If they were "flaunting their behavior", then why did it take a "wistleblower" to root them out?

Um- let's see, taking pics is not flaunting now? Not exactly hiding it were they? I think, no disrespect intended, but um- DUH-

The sad part is- we have been hearing this stuff for nearly a year- and CBS sat on it for a month- so it was exactly a well kept secret- and from what I have read and heard from my military buddies- these type of pics have been circulating in Iraq for about a year, and the way they finally got into press hands was they were confiscated by the brits from some American soldiers, and made it to the press from there.

I think it is far more widespread than 17 soldiers- these folks were way to open about thier behavior. If it were only 17- there wouldn't be party pics of this behavior!

That is flawed logic Redliner, and here is why.

The situation you are describing is a typical crime, indisgression, whatever you wanna call it. The police force is adequately able to handle this crime by itself.

Similarly, if some soldiers in Iraq were getting drunk and fighting or hazing green privates then the MPs would be fully capable of handling that.

The difference here is that the crimes we are speaking of are very public, very insulting and have outraged various groups of people. I think that many people are failing to grasp that difference.

Lets take your corporate example for a second. Lets say several employees and their managers in the accounting department had been responsible for committing fraud. This caused the stock price to be inflated and when the news came out, stockholders lost a lot of money. In this case the CEO would be on the line to make an apology as well as deal with the situation.

The same goes for Iraq. We are not talking about some NCO's that got drunk and tore up the officers clube or hazed a private from alabama. We are talking about torture of Iraqi prisoners in a prison where Saddam sent people to disappear and pictures being published which are very offensive to people in general but the arab nations in particular (a woman leading a hooded male prisoner on a leash for example).

This situation requires an apology by a high level official. The delicacy of the middle east situation, the fact that we are seen as conquerors and the fact that our culture is vastly different and sometimes offensive to arab culture demands this be handled by the president.

Cube Jockey:

You call my logic flawed, then change the entire scenerio to prove it?

The employees, in my posting, caused personal injury to someone OUTSIDE the company.

Most of your examples have nothing to do with my scenerio.

Please, if you are going to call the logic flawed, then respond to THE logic.



Lets say that the someone below the CEO discovered this, perhaps a whistleblower, and the executive Vice President put a stop to it, contacted the appropriate law enforcement agency and had those responsible arrested.

I doubt the CEO would appologies, indeed he would probably put out a statement commending the actions of those that STOPPED this fraud, commending them of thinking of the STOCKHOLDERS instead of PROFIT.

I am really surprised nobody called you on this, apparently not too many people here work in the corporate world.

If the staff of a CEO, performing duties given to them directly by the CEO, callously and with deliberate disregard injured, humiliated or otherwise acted in such a manner to a significant number of peiople outside the company, say in a smaller company recently taken in a hostile takeover...

Of course the CEO would apologise. It happens ALL THE TIME. The Nortel CEO just apologised to stockholders for the performance of the company recently. If a major scandal which happened under the watch of the CEO, and as a result of orders given by the CEO (EVEN if he/she had no direct knowledge of the events) then any CEO in the world would issue an apology to the injured parties on behalf of the company. It doesn't even require such an extreme case, a couple years ago an OC Transpo worker here in Ottawa went on a rampage and shot several people, the CEO of OC Transpo apologised and donated funds to the injured people and families. CEOs have apologied just in the last few months for employees polluting, for employee fraud, for any number of things, all far less significant than the actions we are talking about here.

If you were trying to use this 'company' parabole as a justification for Bush NOT apologising, I'm afraid it had done just the opposite...


Go to Google, type in "CEO Apologises" and see what comes up. CEOs of major companies take the credit AND THE BLAME for the actions of their companies and their employees.

Vermillion,

The problem with your line of logic is that there are many examples of CEO's who refuse to apologize for various gaffes, crimes, or incidents that occur within their companies.

Just do a search on "CEO refuses to apologize"

Its not a problem with my logic.

Yes some CEOs refuse to apologise, and they are generally pilloried in the media or by shareholders, or in a few cases, actually removed from their position. If you refuse to apologise as a CEO (which happens) then you acceopt that there may be consequences of this act, and that your popularity and credibility may suffer. Depending on the severity of the actions in question, those consequences can be very mild, or they can be severe.

Again, exactly the same as the President in this case. He did not HAVE to apologise, there is no rule or amendment compelling him to, but it was good politics and the right thing to do. When he did not at first, he was criticised for it.


Sounds apt to me.

Maybe I´m going to be admonished because I´m not really adding anything to this debate, but I did both searches "CEO refuses to apologize" and "CEO Apologises" in google (using apologize and apologise) and if such searches are a measure of who is right...then Vermillion is in this case right. Only one page of CEO's who didn't want to apologize against pages and pages of CEO's apologizing for something!.

So now: strike me for this!

No I didn't, and if you would re-read my post you would see that.

If an employee caused physical harm to someone outside the company it is a police matter unless for some reason the employee was acting on behalf of the company. There is no reason for the CEO to get involved. You think the CEO of a manufacturing company gets involved if an employee steals a car outside of work? No, they get fired and the police deal with them, end of story.



I then went on to describe a similar scenario to the one you laid out in Iraq terms.

Finally I described two situations for both a corporation and Iraq that would warrant an apology.

Leaders are not required to apologize for every little thing that happens on their watch. However, there are certain times when there is a scandal, the crime is high profile or particularly bad when it not only makes sense from a PR standpoint but is also the right thing to do. The difference between a good and a bad leader is knowing the right time.

My point was that the facts do not point to CEO's ALWAYS apologizing. The fact that there ARE stories indicating that some CEOs refuse to apologize (and the media is actually calling for an apology) supports my assertion that just because the media, the public, or whoever is calling for an apology does not mean that a CEO is going to automatically acquiesce.

EDIT to add: if we keep with a more directly appropriate issue : prison guard violence/abuse.

Human rights watch reports that prisoners in the US are routinely abused, but that there is little political will to change the system.:

PRISONS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA



Little suport for reform, let alone apologies.

Even so, in most cases US prison abuse is far less serious and has far less impact than what happened in Iraq.

I feel like I have probably said this at least 5 times now, but I'll say it again. Iraq is different in all respects because:

1) We are the conquering nation and a lot of Iraqis, while they may be glad to have freedom, see us that way.
2) We in general are not liked by the arab world
3) We walk around with our heads held high and chastise others for human rights violations and then we commit them ourselves?
4) Our culture is vastly different than the arab culture and some of the things that were done were extremely offensive to them.
5) We are violating the geneva convention

So, this analogy to known problems is an apples to oranges comparison, you just can't make it.

As I have also said numerous times, there is a difference between a good leader and a bad leader. A good leader would recognize that an apology here is the right and honorable thing to do, costs you nothing politically and could possibly help make things easier in Iraq.

You can present pages of google search results where CEOs apologized and pages where they refused to apologize -- it is completely irrelevant. There is no template for good leadership and things like this are very situational.

CJ,

The problem with this line of reasoning is what I have highlighted above--it would in fact be expensive politically. Do you really believe that apologizing would not have been equated to admitting blame by the left/media at some point? Then, the question becomes the good done internationally weighed against the damage done here. Which is a much more difficult equation, especially since I think actions will be much more important than words in the international viewpoint. This makes the potential gain in that area somewhat neglible.

That is a good point Hobbes, but here is how I look at it, so let me know what you think.

Obviously no one can really predict what the media would have done had Bush apologized from the start. However, I know that I personally would have had much more respect for him had he done this as soon as he learned about it. As you know I fall into that left/liberal category.

Secondly, don't you think that by floundering around on this issue and finally making a statement about it, but stopping short of apologizing has made a bigger political mess out of the whole thing?

If the apology was worded in the right way, it would not mean admitting blame for it. The American people would have seen this for what it should have been, an attempt to mend a few bridges with the Arab world. At least that is how I would have seen it.

Although, the fact that Rumsfeld actually knew about this and might have been involved certainly complicates things...

Well, its a given that Bush should apologize. Not doing so might indicate to some that he either doesn't care or knew what was going on all along. At least, several anti-american Iraqis might believe that. Ultimately, its always the responsibility of our chief diplomat to clean up little political messes like this. Ignoring it would make it worse for Bush and American soliders.



Heh. You have a choice with the media. You can either make the connection in your terms, or let the media put it together in their terms. All in all, Bush made a politically correct move by apologizing. At this point, I fear for Rumsfeld more than Bush.

Well, he claims he did apologize to the King of Jordon. No video of it of course. Global strategy is one thing, giving Kerry an ad is another.

Imo, personal politics aside, if you want to take Vienna, take Vienna. You should apologize right to the camera or not bother with this, "i did it in private" stuff. Comes across as an overly managed message.

I want to go back a bit, to the example I posted earlier, where a Whistleblower reported a criminal act of an employee to a Vice President of a Corporation. The VP reported it to the Police who made an arrest, and the VP started an investigation.

CubeJocky switched the scenerio somewhat, making the employees, and some lower management "parties" to fraud that hurt the stockholders.

Then the scenerio becomes that a whistleblower reports this to a VP, the VP reports this to an authority that arrests those involved and starts internal investigation.

Again, should the CEO of the Company appologies?

And again, I ask why?

It would appear that the system that this Corporation put into place worked. The CEO is not only responsible for putting into place rules and regulations, but also responsible for methods to uncover situations when the Rules and regs are abused.

If I am the CEO of this Corporation I put out a statement something like this:

"Thanks to the good work of a local employee of the XYZ corporation a fraud was uncovered in our ____________ branch office that inflated the earnings of that location. This employee reported his findings to Mr. ____________ Senior Financial Vice President and those parties involved in this have been arrested and charged with the violating the law.

Also, as a result of this, Mr. _______________ has instituted a series of ongoing investigations to find out if anyone in the chain of responsibilty could have, or should have known of these wrong doings. Upon the completion of these investigations, both in house and governmental, a full report will be issued and those involved will be dealt with."

This would be an appropriate "statement" to make "at the time".

Maybe I am blind or can't hear, but I have not seen where Bush has apologized to the Iraqis or any American citizens.

What he did was apologized in private to the King of Jordan. And that was in the third person.

Now tell me where he apologized to whom it mattered.

Just another cute trick by Bush to avoid REALLY APOLOGIZING.

And that is all this adminstration is about. SMOKESCREENS.

Popeye47:

Why would he appologies (in public or otherwise?) Again, those who were responsible for these actions are being dealt with and an ongoing investigation is underway.

Perhaps you are simply "rushing to judgement"?

This often happens when politics take place of evidence.

Bah! You are in total denial of imagery and evidence right in front of your face.

What exactly are you trying to say? It didnt happen and noone knew about it?
All evidence has proved otherwise.

Rumsfeld said he didnt read the report 'because it was too long and contained too much information'? Jeez, youd think he was literate.

Bush said he didnt know about it until the news that night. (???) Choke on that freakin pretzel, uninformed Commander in Chief.

Thats all a bunch of hogwash. However, lets assume for the sake of being total ignoramouses that its true, Id certainely like to know why our upper gov't staff and THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA never knows anything about thats going on in the country, since before 911, or important events in a foreign war they created and are allegedy overseeing. These photos were circulating all over the place , the Coalition had been informed by the Red Cross and Amnesty International as well as their own Generals for at least 6 months, maybe a year.
Excuses upon excuses! And weak acceptance of responsability.

Bush may not have known, because he is apparently
so in the dark on almost everything going on. It's as
if the administration just tells him what they think he
needs to know. His Presidency is a joke.

This is just another episode in the never-ending
tragedy known as the Bush Administration.

Let's face it, an apology from anyone in the Oval Office
would be nothing more than insincere lip-service.

Let's put this whole corporate analogy in a more appropriate context. Suppose I were the CEO of a company and one of my employees cornered a co-worker in a storage closet, raped her, tortured her, and beat her to death. I might, as head of that company, say something to the woman's surviving family members like "I am so sorry this happened on our property and was perpetrated by one of my employees. You have my sympathy, my apologies on behalf of the entire company, and my deepest regret."

Then again, unlike America's CEO, I'm human.

This analogy is the best so far, I think. But it still doesn't go far enough.

Imagine if the rape was discovered by internal security at the company and hushed up by the board member with security responsibility. Imagine that this board member decided not to pass the information to his CEO, because he knew from past experience that the big boss would rather not see too much detail, instead preferring to nap and watch sports on TV outside his preferred six hour working day.

Imagine that allegations are directed at the company by women's groups, all of which are dismissed as the whinings of anti-corporate fanatics who don't believe in the right to make an honest buck.

Then imagine that the photos that the rapist took as trophies got into the press by accident, and suddenly everybody in the company takes the allegations very seriously, heads will roll, prosecutions will take place, and press conferences are called apologising to shareholders and customer for the embarrassing publicity. And imagine that after a week of this apparently contrite activity (that has only been visible since the press published the photos), nobody at the company has yet said a word to the victim or her family, because they (rightly or wrongly) believe that it will prejudice any future legal action against the company against them, even though the victim is in no state to take anyone to court and just wants to get on with her life.

It seems to me that this comes a little closer to paralleling what's going on over these torture allegations.

And to take it even further- it was not just one employee, but a whole division, plus some sub contractors that did this on many other work sites, and was encouraging this behavior, even telling them that the big boss knew about it and encouraged it too, despite whatever policy that they had never read anyway said- plus some intra-company efficiency consultants (CIA analogy) was all parroting what the sub-contractor said, and viola'- you have a corporate culture of rape and torture.

At that point- it becomes not a matter of apology but a matter of criminal culpability- at which point our "CEO" - ends up sharing a cell with Milosivic!

Why would he apologize? He does have the title "commander in chief" doesn't he.

He sure did use that title to the fullest when he flew 30 miles out to sea to land on a aircraft carrier and proclaim "mission impossible". But that was okay, because that was a plus for him. Now with all the negatives, he doesn't want to be the commander in chief.

And as far as the evidence. My goodness, you must be locked up in a closet to not see all the evidence. Not acknowledging the findings of "ICRC" is refusing to open up your eyes. I am sure the ICRC is using politics.

I love your spin on this topic. Sounds almost like Bill O'Reilly.

He is the commander in chief I believe and this is a political issue with huge implications... Apologies are not out of line.

He might indeed do this, however I keep responding to the changing scenarios PRIOR TO anyone dealing with the original, or second change. geez, talk about denial (as I am often accused of).

Lets look at this (once again) scenario change.

In this NO ONE is making a statement that the corporation has encouraged this type of behavior, are they?

Second, this is criminal behavior and is BEING dealt with as such, not unlike this entire discussion.


Third. This happens all the time, it actually happened to me once when I WAS physically assaulted by a co-worker. I knew what it was (a crime) and the law dealt with it. I never once thought that the CEO of the company had a dang thing to do with it, and never would have believed he should have offered an apology.

If one would have been offered I would have responded with "YOU have no need to apologize, YOU did nothing.

Edited to add:

So answer the question of the CEO in the scenerio of the VP undercovering the local managers fraud. Did the CEO and the VP act correctly?


Red

Ok, because you are pretending you are not reading the two concurrant threads:



Look, in the end I have no idea what you are trying to say. Please state your position. I myself am becoming confused by the loopy tactics. Its not about CEO's but our government, who knew about it and ignored it, and more importantly, supposedly, didnt tell the President. Its now not really about the torture but who the hell is running the country, and if they have a freakin clue. You can argue all the tangents you want, it makes no difference. Our reputation is ruined, the backlash will be ongoing and our President is an uninformed imbecile, again.