought back for a second hitch at the Pentagon, an old friend of his gave me a disturbing report. As a former senior government official who was now a defense industry consultant, he told me Rumsfeld was a disaster waiting to happen. Rumsfeld, insulated by his inner circle, was at war against the uniformed military, the civilian bureaucracy and both houses of Congress.

This same former official last week told me the Iraqi prisoners fiasco was the inevitable outgrowth of Rumsfeld's management style. "If it had not happened with this," he told me, "there would have been a different disaster." The "kill the messenger" syndrome, other Pentagon sources say, clogs up avenues of information.



Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rhaegar The Fool
Member
Member # 5811

 - posted      Profile for Rhaegar The Fool   Email Rhaegar The Fool         Edit/Delete Post 
Personally I think Rummsfeld was a great guy, but the problem is, he didn;t tell Bush about this, he just let him get blindsided by this issue, so Yea, I think Rummy should go.

But the thing is this could turn out well for Bush. Ok so, Rummy goes, now you have a vacant position. Cheney can't be VP in 04 dur to his health. Cheney has already done what Rummy is doing, Cheney resigns as Vp and takes over for Rummy. Then Bush can take Guliani or Rice for VP in 04.

Posts: 1900 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
People are missing the point. Rumsfeld should resign posthaste, but not because of the prisoner abuse scandal. Nor for advising the president to take the country into a premptive war with Iraq, at BEST an enourmous gamble of American national security interests.

No, he should be toast for the truly horrific, unpardonable offense, committed during his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Comm. last week, of referring to "court-martial" in the plural as "court-martials", instead of the correct form, "courts-martial." This error always makes me snicker when committed by normal people, but to have a Secretary of Defense say it under oath to Congress is beyond the pale.

Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Farmgirl
Member
Member # 5567

 - posted      Profile for Farmgirl   Email Farmgirl         Edit/Delete Post 
I have heard a lot this week on talk radio on the pros and cons of keeping Rumsfeld, or of booting him out. I guess I don't have a strong opinion one way or another...

...however I was thinking -- if this wasn't the military -- if this was a regular company here in the U.S. And people at the lowest level of the major corporation were found to be guilty of criminal conduct (like little peons that I am at work -- lowest level) -- would the CEO get fired for what I did? certainly not. The Executive section of most corporations are NOT responsible for what their lowest employees do (they are responsible, of course, for corruption in high levels).

So how is my logic wrong? I know you're dying to tell me.....

Farmgirl

Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
I listend to "Fresh Air" on NPR this afternoon.

I know, liberal bias.

Still, they mentioned what could be a good reason for Rumsfeld to be kicked out.

There is growing concern about the private contractors in Iraq. When one senator wrote a letter asking Mr. Rumsfeld to detail what were the guidelines and responsibilities of these private contractors, Mr. Rumsfeld wrote back a letter.

It contained two blatant lies.

First, it said that such contractors were not the responsiblity of the US or its Military, but were the responsiblitiy of the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior.

There is no Iraqi Ministry of the Interior.

Iraq is under US Martial Law so has little authority anyway.

They are being paid for their work by the Pentagon.

Secondly, Mr. Rumsfeld listed those contractors on the ground in Iraq.

He failed to list either Titan or CACI, which are the companies providing the interogators and translators to the prison.

These are the people who told our troops to soften up the prisoners.

These people are nut being prosecuted, not being censored, heck, they have not even been fired.

If you want to know why people in Congress are so ready to see Rumsfeld go--here it is. He lied to them.

And had the misfortune to have his letter arrive at their desk two days after this scandal broke.

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Suneun
Member
Member # 3247

 - posted      Profile for Suneun   Email Suneun         Edit/Delete Post 
Farmgirl, I think the analogy would be more like:

Instead of the CEO (the President), we're blaming the person in charge of Quality Control. The people working in the factory added nuts to the food, while Quality Control told them not to worry so much about it.

Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
More seriously, I think Rumsfeld has only a 50%-50% of riding out this scandal beyond July.

quote:
I think that the largest crime that can be leveled at this Administration is the White House and the Pentagon creating an environment that is disrespectful of law in general and casual with the Geneva Convention in particular.

Irami

This is quite true. Rumsfeld and the administration in general (including Bush) have been very dismissive of prisoner rights and the Geneva Conventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and at our Cuban jails for terrorists.

I read yesterday in the NY Times that Rumsfeld and Bush Sr. were bitter rivals in the Ford administrtion, and that the current President Bush has little personal ties with Rumsfeld but rather just a working relationship. This could collapse quickly given Rumsfeld's (alleged) failure to adaquately brief the pres about the prisoner scandal. And Rumsfeld has made many enemies among top Pentagon general due to his ambitious plans to revamp US military force structures, so he can expect little support there.

Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
Rumsfeld should be fired, and SOME of our officers, and this may include Rumsfeld, depending on what he exactly he knew when, should be tried for war crimes.

Rumsfeld is in charge of making sure stuff like this doesn't happen. He didn't do his job. He should be fired. Its that simple.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If you want to know why people in Congress are so ready to see Rumsfeld go--here it is. He lied to them.

And had the misfortune to have his letter arrive at their desk two days after this scandal broke.

Oh, man! Due to this, I'm revising my odds to 60%-40% that Rumsfeld will resign within 2 months.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kasie H
Member
Member # 2120

 - posted      Profile for Kasie H   Email Kasie H         Edit/Delete Post 
Farmgirl,

CEOs are often held accountable by the board of directors (or they hold THEMSELVES accountable) when something goes terribly wrong.

Witness the (late) CEO of Boeing.

Or Michael Eisner, for that matter.

In my father's company, at least (he works for a multinational computer firm), it is often the CEO who is first held accoutable for the company's poor performance.

I actually thought this was something of a business standard across the board.

Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
plaid
Member
Member # 2393

 - posted      Profile for plaid   Email plaid         Edit/Delete Post 
Curiosity question: for folks who like Rumsefield and don't want him to resign... what do you like about him?
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrianM
Member
Member # 5918

 - posted      Profile for BrianM   Email BrianM         Edit/Delete Post 
Now that the interrogation guidelines and regulations that are products of the Bush administration, and specifically Rumsfeld, have been released it is clear several are violations of the geneva convention which does not allow for sleep deprivation or any of the other methods that Rumsfelds admits to using/advocating under the premise he thinks they are legitimate. This is deplorable, we need a change of policy and a new man in his place to implement that policy. Rumsfeld is a failure in his capacity overseeing Iraq defence policy.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
Some major allegations today:

Report: Rumsfeld OK'd Prisoner Program

quote:
NEW YORK - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the expansion of a secret program that encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners to obtain intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq (news - web sites), The New Yorker reported Saturday.
Here's the article in question:

THE GRAY ZONE

It's long, so here's two segments of it (emphasis mine.)

quote:
The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror.

According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon’s operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq. A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A.

quote:
By contrast, according to the military report, the American and Coalition forces knew little about the insurgency: “Human intelligence is poor or lacking . . . due to the dearth of competence and expertise. . . . The intelligence effort is not coördinated since either too many groups are involved in gathering intelligence or the final product does not get to the troops in the field in a timely manner.” The success of the war was at risk; something had to be done to change the dynamic.

The solution, endorsed by Rumsfeld and carried out by Stephen Cambone, was to get tough with those Iraqis in the Army prison system who were suspected of being insurgents. A key player was Major General Geoffrey Miller, the commander of the detention and interrogation center at Guantánamo, who had been summoned to Baghdad in late August to review prison interrogation procedures. The internal Army report on the abuse charges, written by Major General Antonio Taguba in February, revealed that Miller urged that the commanders in Baghdad change policy and place military intelligence in charge of the prison. The report quoted Miller as recommending that “detention operations must act as an enabler for interrogation.”

Miller’s concept, as it emerged in recent Senate hearings, was to “Gitmoize” the prison system in Iraq—to make it more focussed on interrogation. He also briefed military commanders in Iraq on the interrogation methods used in Cuba—methods that could, with special approval, include sleep deprivation, exposure to extremes of cold and heat, and placing prisoners in “stress positions” for agonizing lengths of time. (The Bush Administration had unilaterally declared Al Qaeda and other captured members of international terrorist networks to be illegal combatants, and not eligible for the protection of the Geneva Conventions.)

Rumsfeld and Cambone went a step further, however: they expanded the scope of the sap, bringing its unconventional methods to Abu Ghraib. The commandos were to operate in Iraq as they had in Afghanistan. The male prisoners could be treated roughly, and exposed to sexual humiliation.

If this turns out to be true, it amounts to (1)creating public policy that deliberately circumvents human rights and promotes torture in the War on Terror, and (2) deliberately expanding this methodology to the conventional POWs in the War in Iraq. It goes on to describe how unqualified and poorly informed officers were then put in the position of having to operate in this manner - officers who did not "know the rules" and limitations. If this is true, there should be no question about it: Rumsfeld needs to be fired.

What's more, it says the Bush approved the program, and was made informed of the violations involved with it.

Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
Bush is the one that should resign as he is the one on the top calling the shots.
He should be impeached for his actions.

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kerinin
Member
Member # 4860

 - posted      Profile for kerinin           Edit/Delete Post 
i agree, if the allegations in both of the articles above are true, bush should be impeached, no questions asked.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alexa
Member
Member # 6285

 - posted      Profile for Alexa           Edit/Delete Post 
ok ok, I am really not a conspiracy theorist, but I admit I am reading "Hiding in Plain Sight" by Ken Bowers. For those of you who are not Mormon, let me explain: There is a fragment of the Mormon Church that believes there is an active satanic influence to destroy Christianity, the constitution, human rights, et cetera. The most extreme go out in the hills and stock guns and wait for the UN (who is considered the 7 headed dragon in Revelations) to come and combat the church. 666 is, of course, the barcode that everyone will have to have implanted in their hands to purchase goods--see Rev. ch13. Future debit cards. Lol.

It all boils down to the belief in the Gadianton Robbers and secrete combinations in the last days. Top secrete groups get discussed a lot in these Mormon circles.

I am not a fan of the conspiracy theories—hell, my faith itself is not rock solid--, but since my spouse made a new friend who's spouse is into "it," I wanted to read this book written by a Mormon.

As I was thinking about the mess the Bush administration has gotten us into, I came across this passage in "Hiding in Plain Sight" (the book I am reading to be informed about our “new” friends). It was published in 2000, before the War on Terror.

quote:
Because of the above article, it is possible the conspirators may do the same thing with us. That is, they could create an enemy, brainwash us into thinking that they need extraordinary powers not granted by the Constitution to defeat the 'enemy,' then once the 'enemy' is vanquished, brainwash us again into thinking that they need to perpetuate their new found control over us in order to defeat future 'enemies.' Look out for it.
Ironically for the conservative/republican Mormon religion, if this is true, it is Bush who has made it possible. Just thought I would throw it out there.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ak
Member
Member # 90

 - posted      Profile for ak   Email ak         Edit/Delete Post 
Alexa, I am Mormon and this is the first I've heard of this. But anyway, I guess every group has a few. [Smile] I think theories such as these spring more from ordinary paranoia than from any particular religious doctrine. They seem fairly widespread, at least among protestants. The people who long for apocalypse are usually those who feel particularly disenfranchised, yet Zion is all about being enfranchised. When all around us are losing their heads, so to speak, we have the teachings and the keys and the strength not to lose ours.

That said, the technique outlined for convincing a people to give up their freedom is a time honored one, and has worked well throughout history. I think it's good to put aside fear, and have faith that holding fast to the truth, to honesty and plain dealing, to kindness, and all of the principles which we've been taught, will serve us better in the long run than defensiveness and witch hunts borne of fear and insecurity. So I hope at some point the majority of LDS Americans, as well as all Americans, will simply vote out those who choose to peddle fear and authoritarianism as their main ware.

Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alexa
Member
Member # 6285

 - posted      Profile for Alexa           Edit/Delete Post 
ak, you must not live in Utah, or you must of not been in the church very long. I have lost church leaders to fringe groups like this. It was actually a very sad process to see happen. But least you think this is so unheard of in the LDS faith...

I did a quick search and found this easy...mind you, there were 100 results, but I focused on Benson, since he was a prophet.
quote:
Listen to a Prophet’s Voice
Elder Ezra Taft Benson
Of the Council of the Twelve
Are you concerned about the increasing subversion in this blessed country, and other countries of the free world, and the spread of wickedness by a giant conspiracy ? Would you be interested in reading the Book of Mormon, which records the downfall of two great ancient American civilizations as a result of internal secret conspiracies and contains a warning to us today that when we see these conditions in our midst, the Lord commands us to awake to our awful situation? With the increasing amount of aid and trade that we are providing the enemy of freedom, you might be interested to know what the Book of Mormon says will happen to a nation that upholds this conspiracy . Would you like to know of the warnings of the prophets about our increasing descent down the soul-destroying road of socialism and what they have told us to do about it?

and
quote:
Civic Standards for the Faithful Saints
Elder Ezra Taft Benson
Of the Council of the Twelve
Now undoubtedly Moroni could have pointed out many factors that led to the destruction of the people, but notice how he singled out the secret combinations, just as the Church today could point out many threats to peace, prosperity, and the spread of God’s work, but it has singled out the greatest threat as the godless conspiracy. There is no conspiracy theory in the Book of Mormon —it is a conspiracy fact.

Then Moroni speaks to us in this day and says, “Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you” (Ether 8:14.)

This scripture should alert us to what is ahead unless we repent, because there is no question but that as people of the free world, we are increasingly upholding many of the evils of the adversary today. By court edict godless conspirators can run for government office, teach in our schools, hold office in labor unions, work in our defense plants, serve in our merchant marines, etc. As a nation, we are helping to underwrite many evil revolutionaries in our country.
President Clark warned us that “we stand in danger of losing our liberties, and that once lost, only blood will bring them back; and once lost, we of this church will, in order to keep the Church going forward, have more sacrifices to make and more persecutions to endure than we have yet known. …” (CR, April 1944, p. 116.) And he stated that if the conspiracy “comes here it will probably come in its full vigor and there will be a lot of vacant places among those who guide and direct, not only this government, but also this Church of ours.” (CR, April 1952.)

and
quote:
I Testify
President Ezra Taft Benson
I testify that America is a choice land. (See 2 Ne. 1:5.) God raised up the founding fathers of the United States of America and established the inspired Constitution. (See D&C 101:77-80.) This was the required prologue for the restoration of the gospel. (See 3 Ne. 21:4.) America will be a blessed land unto the righteous forever and is the base from which God will continue to direct the worldwide latter-day operations of His kingdom. (See 2 Ne. 1:7.)

I testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society. (See D&C 1:14-16; D&C 84:49-53.) It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world. (See Ether 8:18-25.)

As you can see, the list and quotes start to get long. Conspiracy Theory is most certainly in the LDS faith.

[EDIT] The bold emphasis is by me.

[ May 16, 2004, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Alexa ]

Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alexa
Member
Member # 6285

 - posted      Profile for Alexa           Edit/Delete Post 
Also, if you read any of the books on Revelations that are available at every Deseret Book store, you will see that conspiracy theories, anti-UN talk, and treating the constitution as valid scripture is more common then most people think.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
These types of conspiracies are not limited to just the LDS church. They flourish around most Christian churches from "The Sword of God" that was training troops here in Missouri to the Catholic Fanaticism of Mel Gibson's father.

I think it is more of an Ego thing than fear. People want to believe that their lives have meaning, and what could be more meaningful than fighting the minions of Satan on the eve of Christ's return.

So these people living ordinary lives in ordinary ways find an outlet for their need to be special. The everyday heroics of family and life are left behind by the desire to be super special and be the one to help Jesus by slaying Satan.

Or--If Satan isn't behind my failed life, then it must be my fault. No, its Satan.

Even Islam has these fanatics, but they use real guns and kill all the people they think are Satans, whether those people are other Muslims or American soldiers.

But that's another story.

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
This thread has taken quite the unexpected turn.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mabus
Member
Member # 6320

 - posted      Profile for Mabus   Email Mabus         Edit/Delete Post 
*nods* Every church has its share of weirdos. I recall reading the records of a lectureship held at Freed-Hardeman University (one of our schools) that was given to me as a gift.

One of the lecturers stridently opined that there were three conspiracies competing with each other for the hearts and minds of the people: secular humanism, communism, and the American government.

I suppose no one mentioned to him the other lecturer who complained that being against the establishment means being against "law, decency, and good order".

Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alexa
Member
Member # 6285

 - posted      Profile for Alexa           Edit/Delete Post 
My evolved question is: Does the LDS church as an institution sponsor conspiracy theories? Benson is the only “12” turned “prophet” I can recall who seemed to dwell on secrete combinations in the last days conspiring to take away American and world freedom. Secrete combinations are certainly the cause of the Nephites downfall In The Book of Mormon. Any LDS people want to comment? Is this church belief or just the opinions of a rogue prophet and extremists hiding in the desert?

[EDIT] The twelve certainly seemed to be focusing on the Homosexual Agenda and touting the Proclamation to the World as inspired scripture that warns of grave consequences of the disintegration of the family. Few people could argue that the churches stance on homosexuality is not a direct result of the belief in the divine inspiration of the Proclamation to the World.
quote:
we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
To me, this is a divine tie between the legalization of homosexuality, the war on terror, and an increase of earthquakes in our world. As a faith that requires 100% devotion, I think we need to be clear on our beliefs and not apologize for prophetic warnings.

So, if the "Hiding in Plain Site" book has hit a truth, then the Bush administration is taking us down the path prophets from Moroni to Benson have warned us about. So, Rumsfeld should resign, and we need a president from the independent party.

[ May 18, 2004, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Alexa ]

Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BannaOj
Member
Member # 3206

 - posted      Profile for BannaOj   Email BannaOj         Edit/Delete Post 
Do you guys think this scandal is dying? It seems to me like it is in the media. It hit hatrack a week before it hit the media big time last week and now it seems like it is dying out everywhere except Congress which won't let the media attend the closed door sessions.

There was the added bit of sensationalism due to to the beheading, but now all they have is the soft human interest side, with the family of the deceased. And they've drug the family of the woman who is in the torture pictures in, and it has turned Springeresque on that front but not as over the top as Springer so why watch it?

I guess the public is that fickle.

AJ

Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alexa
Member
Member # 6285

 - posted      Profile for Alexa           Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think it is the American public we should be worried about. If it increases the instability in the Middle East, then it is not dying out and is still a serious threat to our war/peace efforts. I don't think the Arab world is as fickle as us. They don't have 24 to look forward too. Woohoo...it is on tonight! I will still boycott American Idol. See how easy it is to get distracted while the rest of the world simmers and gets ready to boil?
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alexa
Member
Member # 6285

 - posted      Profile for Alexa           Edit/Delete Post 
ak,
quote:
When all around us are losing their heads, so to speak
Was that some horrible pun? [Confused]
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
*grew up in the seventh day adventist religion hearing some interesting conspiracy theories, mainly against the catholic church*

http://www.rense.com/general53/killed.htm

Things have gotten much worse...
How do you call for the impeachment of a president?

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Call your Representative and ask him to introduce a resolution.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alexa
Member
Member # 6285

 - posted      Profile for Alexa           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
A: Not that I know of. Well, if a tank gets hit, crews are detained for a little while to make sure there are no signs or symptoms. American tanks have depleted uranium on the sides, and the projectiles have DU in them. If an enemy vehicle gets hit, the area gets contaminated. Dead rounds are in the ground. The civilian populace is just now starting to learn about it. Hell, I didn't even know about DU until two years ago. You know how I found out about it? I read an article in Rolling Stone magazine. I just started inquiring about it, and I said "Holy s---!"
That was powerful.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
AJ:
quote:
Do you guys think this scandal is dying? It seems to me like it is in the media. It hit hatrack a week before it hit the media big time last week and now it seems like it is dying out everywhere except Congress which won't let the media attend the closed door sessions.

Well, it looks like Rumsfeld wants it to die. He's about had it with being contrite, defensive and having to answer questions:
Senate panel to hold another hearing on abused prisoners

quote:
The defense secretary also met with 12 senators over breakfast Tuesday morning and, sources said, he criticized the hearings, saying they were becoming a distraction to the war effort in Iraq.

"He did express frustration that, at some point, additional hearings are counterproductive in terms of the optimal use of his time and the time of the combatant commanders in fighting and winning the war on terror," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

But Warner stood by his decision to hold what will be the third public hearing by his committee on the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.

He stood before television cameras Tuesday afternoon, reading from a letter he sent to Rumsfeld last week.

"Given that some witnesses may need to remain in Iraq for operational reasons, we are open to exploring the option of teleconference of video for some of the hearings," Warner read from his own letter, saying it shows his desire to accommodate the Pentagon.

"It's all laid out very clearly in here," Warner added.

Some Republicans are playing along to Rumsfeld's tune. Others - namely John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsay Graham - have remained pretty consistent in their stated intentions to investigate this thoroughly.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Somehow, the desire to be left alone to continue running things in Iraq doesn't strike me as a persuasive reason not to investigate the problems that happened in Iraq while he was running things.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2