Did Rumsfield approve the abuses at Abu Ghraib?
- Thread starter DaiShan
- Start date
The Bushies, Rush, Hannity & CAD & Co have been trying to persuade everyone that this Journalist is making it up like the other Journalist that was fired from the Times.
This has been talked about all week leading up to it coming out.
Spin Spin Spin is their game and they are so good at it but the sheep have been brainwashed into a Zombie state so it's not having the affect it used to.
Rumsfield is immoral. Rumsfield knowingly misled the public into thinking this bizarre war on Iraq was part of a greater war on "terror." Rumsflield met and shook hands with Saddam Hussein in the 80s when he knew of all the atrocities he had committed. Is it any surprise he would approve of the torture and quasi-torture? I don't think so.
Now when I see all these old News clips and pics, Rummy and Bushy should've addressed Saddam properly as old Pal and Allie.
I'm sure he'e living like a King under our watch.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
I must say the article is fascinating, and presents a plausible-sounding chronology of how a black intel program that originated in Afghanistan was ported over to Iraq, with disastrous consequences. I don't know whether the article is true, but it is certainly food for thought.
One aspect I find interesting is this:
In 2003, Rumsfeld?s apparent disregard for the requirements of the Geneva Conventions while carrying out the war on terror had led a group of senior military legal officers from the Judge Advocate General?s (jag) Corps to pay two surprise visits within five months to Scott Horton, who was then chairman of the New York City Bar Association?s Committee on International Human Rights. ?They wanted us to challenge the Bush Administration about its standards for detentions and interrogation,? Horton told me. ?They were urging us to get involved and speak in a very loud voice. It came pretty much out of the blue. The message was that conditions are ripe for abuse, and it?s going to occur.? The military officials were most alarmed about the growing use of civilian contractors in the interrogation process, Horton recalled. ?They said there was an atmosphere of legal ambiguity being created as a result of a policy decision at the highest levels in the Pentagon. The jag officers were being cut out of the policy formulation process.? They told him that, with the war on terror, a fifty-year history of exemplary application of the Geneva Conventions had come to an end.
Within the last couple of years, the Army JAG Corps has seen a major shakeup, because DoD has made it clear they want fewer military lawyers (this may relate to an edict in "Rumsfeld's Rules": "Reduce the number of lawyers. They are like beavers -- they get in the middle of the stream and dam it up").
As a by-product of this push to shrink the size of the JAG Corps, the lion's share of high-level functions have been shifted to the Office of the General Counsel, a Department of the Army civilian instrumentality. This has led to tremendous tumult among current and former JAGs, as well as a lot of operational commanders, all of whom feel that requiring OGC involvement in command decisions just creates more administrative delay, and may undermine the interests of commanders, given that JAGs, unlike many GC attorneys, have at least some operational experience, and knowledge of weapons systems and operational doctrine (we are trained on these things alongside operational officers). Fortunately the Air Force has succeeded in largely resisting this push - I don't really know about the Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard (though the latter two have relatively tiny JAG departments in the first place).
In this context, it appears that the JAGs were effectively told to shut up and color, perhaps because OGC attorneys were willing to say what DoD wanted to hear. Frankly, these JAGs must have known they were putting their careers on the line by making this visit to the NYC Bar Association, and did it anyway, and this was in 2003, well before the present prisoner abuse scandal. Veddy interesting stuff . . .
One aspect I find interesting is this:
In 2003, Rumsfeld?s apparent disregard for the requirements of the Geneva Conventions while carrying out the war on terror had led a group of senior military legal officers from the Judge Advocate General?s (jag) Corps to pay two surprise visits within five months to Scott Horton, who was then chairman of the New York City Bar Association?s Committee on International Human Rights. ?They wanted us to challenge the Bush Administration about its standards for detentions and interrogation,? Horton told me. ?They were urging us to get involved and speak in a very loud voice. It came pretty much out of the blue. The message was that conditions are ripe for abuse, and it?s going to occur.? The military officials were most alarmed about the growing use of civilian contractors in the interrogation process, Horton recalled. ?They said there was an atmosphere of legal ambiguity being created as a result of a policy decision at the highest levels in the Pentagon. The jag officers were being cut out of the policy formulation process.? They told him that, with the war on terror, a fifty-year history of exemplary application of the Geneva Conventions had come to an end.
Within the last couple of years, the Army JAG Corps has seen a major shakeup, because DoD has made it clear they want fewer military lawyers (this may relate to an edict in "Rumsfeld's Rules": "Reduce the number of lawyers. They are like beavers -- they get in the middle of the stream and dam it up").
As a by-product of this push to shrink the size of the JAG Corps, the lion's share of high-level functions have been shifted to the Office of the General Counsel, a Department of the Army civilian instrumentality. This has led to tremendous tumult among current and former JAGs, as well as a lot of operational commanders, all of whom feel that requiring OGC involvement in command decisions just creates more administrative delay, and may undermine the interests of commanders, given that JAGs, unlike many GC attorneys, have at least some operational experience, and knowledge of weapons systems and operational doctrine (we are trained on these things alongside operational officers). Fortunately the Air Force has succeeded in largely resisting this push - I don't really know about the Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard (though the latter two have relatively tiny JAG departments in the first place).
In this context, it appears that the JAGs were effectively told to shut up and color, perhaps because OGC attorneys were willing to say what DoD wanted to hear. Frankly, these JAGs must have known they were putting their careers on the line by making this visit to the NYC Bar Association, and did it anyway, and this was in 2003, well before the present prisoner abuse scandal. Veddy interesting stuff . . .
This War on Terror isn't like previous wars, in that the enemy combantants are not organized armies, and therefore have no rights. The Geneva Convention, rules of war, and general morals, do not apply. The enemy aren't even human by most standards. Therefore, there is no need for liberal military lawyers mucking up the warfighting process. Also, as Bush recieves his orders from God, there is little chance that he will be instructed to issue commands that result in immoral activity, anyway. We are protected by God's Army now, get used to it.
Zephyr
Zephyr
I find it funny that the world is only outraged when we do something that may not be part of the Geneva Convention but when an American is beheaded on video it is almost silent, where is BIG FAT TEDDY THE KILLER KENNEDY when he is really needed. Or the X head of the KKK (Byrd) when an American is killed or is it just the media covering it up?
oh the world was outraged without a doubt when he was beheaded, just judging from other forums I read people generaly find it the most disturbing thing they have ever seen and there is more outrage on that incident than the prisons.
but the other thing is that I think the US wants to be held to a higher standard than those who did the beheading and I think most of us agree that we all do hold the US to a higher standard than those people
Some day, when you grow a brain, you'll understand why it is paramount that we abide by the Geneva Conventions no matter what else may occur.
Conjur before you become an ass let me explain I never stated we should not follow it I just asked a question. You are a true A hole please don't responde with your mindless dribble.
if they can do that to ordinary iraqis without trial or anything they can do that to me and you on US soil
, just a thought.
, just a thought.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
What was your question? I didn't see one in your post, or at least not one sufficiently coherent to lead to a sensible answer. It seems to me your post was just partisan flame-baiting, rather than a real request for information.
I don't see how it makes sense to equate the murder of Nick Berg with the misdeeds at Abu Ghraib. IMO it's silly to compare a murder to prisoner abuse, but the major difference (and forgive me if it's too obvious to bother pointing out) is that the men who killed Berg were individual terrorists acting on their own agenda. They are bloodthirsty criminals. The jailers at Abu Ghraib were uniformed military members, acting on behalf of the United States government. Hence, the consequences for their actions will likely be farther-reaching than those of Berg's killers.
I have said it before and I'll say it again: Since the sole truthful rationale for the war was the fact that the Iraqi people were toiling under a ruthless dictator (and they definitely were), we can't violently overthrow him, take over the country, then torture prisoners in the very same facility he used, and expect to have any moral authority or credibility in the eyes of the world. We just look like hypocrits and bullies.
Okay, since I too am a huge Stern fan (see my sig), what do you make of his statements in regard to President Bush?
Rumsfeld's all done -- caught lying to Congress doesn't go over very well unless you're on the idiot fringe of the party (Hannity, et al). Explains why Rums was more angry at the media and reservists using digital cameras than the actual events themselves. It is far past time for McCain, L. Graham, and the other sane members of the party to step up and set things straight for the future. Otherwise, the party will be disgraced in a way that hasn't happened since Watergate.
He got the boot from the market I live in so I only see him on the E channel once in awhile and they always seem to be old shows. I have no problem with Howard if you don?t like it change the channel I happen to like him. My X wife was on his show during one of the super bowl tryouts back in the early 90?s. She was almost picked to go to the party as a massage girl but Jackie said she was to normal, good looking enough but just way to normal.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,874
- 10,677
- 147
I'm fairly cynical.
I know that heartsurgeon is a scarily misanthropic idiot.
I do not carry around a tattered copy of the sayings of Chairman CAD.
Passions just makes me laugh, though not in a lighthearted, mirthful way.
In short, I do not buy BushCo. bullsh!t, no way, no how.
And yet, even I am startled and saddened by the revelations in this thread.
John Kerry could fvck a pregnant pig on national TV tomorrow, he would still be the better choice to lead our country out of this ongoing national nightmare of duplicity and depravity.
May God (the real non-partisan, non-exclusionary one) take pity on our souls.
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter