It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Rumsfeld be held accountable?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2004 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Rumsfeld's performance in front of Congress, his failure to remember even the month or week of meetings in which he informed Bush, and his defence of Bush were diabolical.

Even if he is made a fall guy along with one or two Generals, I can't feel sorry for him at all.




posted on May, 7 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   
i'm curious does anyone know how much $$ is going to be given to those mistreated as compensation?? I am having a hard time finding a figure, but I am very curious to know what the rate of payment will be.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Incorrect, there is something called the chain of command. How far up do you want to take it up the chain of command? To Rummy? To the Pres, cause he appointed him? Or how about to Congress because they allowed Rummy to be in that position? Heck, while we are at it, let's just indict the American people because they are the ones that voted for everyone in political office.

You have got to be a moron to think that Rummy should be held accountable. The troops involved and the IMMEDIATE chain of command. Since I realize most of you here are not military, I don't expect you to understand how it works. But information is typically funneled and never reaches the top unless it is of great importance. What makes this even more distasteful is the fact that people like Kerry are taking the high road on this when he should keep his damn mouth shut to begin with. What right does he have to criticize when he was the one who approved every action so far?

Rant, if you want to throw a pic of Rummy and Saddam up and charge that they are war criminals as in your statement, you should reflect on your posts that bash on invading Iraq and deposing of it's "criminal" leadership.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 06:07 PM
link   
worldwatcher - the only reason it did more damage was becasue they were accidentally (?) released. If they were never released, none of this would of happened.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 06:07 PM
link   
look rummy as you call him, said today he was responsible. So yes, he should be accountable, even though I dislike Bush, he is untouchable in this particular issue, however he should be impeached for sending up to Iraq in the first place under false pretenses and racking up billions in spending.
Rumsfeld Offers 'deepest Apology' for Prisoner Abuse, Says More Photos, Videos May Make Crisis Worse
He said bluntly, "These events occurred on my watch. As secretary of defense, I am accountable for them. I take full responsibility."



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by xenophanes85
worldwatcher - the only reason it did more damage was becasue they were accidentally (?) released. If they were never released, none of this would of happened.


tell me, would have prefered this to have continue without us the general public not being aware of it. Accidental or purposedly released, it doesn't matter, atrocities are being committed, and according to the International Red Cross it has been going on for more than year now.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Yes I WOULD have preferred it to go on unrevealed. Because it has been revealed, it's probably the worse thing to happen to the US' presence in the Middle East YET. This will most likely go down in history under Military/Government/Media Blunders. I totally agree that its horrible, but would you not agree that it would have been better for the world situation if it was kept secret?

[Edited on 5/7/04 by xenophanes85]

[Edited on 5/7/04 by xenophanes85]



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Seems that those 600+ media outlet/sources in Iraq didn't and don't think so, nor the major media.

Loved how Rumsfield blasted their collective asses today.


Should he be accountable....certainly, he took that yoke and placed it squarely on his neck today.
He will not resign because of those who are making this into a political issue, and I 100% agree. If he resigns, let it be as an example, as he so indicated today when asked and he asnswered: "Possibility".

No matter what is claimed and said, the man was strong today.





seekerof



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   
if it was kept secret, don't you see the obvious ramifications of the situation still getting worse? for one the iraqis still would be resisting and not trusting us, they never did in the first place. And the mistreatment would continue...the Abu Ghraib prison isn't the only place where prisoners are kept.

with the public and world's eyes now open, perhaps more of the truth will become available and the beloved Bush administration will be finally be held accountable for their actions in the opinion of the majority.

you may call that strong Seekeroff, I didn't watch the whole thing but from clips i saw, he seemed defensive and on the verge of losing it ...imo

[Edited on 5-7-2004 by worldwatcher]



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
No matter what is claimed and said, the man was strong today.


Maybe he just got tired of lying.

Somehow, I really don't think he was aware of what was going on, WHILE it was going on... Just a weird vibe I have. They're just trying to get sympathy.

They're trying something new : apologizing and trying to look responsible.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by m0rbid

Originally posted by Seekerof
No matter what is claimed and said, the man was strong today.


Maybe he just got tired of lying.

Somehow, I really don't think he was aware of what was going on, WHILE it was going on... Just a weird vibe I have. They're just trying to get sympathy.

They're trying something new : apologizing and trying to look responsible.


Or is it because this is going to get alot worse. Rumsfeld admitted that there are more pictures and video of physical abuse at the prison. He noted that the worse is yet to come.

NBC news w/ Brian Williams is alleging that some of the pictures and video show one prisoner being almost beaten to death and several rapes. I checked their website but they haven't posted anything yet

How bad is this going to be when these new pictures come out?



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I think the question is more : can it really get worse? and if it can... do we really want to see it?

I know I don't... Tired of all this.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 06:49 PM
link   
worldwatcher, there never was an attempt to cover up the photos. There was a request to delay their release because of the activities that were going on at the time, i.e., Fallujah.

Or do you think that CBS's "right" to better ratings outweighs the lives of US soldiers?




posted on May, 7 2004 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Rumsfeld accepted responsibility for the actions of his underlings. This is what a good leader does. This does not mean he should resign as a result.

Otherwise, any disgruntled GI could intentionally do something embarassing to discredit his superior, and we'd have to call for the resignation of his superior. Makes no sense at all.




posted on May, 7 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by .E3.
You have got to be a moron to think that Rummy should be held accountable.


Rummy today before Congress...

"I am accountable."

Guess Rummy is a moron, huh?

I think you've got to be an unusually partisaned half-wit to defend his job at the expense of the reputation and credibility of America, it's mission and the very lives of our troops.

Support our Troops; Fire Rumsfeld



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I watched Rumsfeld accept responsibility today but at the same time he said nothing wrong was done as far as handling the reports of abuse. I'm sure they would have liked to keep it under wraps so they could investagate the allagations further but in reality Rumsfeld cannot be held responsible for these troops unless he ordered or suggested Intelligence rough up the prisoners, if he should take responsibility why not go all the way to the top... As he explained action was being taken and if he didn't do anything to cover it up he should be able to walk.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys
Or is it because this is going to get alot worse. Rumsfeld admitted that there are more pictures and video of physical abuse at the prison. He noted that the worse is yet to come.

NBC news w/ Brian Williams is alleging that some of the pictures and video show one prisoner being almost beaten to death and several rapes. I checked their website but they haven't posted anything yet

How bad is this going to be when these new pictures come out?


NBC finally listed the new allegations.www.msnbc.msn.com...

If you think the pictures of US forces humiliating Iraqi citizens caused outrage in the Arab world, these new pictures are going to be a call to arms.

[Edited on 7-5-2004 by Bleys]



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
if it was kept secret, don't you see the obvious ramifications of the situation still getting worse? for one the iraqis still would be resisting and not trusting us, they never did in the first place. And the mistreatment would continue...the Abu Ghraib prison isn't the only place where prisoners are kept.

Which would be worse in they eyes of the Iraqis and other Islamic peoples? Seeing it or not seeing it? The answer is painfully obvious. Also, what's to say the mistreatment has stopped? Not to be a pessimist ... just a Devils Advocate
.

[Edited on 5/8/04 by xenophanes85]



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 09:17 AM
link   
For those of you who think that Rumsfield didn't know what was going on, or that he's just taking the blame so Bush doesn't have to, here are the documents with his signature approving the "interrogation techniques" used at Abu Ghraib: www.gwu.edu...

Pay attention to pages 1, 7 (footnote), and 10-14...Do any of the Category II "techniques" from page 13 sound familiar? In particular, the removal of clothing, extended confinement in isolation, hooding, forced grooming (such as shaving off of body hair), the use of phobias (such as a FEAR OF DOGS) to induce stress. Seems like these were some of the things that were done to prisoners in Iraq.
At least these types of things only happened in Abu Ghraib, and are not standard or sanctioned operating procedures. This sort of thing was only done by a few bad apples, or was it?

In case you didn't notice who was requesting the authorization to implement these "techniques", or who they were planning to use them on, it wasn't Abu Ghraib prisoners, it was Gitmo detainees (enemy combatants).

I especially like how they managed to get around the "Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" that the U.S. signed and ratified in 1994. The U.S. took a reservation to Article 16 of the Convention, which defined what specifically constitued torture, and cruel/inhumane/degrading treatment, instead deferring to the standard stated in the 8th amendment our Constitution.

The result of this, is that the U.S. is only restricted from behaviour that would violate the 8th Amendment, against those protected by the U.S. Constitution.

The 8th Amendment states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Notice the lack of any definition or standard of what actually constitues "cruel and unusual punishment"? It is left entirely up the the person interpreting the amendment, to decide if something is cruel (done with malicious and sadistic intent), or if it was done "in good faith" with a "legitimate government purpose". How convenient!!


Here's the kicker, detainees in Gitmo do not have jurisdictional standing to claim a violation of their 8th Amendment rights in a U.S. Federal Court, meaning they cannot seek compensation for their injuries in a civil proceeding.
They can try to bring criminal charges against an abusive soldier, since soldiers are bound by the Constitution, but they would have to prove that the abuse did not serve any other purpose than to inflict severe, long-term, physical or mental pain. Good luck on that!!



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   
thanks for the update jezebel.
btw has anyone else notice the lack of Rumsfeld in the public eye? what is he up to now?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join