I’ve heard several people say Rumsfelds timely resignation is a ploy to avoid accountability for his mismanagement of the DoD. Whether or not he mismanaged the DoD is not the subject here & please don’t discuss it further in this thread - it’s just the premise for the questions. Those being:
What options are no longer open to congress now that he’s resigned?
In what ways can a sitting Secretary of Defense be held accountable for managing the DoD that are not applicable to a former Secretary of Defense?
I’ve been wondering the same thing as the OP. I’d heard the concerns about a congressional subpoena, but how does his resigning change anything? Unless he’s planning on fleeing the country or something, can’t Congress still drag his butt in there to testify if they so desire?
While this is true, it doesn’t seem to limit his accountability in any practical way. If he were impeached, he would no longer be Secretary of Defense. By resigning, he’s no longer the Secretary of Defense. Is there a subtle distinction I’m missing?
Well, an impeachment trial could potentially bring up a lot of issues that he might not want to make public. In the worst case, it could lead to a criminal indictment if very damaging evidence comes to light.
I’m not saying I think Rumseld committed any crimes, but that’s what could theoretically happen.
Only one cabinet member William W. Belknap has ever been impeached and it’s doubtful that any others ever will be. (Bleknap resigned before trial anyway.) A resignation will always occur long before any investigation could get to that stage.
In short the people the OP is talking to are talking out of their asses.
EWJ,
What accountability are you looking for here? He was hired to transform the military, and the war came which derailed that. Then he presided over the military during an increasing unpopular war. He has been publicly fired. The Dems control both houses. What pound of flesh are you looking for?
You misunderstand. I’m trying to determine if the statement “Rumsfelds timely resignation is a ploy to avoid accountability” has a basis in reality, or if it’s tin-foil hattery. That is all.
(From the responses so far, I’m leaning toward “tin-foil hattery”)
Uh, this is hardly a factual answer, but it strikes me as being neither of those options. The phrase sounds like argument by soundbite: it’s not without some element of truth, but it begs for misinterpretation because of tainted words like “ploy” and “accountability.” If you change the wording of the phrase slightly, you can see some truth to it: “Rumsfeld’s firing was an effort to avoid the White House being further embarassed by his actions.”
However, the phrase as stated is basically meaningless without greater context. In one sense, if you get fired from your job for screwing up, you have been held accountable. However, if one is trying to make the case that someone should be criminally prosecuted, then firing someone, in a vague sense, could be construed to be an effort to avoid THAT kind of accountability (ie, arrest and trial).
Congressional committees can still subpoena Rumsfeld and make him testify. He has the option of invoking his constitutional rights if his answers to questions may incriminate him, and there is certain classified information that he would be bound to protect (because certain classified information can only be released to certain members of congress) but he could not refuse to answer a question just because it was embarassing.
The real key here is that the phrase, as used, insinuates something bad, but it is hard to factually challenge something such a vague implication.
It depends what you mean by responsibilty. As for formal, legal responsibility, there are two ways Rumsfeld could be held accountible. First, he could be subject to impeachment and removal from office by Congress. By resigining, he avoided this possibility. Second, he could be found criminally liable for some violation of law. Resigning should not affect this, though the posibility of prosecution is likely very small, unless documentable war crimes or other criminal acts can be found.
On the other hand, there is accountability in the court of public opinion. As a sitting cabinet officer he is pretty much obliged to testify before Congress. As a private citizen, he can be subpoenaed, but when he testifies he won’t be speaking with the authority of the Secretary of Defense, but rather just discussing his private view of what happened. Congress members will be able to ask him what he did and why, but won’t be able to challenge ongoing Defense Department policies. Also, and perhaps more significantly, there’s less incentive and less politically to be gained by going after an ex-official.