A. see list in my post wrt things specifically linked to administration decisions that led to what amounted to be a serious lack of oversite (foreseeable).
B. “Commander in Chief”
C. In addition, the continued drone of “we’re in a war against terrorists, terrorism” may have led to additional demonization beyond the ‘average’.
but mostly, “A”.
No one but Bush and Rumsfeld is responsible for sending over too few troops to properly staff the prisons and guarantee the oversight that such places demand.
A: the points you listed were:
>Civilian contractors responsible for interrogation of prisoners.
Given this incident, they should be removed from those posts and I think they will be (no matter who’s at fault, this is a PR disaster); however, I must add that private interrogators=/=not bound by Geneva Convention. Contracted interrogators must abide by Geneva Convention as well, according to their contract.
>Military personnel in charge of the prisons ‘not allowed’ in certain areas of the prisons.
I’m not aware of this one. Could you provide a link or something? (I do know that the general for that prison never visited the prison complex at all.)
>Decisions apparently made that certain prisoners weren’t to be
>considered ‘prisoners of war’, thus protected under the Geneava convention.
Were these prisoners thus considered? (Really asking, not sarcasming)
B: Cecil Adams.
C: What, you mean we aren’t?
Not to make light of this, but I think that Rumsfield is just as angry that some soldiers are closet Robert Mappelthorpe fans.
What a stupid analogy, athelas. Or are you telling me that Cecil Adams hired December to come over to these boards to make honest posts, and that people substantially suffered from Cecil’s decision?
Daniel
What a crock of shit. december is a retired insurance executive from New Jersey who posted some crap on a free message board. That is in no a analogous to trained soldiers who tortured people to death in POW camp.
Rumsfeld should resign or Bush should fire him for this. It’s his policies that allowed this to happen. This has caused immeasurable damage to the country and the war effort–both in Iraq and the legitimate war effort in Afghanistan. The situation is out of control. Rumsfeld’s credibitilty is less than zero right now.
Who is better ? If the broad criteria is the 20th century… most Europeans with the exception of the French (Algeria) and Germans (WWII). Canada, Costa Rica, some Carribean countries, Australia and possibly some progressive Asians.
As for Bush and Rummy... they never were in a combat zone and have no idea of what combat and war is... or the things young soldiers can do. So probably they are truly shocked... they beleive their own Bullshit about liberation and flowers.So Bush is worse than Mussolini, Franco and Salazar? And what the hell are progressive Asians? Japan? China? Indonesia? Malaysia? Phillipines? South Korea (which would not exist if not for US)?
Go kiss Salazar’s donkey.
I know you asked rjung this question, and not me, but, as others have felt free to answer it, so will I.
I voted for Al Gore.
Shouldn’t have been done in the first place. Really stupid idea - we have control and authority over what our soldiers do, but a hired contractor in a place w/o operating legal system? if stuff goes wrong, it’s our asses, but all we can apparently do is ‘fire’ the contractor, no accountability. The whole ‘private contractors not having to abide by Geneva Convention’ is alone an excellent reason to not use them. Really, when all is said and done, the GC requires that one treats prisoners humanely, why on earth would you not want the contractors to be bound by that. Especially since, (and pay attention here), **even if ** the contractors themselves weren’t bound by the GC, we are. and the prisoners were our responsability. So, not even speaking of the obvious shit storm of bad PR this has caused (let alone the risk it places on all Americans over there), it will not negate our responsability towards those prisoners. Look at it this way - if you hire a guy to paint your house, and he farms the chore out to an idiot who screws it up, your (legal) beef is with the original guy, you’ve got no contract w/the idiot. The contract here is w/the Geneva Convention. We must, by virtue of that insure the prisoners in our custody are treated humanely. farm out the chore, it’s still our responsability.
Really? do you have a cite for that? from what I recall from her interview, it certainly seemed as if she’d visited there. I’m looking for the cite re: she wasn’t allowed in certain areas, I heard her say it on Today show yesterday. My computer is currently acting wiggy, so I’m going to submit this reply, while I’m still looking for it. will supply it when I locate it (or if I can’t support it, even though I remember her saying it and the Senator afterward saying ‘that’s outrageous’, I’ll retract it).
I have no idea. But it’s irrelevant, see above - a nation cannot get out of their Geneva responsabilities by hiring outside contractors. In addition, for example, while we claim that the GC doesn’t apply to the folks in GItmo, the US has still pledged to abide by it’s code, has allowed Red Cross visits etc.
You are joking, right? An author, who has a message board for his fans has no responsability for those fans. The President, by law, is the “Commander in Chief” of the Armed Forces, so the ultimate responsability is in fact, his.
really, when you’re answering, try and answer the actual point, not just a clause. Bush declared we are at war w/terrorism, then invaded Iraq. The debate rages on if the two are related in some fashion. The actual point, however, was that by continuially portraying ‘those we’re fighting against’ as “terrorists” that leads to a level of deomonization that exceeds the general ‘us vs. them’ gig (IMHO), so that, for example, at this point in Iraq, it is indeed some question who exactly is shooting at us - a former Republican Guard member of SH’s army, or some poor farmer pissed off 'cause we blew up his farm, his family etc and wants us to get the fuck out of his country.
well, according to this Karpinski, although she wasn’t stationed at that prison certainly physically visited it, also notes that the interrogation area was ‘in control’ of military intelligence (ie not her -though I admit that’s not quite the same as not being allowed in there it’s a start, and I’ll continue searching).
here transcripts from the Abrahms report,
so, at least a retired General heard the same thing I did, comments on it in public. that should do.
I’m outta here for the day.
What that has to do with preventing abuses in Abu Ghraib prison?
Because Al Gore would undoubtedly have found some more DIRECT way of dealing with terrorism than attacking Iraq. No Iraq invasion, no Abu Gharib prison problem.
I voted for Gore, too, and Bush has made me so proud that I did.
What, you thought that they’d come out in favor of human rights abuses?
-lv
Was the military really on the ball?
In other words, he wanted Gitmo treatment given to Iraqi prisoners, which meant even to people who were nobodies instead of the hardened terrorists who are at Gitmo
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_02.php#002917
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003854.php
Oh, and we’re not done with the abuse reports themselves:
I don’t think Bush is being entirely truthful about when he found about all this either. A lot of what’s been said just doesn’t square:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003853.php
Saddam would be still in charge, presumably.
Are you saying that a vote for Gore was a vote for Saddam?
No, he’s saying a vote for Gore was a vote for Not Wasting Time and Resources Dicking Around In Iraq.
And leaving Saddam in charge.
Thus a vote for Gore was a vote for Saddam.
Why is it that when I ask one leftie a question some other leftie pops up with an answer?