May 07, 2004
Does Rumsfeld Have A Defense?
In a nutshell, Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld’s defense as to why he tried to hide from the world and the Congress and the public, the horrid practices of interrogation being conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan was that he had no procedure or guideline to follow in reaching down into a criminal investigation of such abuses and bring forth information that would be damning in the eyes of the world, and to our efforts in our military engagements.
The media was asked to delay exposing the proof of such abusive practices and said he now wishes he had not. He said this before a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Iraqi Abuses of detainees, aired this morning on MSNBC and other TV stations. Gen. Meyers stated he wishes now he had informed Congress of the looming scandal when he learned of it in March 2004.
It is important to note, that by their own words, the Dept. of Defense (DoD) and the Pentagon were aware of such abuses early in 2003 after a specialist Darby revealed allegations of abuses on Jan. 14 or 15 of 2003. Also, CBC News reports "The international Red Cross said Friday it had warned U.S. officials of abuse of prisoners in Iraq more than a year ago." Investigations by the Criminal Investigations Division (CID) were launched at the request of Gen. Meyers in August of 2003. Now Rumsfeld and Meyers and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are in the very indelicate position of having headed organizations which were aware of such abuses for a year and more, and did nothing to end the practices, stop the abuses, and reduce our risk of exposure which damages to the core our endeavors in those countries and risk heightened dangers for our troops. All they did in their own words were to launch investigations and reviews.
But let us not forget, Donald Rumsfeld said before the press in January 2002 "I do not feel even the slightest concern about their [detainees] treatment. They are being treated vastly better than they treated anybody else." That statement and the leadership of a Secretary of Defense who managed those below him with that statement at the core of his own belief and value system, is what accounts for the abuses in Iraq. The President said about the war on terrorism that he will do "Whatever It Takes, As Long As It Takes". His number one in charge of military forces said he had no care for what happened to detainees. While the criminal responsibility for what happened in Abu Ghraib prison will fall to the lower ranks of the military supervising and directly involved with the tortures, rapes, and over 25 alleged murders of prisoners, the command responsibility for those acts can be traced in their own words to the President of the United States and his Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
Outside D.C. when an employee damages the image of the company they work for, they are fired. In the civilian world, when an employee commits decisions and utters words that open the door to crimes being committed on the job by subordinates, that employee is fired. Rumsfeld is President Bush's employee and he is our employee. But the sweetheart deal made between the President and Rumsfeld will likely not result in employees with command responsibility for what has happened, stepping down or being fired. That sweetheart deal is obvious. The President will not fire Rumsfeld in exchange for Rumsfeld's testimony as given today that while the abuses were mentioned to the President, the force and import of their meaning were not conveyed to the President. It is an age old deal in the Whitehouse, and while Nixon did not invent it during the Watergate scandal, he certainly established in the public that this is how it works. It is called credible deniability.
This story is not over. The abuses are not over. The cover up is not over. Even Rumsfeld admitted today there will be more unsettling information coming forward. It is clear to me however, that come November 2, 2004, this administration's hold on power over our now somewhat diminished nation, should be over. Make no mistake, while we here in America try to judge who is responsible within our government and military, the peoples of the world are judging whether the American people themselves, you and I, are also responsible. If we reelect this administration in November, there is no doubt, 100's of millions of people if not a billion or more, will hold you and I and all Americans responsible. When that occurs, Osama bin Laden will have accomplished his intended purpose. We will have handed victory to the terrorists we profess to so ardently fight against.
Posted by David R. Remer at May 7, 2004 03:10 PMWelcome to Watchblog’s ninth thread on this very same topic! Ten anybody?
Don’t get me wrong—I’m all for debating this, but can we just go ahead and name this site Watch-Abu-Ghraib now?
Anybody feel like talking about the 288,000 jobs added to payrolls in April?
Posted by: Martin at May 7, 2004 03:28 PMIt’s the same on radio, television, etc…
What bugs me is how small this story was back in January when it came out. I read all about it back then and no one made a big fuss. Then the pictures…..
Makes you wonder if our Senators can read.
Posted by: George at May 7, 2004 03:57 PMNewsMax covered it in January:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/16/200432.shtml
Posted by: George at May 7, 2004 04:11 PMBefore there were pictures, there was little motivation or incentive to change the way things are done. Does this not make an aggressive argument for the need for media to follow military actions overseas?
Had the media had access to Abu Ghraib a year ago, I suspect none of this would be happening just months before the election. It is amazing how this administration’s penchant for secrecy continues again and again to come back to bite them. And yet, they do not learn. They just become more secretive. Most people who do something that hurts have the sense to stop doing that. Not this Administration. They just do it more ardently.
Sometimes secrecy in a Democracy works, but, far too often it just backfires, as well it should where affairs of consequence to the American public are concerned. Gives one hope that our system does still work, at least in part.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 7, 2004 04:37 PMMartin, please stay on topic. If the topic is not of interest to you, simply find one among the hundreds in the archives here which does.
Posted by: WatchBlog Manager at May 7, 2004 04:41 PMGeorge,
That article, by the way, is not a NewsMax article. It’s an AP article. But your point is taken - how well were these abuses known?
Anyway, it’s hilarious that you blame Senators for inaction and not those parties who are actually in the chain of command responsible for taking action. Any Senator who spoke out in public about these abuses would have overstepped their bounds and may have risked besmirching the military while an investigation was still under way.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at May 7, 2004 07:22 PMA picture speaks a thousand words. That is why it’s big news now. And it was a mind-changer for me in a way. Prior to looking at the pictures I was thinking that all that went on was “humiliation”. But after seeing one of the pictures, that particular one was, by my book, TORTURE. Electrodes on the genitals, y’know, you gotta call a spade a spade.
Yes, there are many topics in a row on this, but it’s also because it’s such a fundamental issue, getting to the core philosophy of how to combat an evil group of people: apparently the Military Intelligence chain of command within the U.S. Army, some contractors, and the CIA, believe that the way to do it is by becoming evil, ourselves. We have a breakdown in core values, and while yes, the UCMJ is taking care of some particular individuals, I’ve seen very little movement on organizational and training changes at the guilty agencies I mentioned, to ensure that this behavior doesn’t persist. Lacking that, it will only get more secretive, and they’ll just confiscate all cameras at the facilities, and nothing will essentially change.
I saw the Committee grilling Rumsfeld, and while I do think he was slightly unprepared in some areas for some of the more detailed questions, I do think he was candid and honest and admitted having been wrong to be slow to share information with the elected civilians charged with overseeing the military. He also candidly admitted that his resignation might help to show the world how seriously America takes this issue. After such a noble implicit offer to fall on his sword, as it were, I think it’s to Bush’s discredit that he didn’t call for it.
CF-
I don’t really blame the Senators for inaction over the past four months as much as I blame them for over reaction over the last four days. Let me just say that one of my State’s Senator, L Graham, a Republican, is one of the ones I’m talking about.
Look, this is a bad story, and from what Rumsfeld said it will get worse once the video is release. But it was also a bad story in January when it came out, and I didn’t hear calls for the Sec. of State to resign. The fact remains that I feel our military has handled this in an above board manner and with more openness than probably any other government on this planet would have shown. Some say too much openness with troops in the field.
There is a considerable amount of grand standing over on Capital Hill, a lot of it based on party politics, and some based on personal politics. You have to take that into account when you look at this story. But I agree that if you were to remove the smell you would still have a pile of pooh. I hope that it gets cleaned up soon.
And Rumsfeld in essence said, If I had received the pictures I would have done something, but, since, I only received verbal reports, it just didn’t have the impact or effect on me.
GAWD! Get rid of this guy.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 8, 2004 05:30 AMDavid, Rumsefeld did not see photographs but he heard about the abuse (as did the rest of the world) in January. When a full investigation is already under way it’s not necessary for the Secretary of Defense to insert himself personally into the situation, to micromanage every issue and complaint related to our armed services.
The left demonstrates again and again that they don’t even care what the truth is—they just want to manipulate a scandal that should effect all of to “get rid” of their own political enemies. To them, winning is everything—the truth, America, anything but ABB be damned.
Posted by: Martin at May 8, 2004 11:33 AMWhen a full investigation is already under way it’s not necessary for the Secretary of Defense to insert himself personally into the situation
On an issue this explosive? The Hell it’s not necessary!
Rusfeld should go, and sooner rather than later…
I believe that what makes my ire rise so high concerning this issue, is the fact that our honor as a nation, our moral standing, leadership, and creditability around the world is at stake, is in question, is under attack. Since the Bush Administration has taken office our cache of good will around the world has suffered almost incalculable harm from the unilateral stances—informed by arrogance—this President and his neo-conservative advisors have taken on almost every issue, from global warming, to the International Criminal Court, to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Children to the ill-advised War in Iraq.
And now this…this total disregard for the tenets of International Law, and basic human rights is unforgivable from a nation that holds high the principles of the Constitution, and claims the moral authority of Christianity, informed by the Holy Bible, as its own.
It is becoming increasingly hard to hold my head up as an American and state that I proud of what my country stands for and what its leaders are doing in my name. I admit that I am passionate about the principles that form the foundational integrity of our Republic, and for that I offer no apologies. Our American experiment, I feel is failing; not because it was ill-conceived and its principles lacking in veracity, but because the fair majority of the citizenry has ceased to take an active role in the process. That lack of attention saddens me and leads me to fear for the future of our nation if that fire is not rekindled…
This is a little off topic but may be of interest.
I saw this on Fark.com.
It’s a little unclear what’s going on but evidently DOD and Halliburton are stopping the GI’s from assessing the Internet for 90 days. (Don’t want any more photos emailed?)
http://www.kathryncramer.com/wblog/archives/000549.html
I have done some Google searches but found nothing to support this. I wouldn’t be surprised if its true.
Martin (on the right) and V. Edward (on the left), my take is this: I agree with Martin that it’s insipid and partisan to call for resignations every time the world doesn’t go perfectly, but be advised that this happened to Janet Reno and Louis Freeh after the Waco debacle. The right does it when the left is in charge, and vice-versa. It’s the way hysterical irrational partisan binary politics “works”.
To those on the left, remember all those blog posts a few years ago describing right-wingers as “seething with hatred” every time they criticized Clinton? Well you’ve met the vast anti-establishment conspiracy and it is YOU. You have become what you revile in right wing talk radio from their anti-Clinton days. Kept warm at night only by hatred; only by nuclear rhetoric and illogical constructs in order to chip away at an elected official’s ability to do his job, and all just so you can replace that elected official.
The joke is on BOTH you groups of people. The establishment Left is the establishment Right because it’s just one Establishment, playing both sides. It polarizes the people against themselves, always trying to keep a perfect 50/50 split of opinion out there, so that they will not be able to countermand the agenda of the oligarchy. The aristocracy still gets what the aristocracy wants, and when ARISTOCRAT Kerry gets in office, troops will still be in Iraq. Are the scales falling from your eyes yet? No? Back to sleep with you then.
Bob J, in WWII GIs all had their letters home CENSORED. That that doesn’t bother anybody here even today, just goes to show how well the U.S. ran propaganda back then. Sometimes the Establishment gets slick in how they make things look “open and democratic”, and sometimes they goof.
