Should Rumsfeld be Accountable?

[mattp]

In another thread, I posed the question:

What do you guys think about the ACLU suing Rumsfeld on behalf of detainees mistreated in Iraq, or the stories of a German tribumal charging him with war crimes?

 

On a more likely than not basis, do you think there is much doubt that Rumsfeld knew about what was going on, failed to take strong measures to stop it, likey impliedly if not explicitly authorized it, or bears responsibility simply as the person at the top of the chain of command?

 

Did you think it was important to investigate people in the Clinton administration over travelgate, Vince Foster's suicide, Whitewater, or Monica Lewinski?

 

Should elected and unelected officials at high levels of government be accountable for what they do? How?

 

Any thoughts? (I ask again, because the other discussion descended into the typical cc.com toilet bowl and there really wasn't much discussion related to what I was asking about.)

[KaskadskyjKozak]

In another thread, I posed the question:

What do you guys think about the ACLU suing Rumsfeld on behalf of detainees mistreated in Iraq, or the stories of a German tribumal charging him with war crimes?

 

On a more likely than not basis, do you think there is much doubt that Rumsfeld knew about what was going on, failed to take strong measures to stop it, likey impliedly if not explicitly authorized it, or bears responsibility simply as the person at the top of the chain of command?

 

Did you think it was important to investigate people in the Clinton administration over travelgate, Vince Foster's suicide, Whitewater, or Monica Lewinski?

 

Should elected and unelected officials at high levels of government be accountable for what they do? How?

 

Any thoughts? (I ask again, because the other discussion descended into the typical cc.com toilet bowl and there really wasn't much discussion related to what I was asking about.)

 

Any thoughts? Based on the leanings of this list, you'll get a bunch of people who parrot your beliefs, you can pat eachother on the back, call Bush Hitler, and yuk it up. Not much thoughts - just the same herd group-think on any political topic on this forum.

 

 

[mattp]

I specifically asked what YOU thought and you avoided or declined to answer the question. Were you in favor of holding Clinton administration officials accountable for their crimes? Are you in favor of holding Bush administration officials accountable for theirs (if they committed any)? How should it be done?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I specifically asked what YOU thought and you avoided or declined to answer the question. Were you in favor of holding Clinton administration officials accountable for their crimes? Are you in favor of holding Bush administration officials accountable for theirs (if they committed any)? How should it be done?

 

You asked me? On this forum? Sorry, I'm not up for the dog-pile action of all the ass-clowns. I'll pass.

 

[underworld]

should people be heald accountable for wrongs - well, no shit...of course they should

 

i think you're trying to ask if he's guilty. well, not yet

 

do i like these groups going after people that are on 'our side' (yes, i believe we are the good guys) - no

 

do i condone 'torture' - too subjective. we're never going to agree on what torture is.

 

 

 

bring on the ass-clowns

[cj001f]

do i condone 'torture' - too subjective. we're never going to agree on what torture is.

 

If we call it torture when other people do it to us, it's torture.

[mattp]

Assuming that you believe we as a nation should adhere to 60 year old standards established in the Geneva Conventions, and standards of human decency that are at least as old as Christianity (if you believe in that stuff), and that our government officials are bound to adhere to these standards or even simply to tell the truth about what they are doing in this regard, I think he is most likely guilty. But you are right: we don't really know exactly what he knew and when he knew it.

 

But that leaves aside the question: how should we conduct such an inquiry? or even whether we should?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

But that leaves aside the question: how should we conduct such an inquiry? or even whether we should?

 

I have a problem with the way congressional hearings are held. It is just a bunch of political posturing and demagoguery. "Questions" are actually endless political diatribes. Something needs to be done about it, so they can work again.

[tvashtarkatena]

Assclown # 1 reporting for duty.

 

I think it's more important to stop the human rights violations by the military than to punish one man, however important and symbolic he might be. The military has clarified its field manual to come in line with the Geneva conventions regarding treatment of detainees; basically outlawing torture by military personnel. That's a good thing. The CIA and private contractors, on the other hand, are operating under considerably more ambiguous guidelines. That's a problem.

 

The military is still involved in questionable tribunals and running Guantanamo, but the problem there lies more with an executive branch that refuses to abide by supreme court rulings and operating either outside the law or under amiguous laws than with military doctrine.

 

Assuming some reform happens, should, then, Rumsfeld be punished? Personally I think yes, in that he violated the international conventions, to which the US is a signatory, that are essentially the laws that govern military conduct in times of war. Rumsfeld's conviction would require proof that he ordered such violations. The question is, how to get the proof?

 

A grand jury is the most powerful way (they have the most far reaching power of subpoena), but they are extremely time consuming and expensive politically and monetarily. A special prosecutor is another, but partisanism seems to always creep into the proceedings.

 

Probably the most feasible way to punish a guy like Rumsfeld is through litigation on behalf of victims. Subpoenas and FOIA requests can be an effective way of gathering evidence to suppport or deny his culpability. The government (all three branches) often block these under the catch-all guise of national security.

 

In litigation, if the case is without merit, it will quickly be thrown out without ballooning into a three ring circus on CSPAN. If it has merit, huge amounts of congress' time won't be wasted; the case will move forward without being compromised by excessive publicity. This allows the legal process do its work to determine innocence or guilt. It is also an effective means to win systemic reform, because the parties can agree to settle at any point.

 

In any case, I suppose Rumsfeld won't be attending Oktoberfest any time soon.

 

Assclown signing off.

Edited December 9, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[mattp]

I agree with you that it is more important to change practices than it is to punish any one man, Tvash, but in the case of a torture policy I think I recall that they explicity said that the CIA interrogators, at least, are exempt from any enforcement should they violate the stated policy. And in the case of years worth of ongoing atrocities at famous and not so famous prisons in places like Iraq and Cuba, let alone all the "secret" prisons we are not told about, only two or three people have ever been punished.

 

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has said, numerous times I think, that we are not going to change a thing because we weren't doing anything wrong in the first place. His clear message all along has been that this is a domestic political problem only and we have to torture the terrorists because we have to take the gloves off after 911.

 

With leadership that clearly says we are not going to change anything and with little provision for accountability at any level, I don't think our on the ground practices or our reputation as a nation that respects human rights are going to improve as much as I'd like.

[tvashtarkatena]

I certainly agree that any law that excepts government operatives from obeying the law is a bad law. You've pointed out a central flaw in all of this: we have one set of standards for the military regarding torture, etc, and virtually no set of standards for contractors and the CIA. This represents a dangerous hole in government oversight.

 

I also agree that criminal or civil proceedings against individuals (Rumsfeld being just one) can shed light on the kind of disturbing facts that drive policy change.

 

Fortunately for all of us, Rumsfeld is out of office. Taking him to court post-tenure presents the paradox of increasing the chances of nailing him while decreasing the reach of any resulting policy change. Whatever ruling comes out of his legal proceedings will act as a threat to Gates and future SODs, though.

 

In the end, congress needs to act decisively with legislation that reigns in the CIA and their secret prisons, as well as the president, Gitmo (although the Supreme Court has already weighed in on the legality of such detention, and will certainly weigh in again when the new legislation is tested), his spying program, tribunals, and enemy combatant status.

 

Every American, regardless of political leanings, should be concerned that only 7 out of the 430 prisoners at Gitmo have been charged with a crime. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that constitutional protections, which have been grossly ignored in this case, extend to Gitmo, the administration has barely budged on this issue. This is a political embarrassment that has cost us much more globally than it has improved our national security. Try the detainees fairly, that's all human rights advocates ask for.