This is the rare newspaper editorial (as opposed to Op-Ed) that pulls no punches, and gets it exactly right:
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….
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part” in “a manner that is reasonably consistent” with the conventions — which, the secretary breezily suggested, was outdated.
Note that the Post accepts the administration’s view that Al Qaeda terrorists can be legitimately held and interrogated without the protections of the Geneva convention. They are okay with that, as long as there’s an initial hearing to determine that this is really an Al Qaeda terrorist and not a Taliban conscript; as long as we have procedures that ensure that the Convention Against Torture is not violated; and as long as it is reserved for extraoardinary cases.
(This will surprise many readers, but I think I am okay with that too. I would add that indefinite detention without a real hearing–probably not an ordinary criminal trial, but a real hearing with real representation for the accused that goes beyond the original POW/enemy combatant distinction–should not be an option.)
Of course, none of that is relevant in Iraq, a country which we chose to invade, where the few Al Qaeda and Ba’athist terrorists are scattered among many ordinary guerillas and even more innocent civilians we’ve captured by mistake. Yet Rumsfeld still says the Geneva Convention is optional:
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.
Even if you don’t care about the Iraqis, this is not doing our own troops any favors. It’s obvious to almost everyone that Abu Ghraib is a practical as well as a moral disaster. And even if our success in Iraq didn’t depend so heavily on the general population’s trust; even if it were a simpler and more purely military struggle; even if those pictures weren’t the world’s best ad campaign for Osama bin Laden….we didn’t sign the Geneva Convention because we were goody-two-shoes. It’s in our interest to treat captives decently. It encourages the enemy to surrender instead of fighting to the death, and it increases the chances that our own soldiers will be treated decently when they’re captured.
I like his poetry as much as the next girl. But as far as I’m concerned, Rumsfeld has joined Ashcroft and Tenet and whoever ratted out Valerie Plame in the “should be SO fired” club. Read the whole Washington Post editorial and tell me you disagree.
(via commenter otmar at Tacitus)
P.S.Ted Barlow and commenter Jesurgislac are right: John “Death Squads” Negroponte is one of the worst possible choices for Ambassador to Iraq in view of this stuff. I say “one of” because this administration probably could come up with someone worse if they really put their mind to it…though at this point I think I would prefer Wolfowitz.
As asdf notes in comments, the Senate is going to confirm Negroponte in an hour or so anyway, despite Tom Harkin‘s best efforts.
Also see Dwight Meredith for more on Rumsfeld.
I’ve been arguing since January 2002 that Guantanamo Bay is wrong. I have literally lost track of the number of times I’ve cited the Geneva Convention to prove that the US is in breach of it, and been told (again and again and again) either that I was wrong about what the Convention said, or I was wrong to think it was wrong, or why should the US follow the Geneva Conventions, or who cared anyway, they’re all terrorists.
They are okay with that, as long as there’s an initial hearing to determine that this is really an Al Qaeda terrorist and not a Taliban conscript; as long as we have procedures that ensure that the Convention Against Torture is not violated; and as long as it is reserved for extraoardinary cases.
And I’m okay with that too. (I would add that the transcripts of the initial hearing should be made available to independent scrutiny as a double-check.)
I would add that indefinite detention without a real hearing–probably not an ordinary criminal trial, but a real hearing with real representation for the accused that goes beyond the original POW/enemy combatant distinction–should not be an option.
Exactly. Even if a prisoner is an al-Qaeda terrorist, eventually, the detaining authority must be required to bring them to trial. Bland talk of detaining prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, in legal limbo, forever – and I have seen that mooted – is just plain wrong.
Rumsfeld has joined Ashcroft and Tenet and whoever ratted out Valerie Plame in the “should be SO fired” club
Add Negroponte to the list. (It looked like a bad idea to appoint Negroponte, given his history, and given Iraq’s history, even before this story broke. It looks criminally stupid now: Negroponte has a reputation for covering up exactly the kind of thing that has been happening in the Abu Ghraib prison.)
I prefer the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial
Yeah, I’m being convinced as well. Rummy’s gotta go.
Edward,
Rummy’s gotta go.
Uh, no. Rummy gotta stay.
Anyway, I predict that if we let Rummy go he’ll be labeled as “torturer”, “butcher”, “murderer” and “war criminal” by the arab world. This situation is pretty parallel with what happened to Sharon 1983 (when he was the defense minister of Israel).
Bush: Rumsfeld ‘Will Stay in My Cabinet’
Ah yes. Let’s make all our decisions in government based on what other people think. That’s a great reason to keep all the officials who got us into this mess in power. What would the Jones’ think? Now I’ve heard everything.
Let’s make all our decisions in government based on what other people think.
Eh? I was just pointing out the historical similarity. By the way, you have a good point.
Why should we fire Rummy to appease arabs?
“Secretary Rumsfeld has served our nation well,” Bush told reporters in an appearance in the White House Rose Garden. Speaking slowly for emphasis, he added, “Secretary Rumsfeld has been the secretary during two wars, and he is an important part of my Cabinet.”
That’s an odd description.
Well at least he FINALLY apologized.
Responsibility: I very much view the administration as a team, and all members( save the coach) equally responsible. If Powell wasn’t in a loop, for example, he should have screamed until he was, or quit. Rumsfeld is often blamed for “insufficient troops” under the force transformation thing, but if we wanted 300k we would be invading Iraq about now. Funding, diplomacy, domestic politics all played a part in the timing of the invasion.
Sacrifice Rumsfeld for PR? Well, since I am sure Bush loathed doing those Arabic interview, it is very interesting that he did them. From their hardball POV, the “pictures” don’t hurt us til they hurt us. In others words, concrete damage I can read about in the papers, like Poland pulling out or Sistani saying go. Or Saudi Arabia cutting production in half.
I have to wonder why Bush did the interview.
Anyway, I predict that if we let Rummy go he’ll be labeled “torturer”, “butcher”, “murderer” and “war criminal” by the arab world.
I am sure that he’ll be labeled that no matter what action is taken.
Possibly Bush was horrified that Americans were behaving in this way and wanted to express his repulsion that it happened and show resolve that he would work to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Granted he is going to need to go to Germany to fix the problem there also and pretty much everywhere else in the world.
http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/05/germanys_shame_.html
Rummy will stay. As for labels I doubt he really cares.
cameron,
I am sure that he’ll be labeled that no matter what action is taken.
That might be true. But the similarity with Sharon that I was pointing out is more specific… After Phalangists conducted the massacre at Shatila, Israeli gov’t launched an investigation after which Sharon was forced to resign as minister of defense since they concluded that he failed to foresee the events as they ended up unfolding. Nowdays, if you google for Sharon + Shatilla or listen to muslims/lefties you’ld think that he personally ordered the massacre or participted in it. Naturally, nobody knows the name of the Phalangist leader who actually lead the massacre, nor do many know that these Muslim vs Christian and Christian vs Muslim massacres occurred quite often in the 70’s/80’s.
My point? If you think that Rummy resigning will somehow pacify Muslims – you are wrong. It will have an opposite effect.
“Anyway, I predict that if we let Rummy go he’ll be labeled as “torturer”, “butcher”, “murderer” and “war criminal” by the arab world.”
This is important, why?
“This situation is pretty parallel with what happened to Sharon 1983 (when he was the defense minister of Israel)”
When Israel judged him guilty of war crimes and removed him from office. Interesting parallel you suggest.
“Why should we fire Rummy to appease arabs?”
See, in my ears and eyes, this differs not from “Why should we fire Rummy to appease jews?”
Perhaps you can explain the differences.
You might also learn to capitalize.
When Israel judged him guilty of war crimes and removed him from office.
Guilty of war crimes? You might want to have a read:
These blunders constitute the non-fulfillment of a duty with which the Defense Minister was charged.
See, in my ears and eyes, this differs not from “Why should we fire Rummy to appease jews?”
When I refer to “arabs” I refer to Arab states. If you want to refer the Jewish state, reword your question by changing “jews” to “Israelis” and I’ll respond.
You might also learn to capitalize.
I might. And you might also learn to stick to facts.
Heh.
Mr Jassim, blinking in bemusement as the cameras flashed, then sprang something of a surprise himself. “It’s all lies,” he said, elbowing his way through the crowd into an elderly minibus.
“Life in there is very hard, yes, but there is no electrocution and no mistreatment.”
“Rubbish”, said his Iraqi listeners. Mr Jassim, who had just done time for possessing machine guns and grenades, was clearly scared he would be dragged back inside if he told the truth, they claimed. Either that, or he was a cunning plant released by his captors in an effort to salvage their tarnished reputation.
Gary,
Huh? What are you talking about?
“Why should we fire Rummy to appease arabs?”
See, in my ears and eyes, this differs not from “Why should we fire Rummy to appease jews?”
We aren’t at war with Jewish extremists.
That’s what the difference is.
And Rumsfeld had all those labels prior to this event.
You know, there were atrocities of this nature committed in Somalia too, and captured on film.
.. by Canadian UN Peacekeepers. I don’t recall Kofi Annan taking the fall for it. He was UN Head of Peacekeeping Forces from 1993 to 1997. Presided over torture through non-interference in Rwanda as well, but who cares?
“These blunders constitute the non-fulfillment of a duty with which the Defense Minister was charged.”
Aside from the bureaucratic obfuscutatory language, it’s interesting that you characterise Donald Rumsfeld, and call for his forced expulstion from office, in this way.
Gary,
Aside from the bureaucratic obfuscutatory language, it’s interesting that you characterise Donald Rumsfeld…
Huh? Where? What are you talking about?
“Huh? Where? What are you talking about?”
What you asserted.
“This situation is pretty parallel with what happened to Sharon 1983 (when he was the defense minister of Israel).”
“I was just pointing out the historical similarity.”
Ok, if you say so.
Gary,
And where exactly do I call for his forced expulstion from office???
“Why should we fire Rummy to appease arabs?”
See, in my ears and eyes, this differs not from “Why should we fire Rummy to appease jews?”
We aren’t at war with Jewish extremists.
That’s what the difference is.
So if we should go to war with Jewish extremists, then is the time to dehumanise them by using the old lower-case slur.
Capitalize nouns until we are at war with Those People.
Got it.
Capitalize nouns until we are at war with Those People.
Eh? My poor capitalization habits have nothing to do with “Those People”. You are reading into irrelevant stuff to satisfy your own biases.
I am sure I missed a few comas here and there, what do you think of that? Who did I try to offend by that horrendous act?
“And where exactly do I call for his forced expulstion from office???”
“This situation is pretty parallel with what happened to Sharon 1983 (when he was the defense minister of Israel).”
“I was just pointing out the historical similarity.”
Wait, are you saying it’s not “pretty parallel,” and there is no “historical similarity”? That Congress should not act as the Knesset did? A Congressional committee should not recommend the removal of Sharon from office and this should not take place?
Despite your assertion of the situations being “pretty parallel” and of “historical similarity?
I’m so confused.
this thread is bizarre.
meanwhile, according to BoPNews, Harkin called Negroponte to the carpet this afternoon. Approval to happen around 5 pm.
“I am sure I missed a few comas here and there, what do you think of that?”
Oh, by all means, enjoy your coma; don’t miss one!
(Please stop supplying these fish; the barrel is making me lazy.)
I’m so confused.
I know Gary, I know. Its very complex. I’ll try to type slow so you understand.
Wait, are you saying it’s not “pretty parallel,” and there is no “historical similarity”?
Its parallel up to the point were Sharon resigns. Note my posts from this very thread where I write Uh, no. Rummy gotta stay.
and Why should we fire Rummy to appease arabs? and My point? If you think that Rummy resigning will somehow pacify Muslims – you are wrong. It will have an opposite effect. … Somehow you manage to paraphrase all that as it’s interesting that you characterise Donald Rumsfeld, and call for his forced expulstion from office.
You do know a thing or two about capitalization, though. I’ll give you that.
Gary,
It’s parallel up to the point where it becomes the opposite of where you say it’s parallel.
You’re being obtuse. I drew a parallel, and explained why Rummy’s resignation wouldn’t mean anything to enraged Arabs (note the capital ‘A’).
“Its parallel up to the point were Sharon resigns.”
It’s parallel up to the point where it becomes the opposite of where you say it’s parallel.
I’m clear now. Thanks!
I don’t know what we would have done without this illustrious parallel having been pointed out. We might have not thought it was parallel.
But, now, the illumination.
President just said “I am sorry for the humiliation etc…” Rose Garden Ceremony with the “52nd consecutive Hashemite Ruler of the Kingdom of Jordan” as I like to call him.
This saves Rummy’s job, and likely was its purpose.
Maybe, Bob, but it must also have been a demand made by Jordan. Note that the US backed off on the West Bank settlements, too.
Yeah, looks like we’ll still have Rummy to kick around for a while.
If some of the right wing critics of liberals were right, and we did want things to get worse so that Bush would lose the election, can we now declare that things are bad enough, already? We should be at the place where the liberals (if there were any who so wished) are saying, “Damn, I didn’t really want things to get this bad!” and for the right wing critics to say, “What a fine kettle of fish!”.
can we now declare that things are bad enough, already?
Then again, you can point at any date at random and claim that things are bad enough. Freedom of speech n such.
They won’t fire anyone. It’s a sign of weakness, or admission of error. They don’t do that.
It’s a disastrous strategy for policy, and it’s a disastrous strateegy for the world’s image of the United States. As far as domestic politics, though, it works pretty well.
As long as you make an argument that you were right, any argument, however laughable or weak or implausible it is to anyone whose been paying attention…the press will feel duty-bound to report “Republicans say X, Democrats Y, and now Michael Jackson’s underwear and the dog w ho saved Easter.” If you admit you were wrong, even if you blame it on a subordinate, they’ll jump all over you.
They direct their PR strategy at the voter who’s not paying very close attention. And it works, politically. Look at where the poll numbers stayed forever on WMDs, Saddam’s ties to bin Laden…hell, look where those poll numbers still are. It plays absolute hell with your honesty and ability to govern, though.
Damn, I didn’t really want things to get this bad.
But I think they’ve been this bad since January 2002 – it’s just that we’re now getting photographs of how bad “this bad” is.
Levy
Jacob Levy outraged at Bush for not resigning Rummy. Jane Galt at Asymmetrical Information also, though I had trouble with the trackback link. Economist too.
Ummm, parts of Bush’s base are tiffed. May be a long summer.
It’s a disastrous strategy for policy, and it’s a disastrous strateegy for the world’s image of the United States.
Oh, please. Some of them still think that US was the agressor in the Cold War.
They direct their PR strategy at the voter who’s not paying very close attention
Cute. In other words – one who votes for Bush/GOP is an ignoramus. Cool.
Some of them still think that US was the agressor in the Cold War.
Purposely starting an arms race to bankrupt your opponent is not aggressive?
Purposely starting an arms race to bankrupt your opponent is not aggressive?
Considering the alternative? No.
I guess the question is: Will Rumsfeld be able to use Reagan’s Defense?
If he didn’t know what was going on in US military detention centers, after a thorough report had been made, then he was incompetent.
If he did know what was going on, and let it continue to happen, then he was corrupt.
Either way, he should go. I suspect, however, that Rumsfeld will go for “incompetent”, since photographs will make it hard to convince anyone (except types like Joe Schmoe and Stan LS) that what was going on was no big deal.
Stan,
Some of the posters here are really uptight about capitalization, quotes and italics… it’s mildly entertaining…
Jesurgislac,
Did you think Rumsfeld was competent at any point prior to this scandal?
Edward reveals himself probably more than he intended:
Yeah, looks like we’ll still have Rummy to kick around for a while.
Posted by: Edward | May 6, 2004 04:15 PM
It was a joke Odysseus. But keep practicing that amatuer mindreading…it will come to you.
Edward, he may just not get the Nixon reference.
Did you think Rumsfeld was competent at any point prior to this scandal?
Prior to April 2003, I assumed that Rumsfeld was probably competent: I didn’t see myself as qualified to judge him as Secretary of Defense. When the news about the widespread looting in Baghdad broke, and when Rumsfeld’s response, far from apology, was to make a stupid joke – then I knew he was incompetent to a degree that qualified anyone to judge him.
Jes,
Gotcha.
Stan,
Whatever!
“Cute. In other words – one who votes for Bush/GOP is an ignoramus. Cool.”
Not what I said. Probably a deliberate misreading of what I said, but just in case:
I think John Kerry sometimes insults voters’ intelligence. I am going to vote for John Kerry this November. Have I just called myself stupid?
(hint: no.)
It seems to me that using “Arabs” when you actually mean “Arab nations” is not a capitalization error. (And “Israelis” doesn’t equal “Israel,” for instance.)
In any case, are you really trying to say that the people who committed the atrocities in Abu Ghraib (sp?) are the equivalent of the Falangists? Because there are some differences in chain of command here.
I have long believed that the U. S. should either comply with the Geneva Conventions or withdraw from them. We certainly aren’t complying with them in the treatment of the internees at Guantanamo.
But I’m having a little difficulty in distinguishing between those who say that Mr. Rumsfeld should be fired because of the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison and those who say that Mr. Rumsfeld should be fired because he’s a member of the Bush Administration.
It may be that the din caused by all the knees jerking is affecting my hearing.
Well, I’ve never said he should be fired before; I didn’t see why the anger about this was directed towards him until I read that Washington Post editorial. Tenet’s not really a partisan thing, he seems like an all right guy, but our intelligence has been failing again and again. And 50%+ of my animus at Ashcroft is from two specific incidents (the detainees in the Brooklyn MDC and the Arar case) and his response to them…
I mean, at some level I think the lot of them should be fired. But I hope we can take care of that in November, and I don’t expect them all to fire each other. This is separate.
Matt,
n any case, are you really trying to say that the people who committed the atrocities in Abu Ghraib (sp?) are the equivalent of the Falangists?
No. I am just saying that people are calling for Rummy’s resignation (for failing to foresee the abuse of prisoners) just as Sharon’s resignation was forced for failing to foresee the massacre. Read the thread.
Rummy will stay. As for labels I doubt he really cares.
That he doesn’t care about labels matters not one bit. That, as Secretary of Defense, he seemingly didn’t care about the systemic abuses happening under the auspices of a “liberation” by the Armed Forces of the United States… that’s another matter entirely.
Prisoners
From Nelson Report via Marshall. Note some of the specific descriptions and guess at the unnamed source.
I am just saying that people are calling for Rummy’s resignation (for failing to foresee the abuse of prisoners) just as Sharon’s resignation was forced for failing to foresee the massacre.
When an army stands by and watches (as IDF forces were literally encircling the camps of Sabila and Shatila) as innocent civilians are massacred over a period of 40 hours, without attempting to prevent it, damn right I think the man at the top should take responsibility and resign. In that case it was Ariel Sharon.
In Rumsfeld’s case, his responsibility was even more clear. The Taguba report makes clear that abuses at Abu Ghraib prison were going on at least since October 2003, and indicates strongly that it was with the encouragement and support of military intelligence: it was certainly not a matter of a few kids getting out of hand, but a whole culture of abuse simply being ignored. Add in the fact that even after the Taguba report was made available to Rumsfeld, he still did nothing to counter this climate – the “civilian contractors”, as we know, were not fired and appear to be working at the prison even now. Until the pictures hit CBS, Rumsfeld’s reaction appeared to be just to duck and cover. Damn right I think the man at the top should take responsibility and resign. In this case it’s Donald Rumsfeld.
The parallel you are trying to set up is a straw man. (A pair of straw men?) Rumsfeld’s resignation is due because an atrocity occurred on his watch, and – to misquote Talleyrand – not just an atrocity: a blunder. We don’t even need to argue that it’s entirely possible that he knew about it from the start and was perfectly content that it should be so: merely looking at what the Taguba report proves is sufficient to say that a man of integrity would resign.
Rilk,
>Edward, he may just not get the Nixon reference.
Ironically, that’s exactly my point, see what happens when you assume…
Edward and others like him are consistently trying to create another scandal where there isn’t one or place blame and condemnation whethere it is deserved or not.
I don’t exactly get their motivation… maybe moral superiority… I really don’t know…
There is a long list of attacks… so far each one has failed…
Care to be more specific? You haven’t actually given any reasons why Katherine, Edward, and co. (hell, damn near all the regulars) are _wrong_ to want Rumsfeld fired. Why do you disagree with them?
Mark,
No matter what happens they “SEEM” to be looking for someone to fire…
The Bush admin always seems to do the wrong thing.
The enemies always seem to be given the benefit of the doubt about “their” intentions. The Bush admin always seems to “NOT” be given the benefit of the doubt. Their motivations are almost always questioned. Don’t you find that behaviour odd? Even, if you don’t I do.
To me this behaviour seems to say more about them than whether the Bush administration is doing as good as possible given the conditions. So they continue to comment on Bush and I comment on them.
Edwards post really does seem to reveal more about him than he intended…
…
Yeah, looks like we’ll still have Rummy to kick around for a while.
Posted by: Edward | May 6, 2004 04:15 PM
…
From Katherine:
Do you think they’d let me into the RNC if they start credentialing bloggers? Probably not. Also, my head might explode.
…
I could easily get other quotes that really do imply that they are just against the Bush administration. I can accept that as their right. But, I think it is also important to take that “FACT” into account when reading their opinions.
BTW, I wasn’t disagreeing or agreeing with them.
BTW, there’s an interesting post at BOPNews concerning finances and this inept appointed administration using the atrocities of Abu Ghraib as a backdrop.
The moneyshot: “What’s really galling is that the Pentagon had information about widespread torturing for months, and yet even today both the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chief of Staff are telling us they have not read the report.
Remember how lightning-quick “official” Washington read Paul O’Neil’s 523-page book, Bob Woodward’s 480-pager and Richard Clark’s 320-pager, then instantly launched massive television counterattacks defending their ill-conceived war ideology while destroying the credibility of their critics?
Meanwhile, they have the gall to tell us they had not read that short 53-page two-month-old report on torture by the American military intelligence in Iraqi prisons? And now, after the information is circulated worldwide, they still want us to believe they haven’t read it?
My God, how stupid do they think we are?”
The one phrase from Rummy that really bugged me was that the Geneva Conventions “do not precisely apply”. They do precisely apply in Iraq.
OdysseusInRTP: Edward and others like him are consistently trying to create another scandal where there isn’t one or place blame and condemnation whethere it is deserved or not.
Just to give you a heads up, I’m pretty sure there is a real scandal here, and I don’t think Edward played any significant part in creating it.
Gromit,
Just on another post at this site Fabius took a wait and see approach for the guy in Oregon that has been taken into custody.
That seems like a fairly intelligent decision on his part. But, many here would never do the same thing for anyone in the Bush Administration.
This is a bad situation. It really really sucks. I admit that. Rumsfield could be guilty as sin. I don’t know. But, why do you think someone like Fabius and others are willing to allow for some time in the Oregon instance, but most likely wouldn’t in the case of Rumsfield?
It is that type of behaviour that is so prevalent here at this site…
Oh… I feel confident there is a real scandal here also!
OdysseusInRTP: Just on another post at this site Fabius took a wait and see approach for the guy in Oregon that has been taken into custody.
That seems like a fairly intelligent decision on his part. But, many here would never do the same thing for anyone in the Bush Administration.
Even if the standards of evidence for locking someone up and extraditing him to another country were the same as those for causing someone to lose his job (which is not the case) is there any question about who was responsible for the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Do we need to put the Bush Administration in a lineup with nine other sets of world leaders, maybe dust the Pentagon for fingerprints to determine just who was making decisions there?
Suppose we take Rumsfeld at his word when he says the behavior of those soldiers was unacceptable. It was his responsibility to make that clear before something like this happened. His repeated dismissal of international human rights standards can only have had the opposite effect, and I have no doubt whatsoever that his cavalier attitude has shaped Pentagon policy when it comes to detainment and interrogation. That is enough for me to say he must bear some professional responsibility.
Stan,
I know that’s what you were arguing–but it’s still off point. Sharon was not in charge of the Falangists (though I agree with Jes that he was still irresponsible enough to merit firing). Rumsfeld was in charge of the guards.
In addition, there’s ample evidence that Rumsfeld should have known about the torture. Either he didn’t know, in which case he’s done a terrible job of supervising the flow of information under him and deserves to be fired, or he did know, in which case he deserves to be fired and probably jailed too.
But, why do you think someone like Fabius and others are willing to allow for some time in the Oregon instance, but most likely wouldn’t in the case of Rumsfield?
No prior experience to make us sceptical with the guy in Oregon.
OdysseusInRTP, this is a site where people from across the political spectrum can engage one another in debate. Granted, the debate is not always conducted at a high level and it occasionally descends into snark, but we all understand that there are other participants here with views that sharply diverge from our own. You’ll fit in best here if you refrain from bemoaning the fact that some folks see things differently than you and just do your best to back up the opinions that you hold.
If just the sight of people having different opinions than you disturbs you so much, there are plenty of echo chamber blogs for you to choose from.