Should Rumsfeld keep his job?

[time]

Unless you've been living under a rock, you all know what this is about.

Have rape, murder, torture, beatings and abuse been sanctioned? A three-star general reported the problems were "systemic", yet it seems the fix has been put in for court martials so far.

Is the US military serious about dealing with what are nothing less than war crimes, or do you feel Rummy is part of the problem?

 

[P5-133XL]

They are war crimes the issue should not be Rumsfeld resigning (that is self evident) but President Bush. He is the man incharge of Rumsfeld. Should not Bush take responsibility for such actions that occured while on his watch? Especially since he still wants Rumsfeld in his cabinet. Any rational president should be running, not walking, away from any connection to Rumfeld at this point. One wonders what Rumsfeld has over President Bush to keep his job because that is the only explanation that I can think of that would keep Rumsfeld in power.

What bothers me the most is Rumsfeld's initial response: Not to appologize for the actions but rather to appologize to congress's leadership for the negative publicity (for some reason he did not expect the negative reaction of the press) and that there wasn't a better heads up that these photographs and videos (not yet released) existed.

Heads should role and lots of them. We (the USA) are supposed to be the good guys with appropiate policies and training in place to prevent such attrocities from happening. There are distinct rules for engaging in war and there shouldn't be anyone in our military leadership that doesn't have a concept of what is "Right" vs. "Wrong" under those rules.

It is unfortunate that War crime commissions are run by the victors in a war. I would be extremely surprised if individuals from the US will be accused of war crimes. They definately deserve it.

 

[mubs]

To state the obvious (which has been repeated many times already): The US has always claimed the moral highground. Where do we stand now? The pity is I think this administration (No C-A-R-B! {Cheney-Ashcroft-Rumsfeld-Bush for the uninitiated}) doesn't have a clue how much they have damaged the U.S. in the eyes of the world, and how much resentment and enmity this has added to the already prevailing sentiments.

 

[flagreen]

Rumsfeld has done a good job prosecuting this war and I anticipate that he will continue to do so. Our priority right now should be finishing the job successfully in Iraq with a minimum loss of life on all sides. I don't see how Rumsfeld's resigning would do anything other than delay that.

Is the US military serious about dealing with what are nothing less than war crimes, or do you feel Rummy is part of the problem?

Of course they are serious about dealing with this. In my opinion Rumsfeld is not part of the problem.

BTW - Current polling shows that 69% of the American public recognize that this is a very serious matter. But 69% also do not feel that Rumsfeld should resign over it.

http://www.pollingreport.com/

 

[Pradeep]

I was watching the PBS newshour yesterday, and one of the guys that new Rumsfeld said he was a man of the highest honour, and would step down if he felt it was best. We'll have to see what happens. But his admission that there were hundreds/thousands more disturbing photos floating around is not a good sign of things to come.

 

[cquinn]

I don't think he's done a good job with this war; so far he's gotten
lucky that the overlap of transition from invasion to occupation has
not blown up in his face completely.
To me, this is another example of how poor forward planning on the
part of the DOD has led to another incident that could have been
avoided by simply asking themselves "what are the negative
repercussions of this current course of action?".

The administration continues to apply policy as if they believe that all
they have to do is meet some mission objective milestone, and the
rest of the world will suddenly fall in line.

 

[mubs]

Come June 30, we're in for a bigger mess.

 

[sechs]

When you turn over symbolic power to a symbolic government, not a lot of mess tends to occur.

 

[CougTek]

I think he should have never been allowed to have all the power his position gives him to begin with.

And I just can't see how someone can tell that the oil administration has done a good job in Irak so far with so many deaths since the supposed end of the war more than a year ago.

I also believe that Rumsfeld and Cheney have far more power in the White House than puppet Bush ever had. I think those two are so fund of power that there's no way they are going to let it go until public vote (hopefully) throws them out of Washington.

 

[time]

Current polling shows that 69% of the American public recognize that this is a very serious matter. But 69% also do not feel that Rumsfeld should resign over it.

I'd be interested in your response to that first question, Bill:

"Do you feel that these incidents are not a big deal, because this kind of thing happens in a war situation, or do you think they are a big deal, because this kind of abuse is unacceptable no matter what the situation?"

28% of respondents thought it was no big deal, i.e. it was acceptable.

 

[Fushigi]

I think it's a big deal because we got caught. Seriously. You don't think this sort of thing happens in a war situation? Of course it does. People are human and do stupid things. Soldiers under a lot of stress can make irrational decisions. Most of the time it's never found out and life goes on. Even the prisoners would rather not talk about it so the incident gets buried. But this time the US troops were dumb enough to 1. take pictures/video and 2. lose control of the pics/vids.

Say what you will about politicians and their scandals, CEOs raiding the corporate coffers, etc. It's my belief that things of this nature will happen; the differences is that the people we know about simply got caught. Power corrupts. I'm positive that many more cases exist; we just don't know about them (yet).

I don't like Rumsfeld. I don't think we should have started this war at all. I also don't care much for the Bush admin in general. But I don't think CARB (to use mubs' term) would have ever sent word to the troops to strip the Iraqis and take photos of them in psuedo-homosexual poses. CARB has better things to do with their time and, I would hope, don't think on that pathetic level.

Punish the soldiers, punish their commanders. Probably punish at least one or two more levels up the chain of command. But CARB very likely was caught just as unaware as we were. They certainly wouldn't have ordered it.

Should R resign? Not over this.

 

[flagreen]

Current polling shows that 69% of the American public recognize that this is a very serious matter. But 69% also do not feel that Rumsfeld should resign over it.

I'd be interested in your response to that first question, Bill:

"Do you feel that these incidents are not a big deal, because this kind of thing happens in a war situation, or do you think they are a big deal, because this kind of abuse is unacceptable no matter what the situation?"

28% of respondents thought it was no big deal, i.e. it was acceptable.

Yes these incidents are a "big deal". Such things are a measure of an Army's level of professionalism and this is the first indication I've had that the level of professionalism in our armed services was in any way wanting.

I cannot imagine what these "soldiers" were thinking! Nor can I think of anything they might have done which could have damaged their country and it's war effort any more than the abuses which they have committed.

The actions of these MPs and those of any who may have ordered them to commit these acts are very close to being treasonous.

 

[Howell]

The first U.S. soldier to face a court-martial in connection with the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison grew up in a military family and "knows how to follow instructions," his father says.

Specialist Jeremy Sivits, 24, was trained as a truck mechanic, not a prison guard, and would have been in trouble had he not followed orders to photograph abused prisoners, his father, Daniel Sivits, said in a recent interview.

"Apparently, he was told to take a picture and he did what he was told," said Mr. Sivits, who himself spent more than 20 years in the U.S. military. "He was just following instructions."

His son grew up in a military family and "knows how to follow instructions," the father added.

Spec. Sivits, a reservist member of the 372nd Military Police Company, will face court-martial May 19 in Baghdad, the U.S. military announced yesterday.

His family would not comment on the court-martial announcement, but Mr. Sivits has already said he thought the abuse scandal stemmed from a lack of leadership.

"All [of] it is lack of leadership, lack of instruction and lack of standard operating procedure, and everyone at the top is covering their butts," he said. "My only question is this: Where was the leadership?"

 

[flagreen]

I don't doubt that he was following instructions. Needless to say that is no excuse as he is not required to carry out immoral orders. Indeed he his forbiden from carrying out such orders. At 24 years of age he most certainly knows right from wrong. And if his "gut" didn't tell him that doing the things in those pictures was wrong then he doesn't belong in our Armed Services. I find it hard to believe that MPs do not recieve at least minimal training in how to treat prisoners considering their line of work wherever they are stationed. In short - he should have known better.

 

[Howell]

I find it hard to believe that MPs do not recieve at least minimal training in how to treat prisoners considering their line of work wherever they are stationed. In short - he should have known better.

He was trained as a truck mechanic, not an MP. Your main point still stands.

 

[sechs]

Why don't they train the military in ethics? Is "the right thing" that hard to do?

 

[time]

The military strongly encourages team bonding and unquestioning obedience. Without strong leadership, this is a derailed train - a disaster waiting to happen. We have the same problems in some team sports.

When I created this poll, I just wanted to stimulate discussion - I hadn't formed an opinion or voted. Nonetheless, after reading more, I find myself agreeing with the idea that there has been a gross failure of leadership.

Does anyone think it's reasonable to attach all blame to these young offenders? Although I don't have time for the worn excuse, "Society made me do it", this isn't open society - it's an environment where impressionable people from lower socio-economic backgrounds are trained to blindly respect the pecking order and fit in with the pack.

The need to keep your head down seems to extend all the way through the modern military - and not just in the US. Systemic problems in an organization's culture can only be solved if the leaders want to solve them. Given the extent of political control exerted down through the upper ranks, there may well be a case for replacing the Secretary of Defense with someone who can tell the difference between right, wrong, and being found out.

 

[Mercutio]

I'm far too partisan to even bother voting, but honestly, this wasn't something that a couple of enlisted men were doing for the laughs.
Even ignoring the fact that there is no justification for the US to invade a sovereign nation that did not pose an immediate threat to us (and let's face it, there wasn't. The Bush government lied, lied and then lied some more)... ok, putting that aside, we came as the force that would bring the golden light of western civilization to the oppressed heathens.

And then we took our POWs and led them around naked on leashes. Which might be the golden light of western civilization in certain parts of San Francisco or New York City, but it isn't going to play very well in a country where "kinky" means taking off your clothes to have sex.
Deliberate humiliation like that is a violation of the Geneva Accords, to which our civilized government is a signator.

If it was an isolated incident, fine. But it wasn't. Our soldiers were asked, by civilian contractors who were, to my knowledge, not directly bound to our laws regarding prisoner treatment, to do things that would be shocking and unspeakable in any country, let alone a conservative middle-eastern nation. Shoot, I'm a jaded internet porn-junkie, and from the descriptions I've heard, *I* wouldn't even want to see those pictures.

So, the thing is, the military was ultimately responsible for the contractors. And command was apparently OK'd or accomodated the actions of the contractors. Enlisted men did not do that. Officers did.

If the Generals say "we didn't know, our subordinates didn't tell us about it.", that's its own special kind of bullshit. It doesn't even matter. Those in command are responsible for the actions of their subordinates. Subordinates who swore an oath not just to be officers in the US military, but also gentlemen - persons of dignity and decorum, who would not stand by while someone helpless is being mistreated.

A whole camp's worth of soldiers had to know what was going on. Anyone think that the guys who were taking part *wouldn't* tell someone who wasn't? And *none* of them could do the right thing? That tells me that there are some pretty damaged individuals out there representing *my* country, and yes, they should all be punished for it.

The only question for me is, how far up the chain of command should the punishment go? Paul Bremer is in charge of Iraq's Government at the moment. This happened on his watch. Don Rumsfeld is in charge of the DOD. Should he?

I think so. I think these guys should be held responsible. Bush? Probably not. My understanding is that he's so completely hands-off (and he was probably taking is afternoon nap, or spending his 40% of his time in office on vacaction when it all happened), that I doubt any information would've made it that high. But I can't believe that Bremer didn't know. I can't believe nobody would bring that information to the head of the defense department. I can't believe that the military didn't take swift and terrible action to put a stop to it; that the whole of command was basically complacent on the issue for 5 months, and that's certainly what it sounds like to me.

I'm so disgusted with the situation that I really can't even blame the bastards who filmed that beheading. If I knew the POWs from my side were going to experience institutionalized deviance and sexual torture in violation of their captor's laws, I'd probably have a drastic change in policy toward my prisoners, too.

 

[Will Rickards WT]

If rumsfeld knew about it and in any way attempted to suppress the information, I think he should resign. The punishment for him should fit the crime. How much he knew and when he knew and what he did about it are all factors in a call for his resignation in my opinion.

Every single person actually involved in the incidents, whether simply following orders or not, should be brought up on criminal charges. I'm not sure if court martial is just kicking them out of the military or not. Either way they need to face criminal charges. Everyone higher up who knew about the incidents and attempted to suppress the information or did not bring it to the attention of their superior and start prosecution against those involved should be kicked out of the military and may need to face criminal charges depending on the severity of their criminal negligence.

The bottom line for me is that these prisoner abuses are completely unacceptable.

Whether they face a war crime court is a matter for the politicians. If they are sufficiently punished under US law, there may not be a call for war crime charges.

However all the US bashing type stuff about how we are the good guys and should live up to higher standards is off base in my opinion. Unless you've been there, you don't know what it is like (and I haven't). And people make mistakes in judgement all the time, especially under pressure in bad situations. What shows we are the good guys will be how the issue is handled and whether appropriate action is taken against the individuals involved.

 

[sechs]

The military strongly encourages team bonding and unquestioning obedience.

In the "Army of One," the phrase, "I was only following orders" is not an excuse to violate the Geneva Convention.

There is clearly no sense of ethics from top to bottom in this affair. Everyone should have known it was wrong, but they did it anyway.

 

[Mercutio]

However all the US bashing type stuff about how we are the good guys and should live up to higher standards is off base in my opinion.

The actions Saddam took in torturing people were used as justification for our invasion. I don't think it's much of a stretch to ask that if we're going to seize the moral high ground on that particular issue, that we at least refrain from the act itself.

 

[Will Rickards WT]

Yes I agree that American soldiers should refrain from such acts, absolutely.
I believe I incorrectly mixed thoughts when I wrote that statement.

US bashing:
What I disagree with is taking the actions of the few that engaged in such abuse and using it as representative of the US. What they did was not representative of the US. This was proved by our president's response in publicly apologizing for these abuses. I want to see whoever is responsible come to justice. But until the investigations are through I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say the whole system is corrupt.

higher standards:
Yes the American soldiers should live up to a higher standard but don't expect perfection. Shit happens. It is how you deal with it that shows your true character. And the character of the nation will be shown by how we deal with it.

 

[flagreen]

Perspective people!

Which do you want more? Rumsfelds resignation ot to win the war on terror? Not necessarily an either or situation but it is a relevant and important question. Would his resignation hurt or help the war on terror? Isn't that what we should be asking ourselves? The abuse is going to stop regardless of whether Rumsfeld resigns or not.

BTW - How is the war going?

Patterns of Global Terrorism -2003
Released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism
April 29, 2004

The Year in Review


There were 190 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight decrease from the 198 attacks that occurred in 2002, and a drop of 45 percent from the level in 2001 of 346 attacks. The figure in 2003 represents the lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks since 1969.

A total of 307 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, far fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 1,593 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, down from 2,013 persons wounded the year before.

In 2003, the highest number of attacks (70) and the highest casualty count (159 persons dead and 951 wounded) occurred in Asia.

There were 82 anti-US attacks in 2003, which is up slightly from the 77 attacks the previous year, and represents a 62-percent decrease from the 219 attacks recorded in 2001

Full report here - http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/31569.htm

 

[CougTek]

Quoting bullshit from the U.S. government has a proof. That's just a great argument Bill. Never mind.

So from what I can read in this thread, none of you folks have seen the pictures, right? Here, the medias have shown quite a few. Not too great for the image of your army for sure.

There's also been some hints that these treatments were asked to be done by CIA agents to demoralize the prisoners and facilitate the interrogations.

Regarding the "shit happens" comment : this was way too big not to be known by the officers. It couldn't only be the acts of a few people "under pressure". It had to be organized.

 

[EdwardK]

My apologies for this slightly off-track question but I find it disturbing that the US military hires "contractors" to do the interrogation. When did this started? As Merc said, civilian contractors are not bound by US laws regarding prisoner treatment. Not only that, when the services of these contractors are no longer required, will they sell their services to other highest bidders? Do these contractors have any loyalty to the USA or do their loyalty last only within the timeframe of their contract?

 

[Mercutio]

Perspective people!

Which do you want more? Rumsfelds resignation ot to win the war on terror?

Can't I have both?

(While I'm at it: Rumsfeld is scum. Like King George. But unlike our functionally illiterate Commander-in-Chief, Rumsfeld is a charismatic, likeable, intelligent guy. I've been vastly entertained by his press conferences, when I've heard them, and I'll at least say that out of the SCAB grouping, he'd be the only one I might actually miss).

I think the case could be made that the war in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the war on terror. In fact, I'm not sure why you've brought it up, Bill. To put it another way, those guys whom our civilian contractors have been sodomizing with broomsticks weren't terrorists when we started this war...

 

[mubs]

Which do you want more? Rumsfelds resignation ot to win the war on terror?

Are you implying there is no one else in this country capable of carrying out the duties of Defense Secretary???

 

[sechs]

We can get the Vice President to do it. He runs most everything else already....

 

[mubs]

...and was once Defense Sec himself...

 

[sechs]

He worked under Ford. He's qualified!

 

[flagreen]

Of course there are others who could do the job. And it is possible to win the war sans Rumsfeld. But it's the appointment and confirmation process along with the transtition which would be disruptive to the DOD and I don't think that an unessesary disruption such as that would be helpful in bringing about a prompt end to the war.

On the other hand if you folks are mainly interested in "beheading" the DOD then by all means carry on.... I realize that the smell of blood in the water is hard resist.

 

[Mercutio]

Do you actually think at this point that anything will bring a "prompt end" to the war in Iraq?

 

[mubs]

Flagreen:

You're saying I'm after Rumsfeld because the smell of blood is hard for me to resist. Please! If there's one thing I don't do, it's to follow the herd. My personal life is full of examples of this. I'm a very black sheep in my family because I bucked trends and did my own thing. Don't make blanket statements about things you're way off base on. It just makes you look, well, I'll not say it.

You're the kind of die-hard, at-any-cost, can-do-no-wrong, right-winger that C_A_R_B must absolutely love.

This thread has become rather pointless (as these kinds of threads always do), so I'm not going to post in this thread anymore.

Have a good day.

 

[Howell]

There is quite a bit of speculation flying around in here parading around as fact. I heard..., the news said..., rumors, hints, half-cocked. The investigations have not even been completed yet.

While yes responsibility goes all the way to the top that doesn't mean that the appropriate resolution is always a firing of the one in charge. There is a limit to effective micro-management and the ones at the top although responsible don't always know the details of what is going on.

 

[sechs]

Maybe you missed it, but the general who wrote the report on the abuses testified before Congress earlier this week. Conveniently, the Undersecretary of Defense was sent along with him.

For virtually every answer the general gave, the undersecretary gave a contradictory or opposing response. Doesn't anyone else find this to be just a little bit fishy?

 

[Howell]

You very well may have access to more of the testimony than I have seen. I have only read the opening remarks by Cambone and Taguba. Can you provide some links?

Which one do you believe?

 

[sechs]

I cannot find a transcript, but the video still appears to be available on C-SPAN's website.

While my guess is that the truth lies somewhere in between their two points of view, I lean towards the general. After all, he actually investigated the events.

 

[flagreen]

Flagreen:

You're saying I'm after Rumsfeld because the smell of blood is hard for me to resist. Please! If there's one thing I don't do, it's to follow the herd. My personal life is full of examples of this. I'm a very black sheep in my family because I bucked trends and did my own thing. Don't make blanket statements about things you're way off base on. It just makes you look, well, I'll not say it.

Whoa there I think you misunderstood me. My comment was addressed to "you folks", not to any one individual in particular. It was not a reference to any sort of "sheep". What I meant was that many of those demanding Rumsfeld's resignation are motivated at least in part by politics.

 

[flagreen]

Do you actually think at this point that anything will bring a "prompt end" to the war in Iraq?

Yes I do.

 

[Howell]

On the battlefield, Myers’ and Rumsfeld’s errors would be called a lack of situational awareness — a failure that amounts to professional negligence.

To date, the Army has moved to court-martial the six soldiers suspected of abusing Iraqi detainees and has reprimanded six others.

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who commanded the MP brigade that ran Abu Ghraib, has received a letter of admonishment and also faces possible disciplinary action.

That’s good, but not good enough.

This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential — even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2903288.php