I’ve twice argued that Rumsfeld should not depart his post over the alleged abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison. If this statement by Powell (via Marshall, who has commentary) proves true, however, it seems my defense has been in vain. Key passage:
“We kept the president informed of the concerns that were raised by the ICRC and other international organizations as part of my regular briefings of the president, and advised him that we had to follow these issues, and when we got notes sent to us or reports sent to us … we had to respond to them, and the president certainly made it clear that that’s what he expected us to do,” Powell said.
Powell said that he, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld kept Bush “fully informed of the concerns that were being expressed, not in specific details, but in general terms.”
Does Bush ever delve into specifics? Or does he just get vague briefings all day long like:
“Something happened. Don’t worry about it.”
And later:
“Remember that thing we mentioned? It’s cool.”
I’m not clear why the claim that Rumsfeld did his job (kept informed, told the President what he knew) would lead you to call for him to resign. I should think it was R’s job to stop the abuses and cover them up for the duration of the occupation. Perhaps Rice or Bush should have said, “This is going to come out, better from us than CBS”, but is that R’s decision?
Also, does your argument apply to Rice? To Gen. Myers?
I was stumped too until I clicked through to TPM:
Not only does that contradict what the White House and the president have said. It contradicts the testimony of one of Don Rumsfeld’s principal deputies from only yesterday.
When asked by Sen. John Warner whether the ICRC’s concerns had made their way to the Secretary’s level, Stephen Cambone replied: “No, sir, they did not. Those reports — those working papers, again, as far as I understand it, were delivered at the command level. They are designed — the process is designed so that the ICRC can engage with the local commanders and make those kinds of improvements that are necessary in a more collaborative environment than in an adversarial one.”
“…the alleged abuse….”
I know you’re a lawyer, von, but this isn’t court, or a deposition, or any legally binding paper (okay, yes, all words are), and you’ve seen the pictures.
In context, however, saying “the alleged abuse” comes out as not far from “the alleged concentration camps.”
Cambone may be telling the truth – pointing to a set of reports that didn’t make it up the chain – while omitting to note other reports that did.
Rumsfeld probably told Bush there were rumours of abuse and someone was looking into it. Probably he didn’t know how bad the big picture was. So he can say he didn’t tell Bush or that he did, depending on what he happens to be referring to. This sort of deniability/lying is an unwritten part of his job.
Perhaps von means that Bush will have to sack R on political grounds?
Von, now what were the principle concerns of the ICRC (we know as a matter of record, one concern was the legal status of those held in GITMO). And just for the record, the ICRC has said that we were complying with the ICRC concerns.
Powell confirmed same in a public statement with the head of the ICRC, yesterday.
So I’m not sure what your issue is?
Timmy, is that a rhetorical question? Well, let’s pretend it wasn’t. The ICRC was upset about the fact that we were consistently (to the point of them calling it an MO!) beating the hell out of people when we arrested them, and using methods of interrogation of high-value detainees (you know, the set of detainees where only about 60% of them weren’t guilty of anything, rather than 7–90%) that the ICRC felt were “serious” violations of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions.
As for whether we fixed the practices in response to their complaints: “In spite of some improvements in the material conditions of internment, allegations of ill-treatment perpetuated…against persons deprived of their liberty continued to be collected by the ICRC and thus suggested that the use of ill-treatment against persons deprived of their liberty went beyond exceptional causes and might be considered as a practice tolerated by the coalition forces.”
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/torture_/2004/05/not_just_a_few_bad_apples.php
von, just trying to parse your statement: When you say “in vain,” do you mean that if this is true Rumsfeld will lose his job, or that if this is true Rumsfeld should lose his job?
I’d like to note for the record that this is substantially what I was arguing towards the end of the original thread, albeit sourced differently than I was expecting.