ABUSE CRISIS: Rumsfeld Should Go! Says Army Times Newspaper.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   
The influential independent newspaper, Army Times has called for the removal of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon civilian military leaders over the Iraq prisoner scandal. The Army Times (and other service Times papers owned by Gannett Co.) are widely read among all branches of the military.
 
www.reuters.com "This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential -- even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war," the private weekly newspaper said in an editorial. Also in top headlines: Abuse Cases Likely to Be a Topic in Bush-Rumsfeld Meeting By KIRK SEMPLE President Bush went to the Defense Department this morning for a military briefing that is expected to include a discussion of prisoner abuse in Iraq. The meeting was scheduled before the scandal broke but is now being viewed as a gauge of how the president feels about his embattled defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, and how he plans to redress the damage to the United States strategy in Iraq. Mr. Bush has insisted that he wants Mr. Rumsfeld to remain in his cabinet, and is expected to make a vigorous defense of his defense secretary today. But revelations in the widening investigation have been accompanied by calls from some top lawmakers that Mr. Rumsfeld consider resigning as part of an effort to salvage American credibility in Iraq and the larger Arab world. The pressure is on for accountability at the top. Just how far "the top" goes remains to be seen. [Edited on 12-5-2004 by SkepticOverlord]




posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   
After all we've heard, I agree. The final nail in his coffin was when we heard that he hadn't fully disclosed the extent of the problem to Bush. That being the case, how can Bush trust him going forward? I haven't trusted him from the start.

To be fair and balanced however, it would be interesting to note how many times the the Army Times has called for his ouster. My guess, definitely more than once.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I think he should go, too. Actally I don't think he should have been there in the first place. It's Bush's prerogative whether he stays or goes, and since his mission for Rumsfeld is much, much more than just defense of the nation, I think he's going to keep him. If (when) Bush is re-elected, I think Rumsfeld may step down. Since he has no political credibility left, I'm sure he'll finally take that defense contractor CEO position I'm sure he's always wanted.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I think that if Bush dumps Rumsfeld, it would actually improve his chances of reelection. I think that people would look at that as a positive sign of leadership abilities. On the other hand, if Bush persists in his support of Rumsfeld amid the growing scandal, and if Rumsfeld refuses to step down on his own, that would send a clear signal that Bush is not in control.

Personally, I think that Bush is extremely reluctant to dump him because he relies on him so much, too much almost.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
It's Bush's prerogative whether he stays or goes, and since his mission for Rumsfeld is much, much more than just defense of the nation, I think he's going to keep him. If (when) Bush is re-elected, I think Rumsfeld may step down.


Because Rumsfeld serves at the pleasure of the President, I figure the final decision should be left to Bush, whether that decision is right, wrong or indifferent. The voters in November will decide on whether his decision to keep Rumsfeld was ultimately the right thing to do.

Looking at things from a military perspective, the line of accountability should start with the actual perpetrators and end with the prison CO. Someone in another thread pointed out that the CO was whining that they had no control over intelligence/civilians who also worked at the prison. It was the COs responsiblity to control those actions and to elevate any challgenges to the COs authority.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I think that if Bush dumps Rumsfeld, it would actually improve his chances of reelection. I think that people would look at that as a positive sign of leadership abilities. On the other hand, if Bush persists in his support of Rumsfeld amid the growing scandal, and if Rumsfeld refuses to step down on his own, that would send a clear signal that Bush is not in control.

Personally, I think that Bush is extremely reluctant to dump him because he relies on him so much, too much almost.


Interesting you should say that because notice how the Bush hasn't fired anybody in the government since he took office. Makes you wonder.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Rumsfeld Should Go! Says Army Times Newspaper

And not just him. The whole administration should go - preferably set afloat in a leaky boat in the middle of the Pacific.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys
Someone in another thread pointed out that the CO was whining that they had no control over intelligence/civilians...
If this is the case, Bleys, that commander seriously needs to be let go. If we eventually come to find that the soldiers were taking orders from civilians, then definitely Rumsfeld needs to go. That is a violation military policy, and if Rumsfeld was unaware of it, then he was negligent. Grossly negligent.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Can anyone confirm this? My dad says the CIA was giving the soldiers orders to abuse the Iraqi Prisoners.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
Can anyone confirm this? My dad says the CIA was giving the soldiers orders to abuse the Iraqi Prisoners.


Something like that will never be able to be confirmed with absolute certainty. That doesn't mean that people won't be speculating on it for a long, long, time. Kind of just like those insane threads that say we never went to the moon.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Anyone have a link to the article that Reuters refers to concerning the Army Times calling for or mentioning that Rumsfeld must go or resign?
I'm failing to find the reference that Reuters has used and would be greatly interested in reading it.

Thanks.


seekerof

[Edited on 10-5-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   
I tried to look for it on the army times web page but I could not find a link to the editorial.

Common sense, how didi your dad get that information? From what I know a soldier can not take orders from anyone who is not in the chain of command. The chain of command does not include CIA officials. Perhaps soldiers can be directed to assist CIA officers in operations. but it still has to be done trhough the proper channels. In any case soldiers at all levels have a duty to refuse Illegal orders by superior officers.

That being said I think Rumsfeld should perhaps step down due to this current incident and his handling of the whole war. He made decisions to use a smaller force in Iraq which ultimately led us not being in control of the country after Saddam fell, he pusehd for calling up reservists and National Guard troops that did not have enough training to essenstialy police an entire country, and run its prisons. Ad to this the use of contractors with little or no acountability in operations that the military should be running.

These are mistakes in judgement, and I don't think Rumsfeld did it intentionaly, but he made those decisions and in the military we are taught that you are supposed to take responsibility for those under you, not just by apologizing but also by accepting the consequenses for your actions. I think alot of people in the military are questioning why a small group of low level soldiers are being punished, and the top brass and civilian leadership is washing its hand. Confidence in the command structure is essential to a proper functioning military, and after this past bloody month and this whole scandal I think its wearing thin.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Europe, Belgian Television (canvas)

Responding in a docu/news program about, the stories of the Afghan, Guantanamo prisoners and the latest mass of allegations regarding Iraq, ex-NATO Secretary General W. Claes said, that he thinks Rumfseld seen amount of evidence, should step down.

The torture of Iraqi prisoners in US custody looks more systematic than incidental, and probably organized.
Illegal organized military Intel techniques of "psyco"-torure look evident.
This way of conduct is totally unacceptable.
The responsible U.S. intel officials have trembled the Geneva convention with their feet.

(quick summary)




[Edited on 10-5-2004 by Hoaks]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 08:32 PM
link   
By implicitly or explicitly sanctioning this kind of treatment of prisoners, the command has directly endangered the national mission and lives of its soldiers.

The central strategic value of overthrowing Saddam was to get
A) a friendly semi-democratic country
B) encourage spread of democracy in other Arab states.

I always thought B was unrealistic. But now A is practically impossible now---even if Iraq is democratic they will hate the USA anyway. They will think that they achieved democracy DESPITE the USA instead of because of it.

Complete strategic clusterfcuk.

Now onto the tactical mistakes.

Gee, this is going to really inflame people in the street. Those people have AK-47's and know people with RPGs. Even if some of them were neutral before, this will push them over the edge.

Soldiers will die.

And moreover when US soldiers are captured, they will be subjected to similarly vile torture.

THAT IS THE PRINCIPAL REASON FOR THE GENEVA CONVENTION. Mutually-enlightened *self*-interest.

It is central military mismanagement. The chain of the command goes up to the top. Rumsfeld is not the top, he is number TWO.

GWB is number one.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel
By implicitly or explicitly sanctioning this kind of treatment of prisoners, the command has directly endangered the national mission and lives of its soldiers.
My sentiments exactly on all of what you said in this post mb.

But I think the central strategic purpose for this war was to establish a presence and base of operations for future projects in the war on terror. If the war is for the oil, it is so that we can have an immediately available source of fuel for planes, tanks and trucks. I think they may have thought that after the invasion everything would be hunkey-dorey.

There was a complete lack of foresight and planning on the part of the entire administration and staff for the execution of this action, and no exit strategy if things were to turn out the way they have. Now the UN isn't going to help us, and some of our partners in occupation are beginning to pull out. And now all this can do is kill Americans senselessly, and burn cash we really shouldn't be spending right now.

Thanks GW, ya prick.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

It is central military mismanagement. The chain of the command goes up to the top. Rumsfeld is not the top, he is number TWO.

GWB is number one.



Thats true, but from what we have learned recently Bush himself was kept in the dark about much of what was going on in Iraq. He is still responsible, but maybe not directly. He has many other responsiblities and duties to deal with, while Rumsfeld's sole duty is to conduct the defense of the country and manage the armed forces.

In any case we have only a few months left for the election, and the people will have to decide wether GWB needs to go.

It does piss me off how all the people involved in this mess have put the lives of their fellow soldiers in danger by further provoking anm armed population. Everyone involved needs to go, they are a disgrace to the uniform they wear and the positions they hold.


[Edited on 10-5-2004 by TheEXone]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheEXone

Thats true, but from what we have learned recently Bush himself was kept in the dark about much of what was going on in Iraq.



There is perhaps an important distinction between what you "have been told" and what you have "learned".

My own impression is that George W Bush would have been fully aware of systematic abuse in the techniques being applied to prisoners, either for interrogation or sicko pleasure, for some time before the invasion of Iraq - as it was going on in Afghanistan, and he was hearing about it from International Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and others.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pisky
Rumsfeld Should Go! Says Army Times Newspaper

And not just him. The whole administration should go - preferably set afloat in a leaky boat in the middle of the Pacific.


Couldn't have said it better myself.
Bush should be tried for War Crimes, Impeached, the whole 9 yards. Clinton had an affair, some what 70 million spent on impeaching him., Bush leads us into a war under false pretenses, then the Shizzle hits the Fizzle and he gets to walk. Now that is Democracy.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Wow!

This thread really went askew after Seekerof. I think it's time to say - BYE! ATS used to be so much better - too bad!



posted on May, 11 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheEXone
I tried to look for it on the army times web page but I could not find a link to the editorial.

Common sense, how didi your dad get that information? From what I know a soldier can not take orders from anyone who is not in the chain of command. The chain of command does not include CIA officials. Perhaps soldiers can be directed to assist CIA officers in operations. but it still has to be done trhough the proper channels. In any case soldiers at all levels have a duty to refuse Illegal orders by superior officers.


Well, here's an article referring to your question. My dad didn't get the info from here though:

why-war.com...





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join