Rummy!

[jeff]

Agreed on all points. I'm just not sure what real value there is in punishing the uninvolved because they are high-profile and will make for better press...

I am not interested in punishment for political retribution's sake. As a partisan I would enjoy the administration's embarrassment, but as a patriot I am far, far, more interested in what the right thing is for the nation. We must pursue the process of justice (for which there's ample legal basis, and of course transparently and without prejudgement) to make it clear that we uphold the principles we claim, even when inconvenient or embarrassing. That pays off in dividends for our country: in our honor, the popular support for our efforts both home and abroad. If we show that such actions are aberrations, and that we do not tolerate such behavior (meaning that accountability and punishment flow where it legally should) we demonstrate who we are as a nation to the world. To not do so would be very corrosive to our current and future efforts and would only arm our enemies.

Tireur, I agree with Safire (see everybody, the NY Times really isn't a knee-jerk liberal rag!) with his points on a transparent investigation where the chips land where they should. I would not have Rumsfeld step down just to satisfy critics. I would have him go if he knew about it (again, McClellan said he knew in January) and didn't act on it properly. What does being "accepting responsibility" mean if it excludes from the start the possibility from being punished for it? As far as switching military leaders: that's been done before, and the decision should be based on this issue, as well as other aspects of how well Rumsfeld's done his job (arguably not that well). That's always been the president's prerogative.

[Inquartata]

We must pursue the process of justice (for which there's ample legal basis, and of course transparently and without prejudgement)

Ay, there's the rub, though. It would have to take place in Washington...a place where those qualities are seldom to be had, and where partisanship and political "gotcha" are the prevailing themes whenever investigations and commissions are involved. Just finding a fair judge would be a task to make Diogenes tear out his hair and run gibbering away...

Not that I think we ought not make the attempt simply because the prospect of credible success seems so remote. But fairness doesn't seem to be much on anyone's mind in an election year...and by December it might not make much of a difference.

[epeemike81]

OK, you're strange.

I don't think it's his job to micromanage either. That's what (you hope) competent subordinates are for. Again, internal investigations were underway from the begining. It's not (hopefully) a pervasive practice. It only involved a few people. Let the investigations play out. Isn't that what we do?

given that the commander of the prison was told by military intelligence and civilian contractors "Don't go into these rooms," I wouldn't be at all surprised if it IS a pervasive practice.

BTW, you're right that it's not the president's job to micromanage (though I agree with Jeff and Telkanuru that this is a major enough issue that if he didn't know about it sooner, somebody pretty high up screwed up). it IS his job to set tone and send a message. The message he's sent is basically "If local laws or the geneva convention get in the way, just make up your own rules." He sent that message very clearly by declaring that there was a new designation of "enemy combatants," which was distinct from domestic criminals or POWs. since they are distinct, the administration claims that neither the Geneva convention nor protections afforded in US law apply. they've essentially declared their right to do whatever they want to anybody they detain. At Guantanamo, the Geneva Convention is violated through cell size, sleep deprivation, hooding, etc. Is it any wonder that our troops in Iraq didn't see the conventions as important?

This isn't, btw, limited to non-citizens. When they realized they didn't have enough evidence to try Vicente Padilla, they declared him an enemy combatant, and have held him for 2 years without trial. This administration needs to be blamed for their attitude that the ends justify the means. This was simply a logical step in that policy.

note, btw, that the first person to be charged is the one who took the pictures, and that Rumsfeld was outraged that the pictures had been leaked to news outlets. of all the things to be outraged about, I'd say that's clearly the least.

-m

[epeemike81]

Yes, I think he would be, I don't think he should jump up and start shouting it.


Yes, your sneaking suspicion is correct, just like in all such cases. Once the press gets hold of it it's a red ball. Doesn't necessariy mean they will have any more of a fair resolution.

that statement would seem to imply that "once the press gets hold of it, it's treated with more importance." While I don't dispute that, doesn't that bother you?? It certainly bothers me that the issue of torture only is an issue because of public relations effect and that if the press hadn't gotten hold of it it well may have been swept under the rug.

-m

[epeemike81]

It was reported by Rumsfeld to Bush in January. Did they think it was going to get better? I would say that the delay of coverage puts to rest the liberal bias argument. No rush to judgement here.

Important issues - affecting the reputation and safety of the nation and relating to the SWORN DUTIES of those involved - demand a higher degree of responsibility. It is childish to act as if Clinton's sexual misconduct gives a free pass to the horrific malfeasance we're talking about here. Or, do conservatives expect a free pass for the rest of eternity, no matter how deep an offence is committed by somebody on their side?

in the words of Eddie Izzard:
" You have murder one, murder two. You realize that there can be a difference in the level of murder. So there must be a difference in the level of perjury. Perjury one is when you’re saying there’s no Holocaust when, you know 10 million people have died in it, and perjury…nine, is when you said you shagged someone when you didn’t."

to even try to compare Clinton's indiscretions with war crimes (which thanks to Guantanamo this administration is already guilty of with or without this latest fiasco) is irresponsible at best.

-m

[epeemike81]

From the WSJ:

The White House thought it could draw off some of the pressure on the boilers by dripping word that the president conveyed some unhappiness to Don Rumsfeld. And maybe he did. But leaking it to pacify the moral hounds only set off more howling and yelping, this time for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation. No news story that I read on this included a subordinate clause identifying Sen. Tom Harkin as a 24/7 opponent of the war, George Bush and the horse he rode in on.

Conceivably Mr. Bush got more bang with his two turns on Arab television, explaining American values. The news out of Turkey last week was of an Islamic father who ritually strangled his daughter with wire because kidnappers had raped her. And most Arabs under 30 recall that in the early 1980s Syria's Hafez al-Assad, after an assassination attempt, murdered 1,000 Islamic inmates at Tadmur Military Prison. The vagaries of life with dictatorships in Iraq, Iran, Syria, et al., may have left the average Muslim with a better understanding of "atrocity" than the Appalled Pundits Society in America.

WSJ is one of the most conservative editorial pages in the country, as it shows here again. Yeah, I can tell that the outrage is only here at home by the demonstrations outside the prison and the desacration of British graves in Gaza Strip. The war crimes of other despicable men doesn't excuse, or even mitigate, these crimes. And if you really believe that this was just "a little humiliation," then I suggest you go back and do some more reading. This went WAY beyond humiliation to physical and sexual abuse.

-m

[Tireur]

to even try to compare Clinton's indiscretions with war crimes (which thanks to Guantanamo this administration is already guilty of with or without this latest fiasco) is irresponsible at best.-m

There you go again. I didn't compare one with the other. The context was leaders taking responsibilty for their actions. If they can't take repsonsibility for the little ones, how can they for the big ones.

And Bill Clinton has rarely taken responsibility for anything in his life. He sacrifices his friends for that.

Who made you judge in any non-existant war crimes trial? You should save that judgement for someone who knows what they're talking about.

To pronounce anyone guilty of war crimes when you only know what you hear on npr is irresponsible at best..........

[Tireur]

This went WAY beyond humiliation to physical and sexual abuse.-m

Wow, if I had known you were omnscient, I'd have stayed out of this.

[epeemike81]

Once again I'll bring up the Yee incident. Huge "scandal", and pundits and people with political opinions everywhere went nuts rendering premature and underinformed judgements. All of which proved wide of the mark when none of the charges proved to have enough merit to cause the military, where upwards of 90% of courts martial result in guilty findings, to press for any punishment whatsoever.

I don't think the 90% stat helps you here. it implies that it takes a very strong case for them to even bring charges, which minimizes the meaning of NOT bringing charges.

What would any of you do, if you found out that distant subordinates in your job or some organization in which you are involved were engaged in wrongdoing? Would YOU volunteer to resign in symbolic guilt, or would you want the actual perpetrators brought to account?

Were I the HEAD of said organization, I well might do what CEO's used to do frequently, in the good ol' days of responsibility: resign and claim responsiblity as it happened on my watch. note the BBC scandal earlier this year. when the commision was highly critical of the BBC, the head of the BBC resigned. if nothing else, it allows for somebody new to set a different tone. it is much harder for an entrenched head of an organization to change tone than it is for a new head.

-m

[epeemike81]

No, I don't think I do. I think that a lot of people are rather overstating it. It wasn't Auschwitz, after all. "Humiliation" is not an "atrocity". The only thing that makes it such an issue is that it was we who claim the mantle of a superior morality doing it...

It wasn't just humiliation! You're ignoring the reported sexual and physical abuse.

-m

[epeemike81]

Wow, if I had known you were omnscient, I'd have stayed out of this.

It doesn't take omniscience to read. you should try it sometime:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L0746101.htm

The International Committee of the Red Cross said on Friday there had been widespread abuse and violations of human rights law in U.S.-controlled Iraqi detention centres.

Violations listed in the report in the Journal include:

-- Brutality against protected persons upon capture and initial custody, sometimes causing death or serious injury.

-- Physical or psychological coercion during interrogation to secure information.

-- Prolonged solitary confinement in cells devoid of daylight.

-- Excessive and disproportionate use of force against persons deprived of their liberty resulting in death or injury during their period of internment.

"Methods of ill-treatment during interrogation included: "hooding a detainee with a bag, sometimes in conjunction with beatings thus increasing anxiety as to when blows would come"; handcuffing so tight that they caused skin lesions and nerve damage; beating with pistols and rifles; threats of reprisals against family members; and stripping detainees naked for several days in solitary confinement in a completely dark cell."

Like I said, It goes well beyond "humiliation".

[Philistine]

Wow, if I had known you were omnscient, I'd have stayed out of this.

Would you agree that the following constitutes "pysical and sexual abuse"?

aa. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;

f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

i. (S) Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

and


a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;

f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

From the Taguba Report

--Philistine

[epeemike81]

Agreed on all points. I'm just not sure what real value there is in punishing the uninvolved because they are high-profile and will make for better press...

the "real value" is to mitigate the damage in the arab world (hopefully, but I doubt it). The long term solution to the war on terror is to undercut support in the arab world by improving our image in the arab world. this is a complicated goal, but certainly mitigating damage from this incident would be very helpful.

-m

[epeemike81]

There you go again. I didn't compare one with the other. The context was leaders taking responsibilty for their actions. If they can't take repsonsibility for the little ones, how can they for the big ones.

because his reasoning (right or wrong) for not taking responsibility for "the little ones," was that it's nobody's business who he was screwing around with. Clearly, that reasoning doesn't even come CLOSE to applying to "the big things". it is NOT the same, or even vaguely similar.

Who made you judge in any non-existant war crimes trial? You should save that judgement for someone who knows what they're talking about.

Well, I'd love to, but we don't let the international war crimes tribunal (those who "know what their talking about") judge us.

To pronounce anyone guilty of war crimes when you only know what you hear on npr is irresponsible at best..........

I know FAR more than what I hear on NPR, and apparently far more than you, given your contention that it was just "a little humiliation." Is it any wonder that most of the world gets the impression that Americans are ill-informed?

-m

[epeemike81]

thanks for the help, Philistine. I searched for the info, but wasn't able to quickly locate the report.

-m

[a517dogg]

There was a really good editorial in the NYTimes today by Luc Sante about this stuff. A couple excerpts:

"The Americans in the photographs are not enacting hatred; hatred can coexist with respect, however strained. What they display, instead, is contempt: their victims are merely objects."

"Some commentators have made a point of noting this very relative nonviolence, contrasting it with the lynching of the four American military contractors in Falluja last month. This line of argument is notable for what it leaves out: there is a difference between the rage of a people who feel themselves invaded and the contempt of a victorious nation for a civilian population whom it has ostensibly liberated."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/11/opinion/11SANT.html

[Tireur]

Would you agree that the following constitutes "pysical and sexual abuse"?

I would say, yes, some of these are abuse and some are humiliation.

However, I think I will wait for the outcome of the trials. We all know how many investigations end in failures to convict.

I would imagine these will end in convictions, but I'll still wait and see what happens.

[Tireur]

I know FAR more than what I hear on NPR, -m

My mistake again, I could've sworn you said you "only listened to npr".

[epeemike81]

My mistake again, I could've sworn you said you "only listened to npr".

nope, I said I get my news from NPR, the BBC, and Newspapers. On occasion other sources, but those are the big three. after all, those are the sources which go into the greatest detail on stories.

-m

[epeemike81]

I would say, yes, some of these are abuse and some are humiliation.

However, I think I will wait for the outcome of the trials. We all know how many investigations end in failures to convict.

I would imagine these will end in convictions, but I'll still wait and see what happens.

can you at least admit your error in your characterization of it as "a little humiliation"?

-m