billvon 3,090 #51 May 10, 2004 >Bill, "when" the investigation is complete (the one that was ordered), > and if found in violation of the rules of the Geneva Covention, only > then is punishment due. I would point out that there has already been THREE investigations, including one in which physical torture (including rape with a lightstick) was fully documenteed, and Rumsfeld has already confessed to being responsible for them: "These events occurred on my watch. As secretary of Defense, I am accountable for them. I take full responsibility." So we have an investigation, a final report, and an admission of responsibility. Not sure what else you'd want to do. Convene a UN war crimes tribunal? >A bunch of staged photos doesn't convince me that Iraqi war >prisoners were tortured. sorry....i'll wait until it's official. Wow! Even though Rumsfeld says they are real (and that they are not the worst of the lot) and an army investigations says they are real? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #52 May 10, 2004 >Should the commanders of the units directly involved be disciplined? > Yes, and I believe the Army investigation is running its course, and > I haven't heard anyone chirp about a cover up. No cover up, but the latest investigation was completed many months ago. >Do I believe that Rumsfeld knew or should have known what was > going on at Abu Gharib, and, therefore, be held accountable for the > abuses? He has admitted to knowing about it since January. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckbrown 0 #53 May 10, 2004 Quote>Should the commanders of the units directly involved be disciplined? > Yes, and I believe the Army investigation is running its course, and > I haven't heard anyone chirp about a cover up. No cover up, but the latest investigation was completed many months ago. Quote Actually, there are 30 investigations still ongoing, according to the NYT. Quote>Do I believe that Rumsfeld knew or should have known what was > going on at Abu Gharib, and, therefore, be held accountable for the > abuses? He has admitted to knowing about it since January. Would that be the same time that the Army CID started its investigation? Sounds about right. Are you saying that these abuses continued after he was made aware of them? Funny, I haven't heard that reported anywhere. Let's talk about the price of gas instead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Beerlight 0 #54 May 10, 2004 Quote>Bill, "when" the investigation is complete (the one that was ordered), > and if found in violation of the rules of the Geneva Covention, only > then is punishment due. I would point out that there has already been THREE investigations, including one in which physical torture (including rape with a lightstick) was fully documenteed, and Rumsfeld has already confessed to being responsible for them: "These events occurred on my watch. As secretary of Defense, I am accountable for them. I take full responsibility." So we have an investigation, a final report, and an admission of responsibility. Not sure what else you'd want to do. Convene a UN war crimes tribunal? >A bunch of staged photos doesn't convince me that Iraqi war >prisoners were tortured. sorry....i'll wait until it's official. Wow! Even though Rumsfeld says they are real (and that they are not the worst of the lot) and an army investigations says they are real? When the "trial" is complete was what I meant. And Rumsfeld is just being a good leader to take responsibility of subordinates actions. Analogy time, you don't fire one of your best CEO's when someone in the freakin mailroom fucks up....over "Still innocent UNTIl proven guilty" IMHO.. Buck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,118 #55 May 10, 2004 Quote Analogy time, you don't fire one of your best CEO's when someone in the freakin mailroom fucks up....over "Still innocent UNTIl proven guilty" IMHO.. Buck The buck stops at the top. It happened on his watch and it is a MAJOR embarrassment to the US. "Best" CEO's don't make statements like "We know where they are" unless thay actually do know where they are. Rumsfeld would resign if he had a shred of decency. So should Blair.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #56 May 10, 2004 >Actually, there are 30 investigations still ongoing, according to the NYT. Right, but those are the ones that were started recently after the photos were made public. >Would that be the same time that the Army CID started its > investigation? Sounds about right. Actually coincided with the third report (the one by Taguba) nearing completion. The third report was officially released in early February. >Let's talk about the price of gas instead. It's high! But fortunately, Bush apparently made a deal with the Saudis to have oil prices drop just before the election. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #57 May 10, 2004 >Analogy time, you don't fire one of your best CEO's when someone > in the freakin mailroom fucks up....over "Still innocent UNTIl proven > guilty" IMHO. I'll agree there. Let's hope that both the left and the right apply the same standards to war crimes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckbrown 0 #58 May 10, 2004 The buck stops at the top. It happened on his watch and it is a MAJOR embarrassment to the US. "Best" CEO's don't make statements like "We know where they are" unless thay actually do know where they are. Rumsfeld would resign if he had a shred of decency. So should Blair. Rummy's not at the TOP. Bush is. Well, actually, God or some Supreme Being is, but I forgive you for not asking them to resign. You still haven't said why no one else in the chain should resign. Only one should be punished? More than one have. And more will follow. No you've got to get Rummy. What does "we know where they are" have to do with the prison abuses? Aren't you confusing this with WMD? Besides how do you know that he didn't know where "they" were when he made that statement. "They" could have been moved. To Syria maybe. Sounds like you just don't like Rummy. I think Rummy's a pansy. Not because he allowed this to happen. But for apologizing. Shit happens in war. They didn't ask for Eisenhower's head when GI's were executing Nazi POWs (and they did). There's no excuse for what happened and the APPROPRIATE people should be punished, but to have the Secretary of Defense resign or be fired is a little disproportionate with the incident. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beerlight 0 #54 May 10, 2004 Quote>Bill, "when" the investigation is complete (the one that was ordered), > and if found in violation of the rules of the Geneva Covention, only > then is punishment due. I would point out that there has already been THREE investigations, including one in which physical torture (including rape with a lightstick) was fully documenteed, and Rumsfeld has already confessed to being responsible for them: "These events occurred on my watch. As secretary of Defense, I am accountable for them. I take full responsibility." So we have an investigation, a final report, and an admission of responsibility. Not sure what else you'd want to do. Convene a UN war crimes tribunal? >A bunch of staged photos doesn't convince me that Iraqi war >prisoners were tortured. sorry....i'll wait until it's official. Wow! Even though Rumsfeld says they are real (and that they are not the worst of the lot) and an army investigations says they are real? When the "trial" is complete was what I meant. And Rumsfeld is just being a good leader to take responsibility of subordinates actions. Analogy time, you don't fire one of your best CEO's when someone in the freakin mailroom fucks up....over "Still innocent UNTIl proven guilty" IMHO.. Buck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,118 #55 May 10, 2004 Quote Analogy time, you don't fire one of your best CEO's when someone in the freakin mailroom fucks up....over "Still innocent UNTIl proven guilty" IMHO.. Buck The buck stops at the top. It happened on his watch and it is a MAJOR embarrassment to the US. "Best" CEO's don't make statements like "We know where they are" unless thay actually do know where they are. Rumsfeld would resign if he had a shred of decency. So should Blair.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #56 May 10, 2004 >Actually, there are 30 investigations still ongoing, according to the NYT. Right, but those are the ones that were started recently after the photos were made public. >Would that be the same time that the Army CID started its > investigation? Sounds about right. Actually coincided with the third report (the one by Taguba) nearing completion. The third report was officially released in early February. >Let's talk about the price of gas instead. It's high! But fortunately, Bush apparently made a deal with the Saudis to have oil prices drop just before the election. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #57 May 10, 2004 >Analogy time, you don't fire one of your best CEO's when someone > in the freakin mailroom fucks up....over "Still innocent UNTIl proven > guilty" IMHO. I'll agree there. Let's hope that both the left and the right apply the same standards to war crimes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckbrown 0 #58 May 10, 2004 The buck stops at the top. It happened on his watch and it is a MAJOR embarrassment to the US. "Best" CEO's don't make statements like "We know where they are" unless thay actually do know where they are. Rumsfeld would resign if he had a shred of decency. So should Blair. Rummy's not at the TOP. Bush is. Well, actually, God or some Supreme Being is, but I forgive you for not asking them to resign. You still haven't said why no one else in the chain should resign. Only one should be punished? More than one have. And more will follow. No you've got to get Rummy. What does "we know where they are" have to do with the prison abuses? Aren't you confusing this with WMD? Besides how do you know that he didn't know where "they" were when he made that statement. "They" could have been moved. To Syria maybe. Sounds like you just don't like Rummy. I think Rummy's a pansy. Not because he allowed this to happen. But for apologizing. Shit happens in war. They didn't ask for Eisenhower's head when GI's were executing Nazi POWs (and they did). There's no excuse for what happened and the APPROPRIATE people should be punished, but to have the Secretary of Defense resign or be fired is a little disproportionate with the incident. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckbrown 0 #59 May 10, 2004 Quote >Let's talk about the price of gas instead. It's high! But fortunately, Bush apparently made a deal with the Saudis to have oil prices drop just before the election. I know I will come to regret writing this down ...... but God I hope you're right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #60 May 10, 2004 QuoteRumsfeld would resign if he had a shred of decency. So should Blair. I'll ask again, Kallend. Why are you excluding the leaders of the other nations that followed us? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beerlight 0 #61 May 10, 2004 QuoteQuote Analogy time, you don't fire one of your best CEO's when someone in the freakin mailroom fucks up....over "Still innocent UNTIl proven guilty" IMHO.. Buck The buck stops at the top. It happened on his watch and it is a MAJOR embarrassment to the US. "Best" CEO's don't make statements like "We know where they are" unless thay actually do know where they are. Rumsfeld would resign if he had a shred of decency. So should Blair. There is absolutely no valid reason Rumsfeld or Blair should resign. That concept of "the captain goes down with the ship" does not nor should not apply here. There is no way a commander that high in the chain of command can have personal knowledge of every minute detail of a mission (ie. guarding prisoners) that is undertaken over 9,000 miles away! Again, some reservist and contractors screw up and people ask for resignations?!....absolute bs. Guess guilty until proven innocent is a factor here. Buck P.S. [Another analogy that may apply.] The janitor at a university is accused of abusing some students, does the President of the Uni resign? Heck no. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #62 May 10, 2004 Quote There is no way a commander that high in the chain of command can have personal knowledge of every minute detail of a mission (ie. guarding prisoners) that is undertaken over 9,000 miles away! They -can- be held responsible IF they let it known that the prisoners did not and would not be given the official status of Prisoner of War and all of the protections that come with that status. This -IS- what Rumsfeld did. To say he was not aware of the ramifications of that is to underestimate his IQ. Rumsfeld set the stage for this inevitable abuse. Rummy was also just a bit to cleaver for his own britches by thinkiing that he could hire outside "contractors" to do some of the dirty work and that would somehow keep the U.S. troops proper insulated from the dirty work they were going to do. (Of course, the "proper" way to do this is do what we "normally" do and hand them over to another country for questioning -- but that's another topic.) Our troops had no business being within eye or ear shot of any intensive questioning by "contractors".quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #63 May 10, 2004 Ahhh...so now Mr. Rumsfeld is a general, eh? Perhaps you missed this, but Mr. Rumsfeld is the Secretary of Defense. He has Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force (the Marine Corps is part of the Navy department for those who failed civics) working for him, and several levels of flag officers (perhaps some SES as well) in between himself and the commanding general overseeing any/all of these prisons. Below any such flag officer will be Colonels, majors, captains and lieutenants (my apologies to Navy folk; nobody understands Navy ranks anyway) for an officer corps and then non-commissioned officers and enlisted personnel below them. In case anyone hasn't heard, there weren't any pics of flag officers in those photos. Don't think there were any colonels or majors either. SecAF, SecNav, SecArmy weren't in any of them either. I'm finding your general's analogy a bit flaky from a logical standpoint, to say the least. Another thorn in the side of such an argument would be that the entire Army DIDN'T embarrass the nation. Nor did a division. Nor did a batallion. Or even a company. It was a select few dumb-fucks who embarassed the U.S. - though they did so handily. The calls for Rumsfeld's resignation have but one purpose - to weaken President Bush politically. There's more than enough ammo with which to attack Mr. Bush politically. By taking such a tactic as calling for Rumsfeld's resignation the left is once again showing us why they are unfit to lead the nation. Given their track record over the past decade, it's what I've come to expect from them. Beers to all, Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #64 May 10, 2004 > By taking such a tactic as calling for Rumsfeld's resignation the left > is once again showing us why they are unfit to lead the nation. > Given their track record over the past decade, it's what I've come to > expect from them. While the right calls a man's wife a whore for political gain and attacks a decorated vet's war record - then defends Rumsfeld for the same admission they condemn the vet for. Which, of course, indicates they are far more suited to lead the nation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #65 May 10, 2004 Quote In case anyone hasn't heard, there weren't any pics of flag officers in those photos. Don't think there were any colonels or majors either. SecAF, SecNav, SecArmy weren't in any of them either. Careful, this didn't exactly wash at Nuremberg. BTW, is anybody else kinda shocked to hear the defense of the stupid chick saying that she was "only following orders"?!?!? Holy crap!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beerlight 0 #66 May 10, 2004 QuoteQuote There is no way a commander that high in the chain of command can have personal knowledge of every minute detail of a mission (ie. guarding prisoners) that is undertaken over 9,000 miles away! They -can- be held responsible IF they let it known that the prisoners did not and would not be given the official status of Prisoner of War and all of the protections that come with that status. This -IS- what Rumsfeld did. To say he was not aware of the ramifications of that is to underestimate his IQ. Rumsfeld set the stage for this inevitable abuse. Rummy was also just a bit to cleaver for his own britches by thinkiing that he could hire outside "contractors" to do some of the dirty work and that would somehow keep the U.S. troops proper insulated from the dirty work they were going to do. (Of course, the "proper" way to do this is do what we "normally" do and hand them over to another country for questioning -- but that's another topic.) Our troops had no business being within eye or ear shot of any intensive questioning by "contractors". Using the term "dirty work" shows a true mind-made-up view. Again, the verdict is not yet in. When/if they are found guilty of abuse, then let the hammer fall....not before. B2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #67 May 10, 2004 Government officials have already admitted to this. Stuff that is against the Geneva Convention -was- going on. It doesn't have to go to trial.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #68 May 10, 2004 Perhaps I'm out of touch (haven't been reading a lot over the past week) but I'm not familiar with the whore attack of which you're speaking. (I'm not being sarcastic; please send me a link or something) Please enlighten me as to exactly when Rumsfeld personally witnessed his fellow soldiers committing atrocities against Iraqi's (or folks from any nation for that matter). That's what John Kerry stated he saw his fellow soldiers doing in Vietnam. Odd comparison you've brought up. I think it untenable by any standard of logic. As for Kerry's war record, he's made it the center point of his campaign. His offer to the leader of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth shows just what a poor choice that was for him to do so. Add in there his VVAW activities and speeches, and you have a pretty piss poor campaign open to many, many legitimate attacks. His ilk chose to attack Bush's guard service and are now screaming at being attacked themselves on far more legitimate grounds. I find this most amusing. If you think Rumsfeld's removal at this point in time is a good thing for the nation from a managerial standpoint, please justify this removal of a large city's school superintendent under this scenario: A school teacher (1/35,000 let's say) openly teaches that evolution has no basis in fact, and the city schools are sued for it. The Superintendent's resignation is demanded. Please justify the Superintendent's removal. If you can do so, you've a tenable argument for Rumsfeld's resignation. If you can't, well, you should go back to the drawing board. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,118 #69 May 10, 2004 Quote Another thorn in the side of such an argument would be that the entire Army DIDN'T embarrass the nation. Nor did a division. Nor did a batallion. Or even a company. It was a select few dumb-fucks who embarassed the U.S. - though they did so handily. Fact: the USA is HIGHLY embarrassed by these incidents. After the WMD lies became known, the rationale morphed into being the "white hats" coming in to save the poor Iraqis from a brutal tyranny. Now that cover is blown too. Fact: the USA is embarrassed by the apparent cover up (the administration has known since January). Fact: Rumsfeld allowed the Congress to learn about this stuff from the press, when he could easily have briefed them himself. Fact: Rumsfeld kept Bush in the dark too, embarrassing the head of state. Fact: it all happened under Rumsfeld's watch. He should go.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #70 May 10, 2004 QuoteFact: the USA is embarrassed by the apparent cover up (the administration has known since January). Personally, I don't blame them for covering it up. As long as steps were being taken to make sure it doesn't happen anymore, I would have been happy if it had stayed out of the public light. However, it probably took the public outcry to get them to take firmer action. QuoteFact: Rumsfeld allowed the Congress to learn about this stuff from the press, when he could easily have briefed them himself. Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that he wasn't aware of the extent and thought it was an isolated incident that was taken care of. I haven't seen anyone with any evidence to the contrary, but I could be wrong. QuoteFact: Rumsfeld kept Bush in the dark too, embarrassing the head of state. Like I said, I don't think Rumsfeld even knew what the deal was, so I don't think he deliberately withheld anything. QuoteFact: it all happened under Rumsfeld's watch. He should go. No, he should correct the problems that led to it being permitted to happen under his watch. I watched his testimony in front of the Armed Services Committee. Although Rumsfeld himself was unimpressive in his responses, those that addressed him, from both parties, gave some really good feed back, suggestions, and action items that I think he will act on. That being said, I think he should resign for commiting 1/3 the troops that the chiefs of staff said would be needed, and for not having a solid exit plan, and for pushing for the Iraq war in the first place. But I don't think he should resign over this issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #71 May 10, 2004 >Please enlighten me as to exactly when Rumsfeld personally >witnessed his fellow soldiers committing atrocities against Iraqi's It doesn't matter. He admitted guilt and accepted responsibility. Unless you claim he is a liar too? >I find this most amusing. I find the right's ability to squirm out of previous positions amusing as well. If you admit to war crimes, should you be held liable? The right wing's answer to that question did a flip-flop last week. >If you think Rumsfeld's removal at this point in time is a good thing > for the nation from a managerial standpoint, please justify this > removal of a large city's school superintendent under this scenario: It's not. Rumsfeld should not be removed. He admitted guilt to war crimes, but such things happen in war because of bad communication and poorly stated objectives. And I hope he gets a lot of shit, because he deserves it for letting such a thing happen on his watch. But in my book he should get a chance to fix it. Now, if it's not fixed in a few months? Then there would be a good argument to give him the heave-ho. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #72 May 11, 2004 It matters for reasons of comparison as cited by yourself. He did accept responsibility, but the guilt lies with the offenders themselves. There is no right wing flip-flop here. As you stated, Rumsfeld should remain. I stand by my assertions as to the true reason for the hullaballoo from the left. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #73 May 11, 2004 You've been pretty quiet today about the Army Times editorial. Any comments about that?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #74 May 11, 2004 Did you express the same outrage and demand Clinton and Reno resign after Waco and Ruby Ridge? In my book these were far more serious actions as they resulted in the deaths of Americans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #75 May 11, 2004 QuoteWhile the right calls a man's wife a whore for political gain If you applied your knowledge of engineering for evil instead of good, we would call you a criminal. Did I just call you a criminal? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)