In the most recent of Seymour Hersh's series of articles on prison abuse in Iraq for The New Yorker, he reports that Donald Rumsfeld personally expanded a secret operation, which had been focused on the hunt for al-Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Operation Copper Green specifically encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners. According to Hersh, this decision "embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of elite combat units, and hurt America's prospects in the war on terror." And he apparently just spent the past week lying through his teeth about it.

The article is worth reading in its entirety - it's pretty damning:

If, as it would now appear, Rumsfeld not only authorized the special-access program which directly lead to the sort of abuse which was being practiced in Abu Ghraib, but has since been covering up his involvement - and that of others at the Pentagon, like Gen. Myers, Maj. Gen. Miller, and Stephen Cambone - is his position as Secretary of Defense now in serious jeopardy? Should it be?

Yep, let's fire Rummy and impeach Bush over an article that appears in a predominately left-wing magazine which quotes "unnamed sources" who claim to have intimate knowledge of a black program within the DoD with which they disagree. One wonders why these "former officials" waited until the photographs surfaced and all hell broke loose before they came forward. It is also not unreasonable to ask why, if they knew bad stuff was going on did they go to a magazine journalist instead of to someone in authority, say like Carl Levin or even St. Hillary the Beekeeper? Why a magazine writer? Did they think Hillary would cover it up?


So, let's look at the last part of the article that Wertz quoted......



Actually, if you violate the security of a black program, you more than lose your clearance. You can go to jail and face a considerable fine, but that's beside the point. Those at the "end of the food chain" are going to defend themselves by pointing fingers up the food chain. "Such and such ordered me to do it", etc. Ok, so let's investigate such and such and find out about them. Maybe someone ordered them to do it, or so they claim and we move on up the food chain. And so it goes.



Well, it ain't a gonna go away, so what's the problem with letting the system continue to work the way it's supposed to work? If it gets to Cambone or Meyers or Rumsfeld, so be it, but it seems to me that it's a bit premature right now to be calling for his resignation.

But then again, the Bush bashers have been calling for Rummy's resignation for a long time anyway......

Well Aquilla- as with anything when the "stuff" hit's the fan- poeple start telling the press things, leaking them if you will, so THEY don't become the fall guy for folks like Rumsfeld.

I think it is very unlikely that the military personel in Iraq acted in such a brazen fashion without feeling that they would be prosecuted- those folks definately had feelings that they were under orders to act this way.

Hersh broke this story in the first place- he has far more credibility than any other player, really in the world, certainly is far more believable than anyone in the GW regime.

EVEN IF this article is not true OF COURSE Rumsfeld should be fired- John Stewart on the Daily show, made the best point when making fun of GWs speech supporting Rumsfeld, when GW was saying Rumsfeld was doing a "superb job"- Jon Stewart looks at the camera and says "Dude, I have been fired for being late- and Rumsfeld is doing a superb job?

I would agree it is premature to jail Rumsfeld and GW- but not to fire them!

Is the journalist integrity of the New Yorker in question. Even if it is left-leaning, in their long history have they printed major articles were proven to be incorrect? Maybe, but I can't think of an example.

This sounds like the type of comment that was used against the Washington Post in 1972-4.

That was a series of articles that used unnamed sources and was published in a left-leaning newspaper.

The larger story behind the behavior of guards at Abu Ghraib is increasingly looking much more likely to have run up the chain of command than the actions of a few deranged soldiers.

If this story turns out to be true, Rummy is dead man walking. Time will tell.

Actually, I recall an article back in 1996 written by Gail Sheeny that alleged marital infidelity on the part of Bob Dole that turned out to be less than accurate shall we say. But, that's not really the issue I don't think. I don't know how much of what is written in this article is true, and how much isn't true. The Defense Department has denied much of what is contained in the article, so take that for what it's worth. A number of journalists who I know and respect have indicated to me this morning that they wouldn't have published this article with the level of sourcing it states. But, that's just them.

The one fact in all of this remains that we are in a highly partisan political campaign season and everything is viewed through that prism. Does it surprise me that Wertz would call for Rumsfeld's resignation? No. Did he need to read this article to feel that way? No. Did this article change his attitude towards Rumsfeld? Not putting words in his mouth, but I doubt it. I don't think he liked Rumsfeld before and he doesn't like him now. So, nothing's really changed. This article is just another chance to bash the Bush administration "for cause", like Bush bashing really needs a cause. Just like most other current event/political/war on terrorism threads raised lately in this forum. It always seems to end up with the same old, same old.

My point is that there are investigations underway into all of this. The military justice system is rooting out the offenders and taking legal action against them and following the trail wherever it leads. Congress is investigating and following the trail whereever it leads as well. I have faith in the system and I'm willing to allow it to work it's way forward. I will remind you that Hersch didn't "break" this story at all. The Defense Department "broke" it way back in January. Thus far, I can't fault the military justice system's process at all. Let it do it's job.

...is his position as Secretary of Defense now in serious jeopardy?

I don't think so. It has become the modus operandi of the American conservatives, from the grass roots level and upwards, to never, ever admit to any responsibility.

Rumsfeld is a classic example of this. When cornered with his own mistakes he talks of ongoing investigations and tries to make out that there is nothing unusual in what has happened. When this fails he resorts to ridicule as we see Aquilla doing in his post here.

At no point in the proceedings will Rumsfeld (nor Bush) accept any blame for the many failures we see happening in the War in Iraq. Instead we shall continue to be confronted with a man who openly sneers at public concern and boasts that he has stopped reading newspapers. ...and since when was a self imposed ignorance something to boast about?


Should it be?

It should indeed. Rumsfeld is a servant of the people and as such his primary concern should be his accountability to the public. A serious set of human rights violations have happened under his jurisdiction and his response has been pitiful at best.
Now the allegation has been made that he himself authorized these violations and his response is once again to attempt to pour scorn and ridicule on the allegations rather than dealing with them in any open and honest fashion.

If it is such that Rumsfeld is seeking to protect the SAP referred to in the article, then obviously its too late, and due to his gross incompetence in supporting Stephen Cambone, he himself must take full responsibility for what has happened.

As I said earlier in a previous thread, this sort of action (the violation of prisoners at Abu Graib) does not just happen in isolation. It is an indicator of a culture of violence and repression, and this article (I believe) supports that claim. Since the WTC attacks on the 11 Sept 2001, the United States under the disastrous leadership of the Bush administration has discarded its traditional role, and reputation, as the protector of freedom and Justice, and with that it has also discarded its credibility.

The only way to regain that credibility before the rest of the planet is to punish those who have allowed this dangerous set of affairs to happen.

And I believe the danger is very real. With each case of bumbling incompetence Rumsfeld and his followers provides those elements of the Islamic world who seek to sow discord between east and west with gratis ammunition, and such gifts we can ill afford to be giving away!

Here is a quote from Stratfor's free email service which illustrates what I mean:



If any one wishes the entire text, please PM me and I shall provide it.

Given the danger posed by this brooding spread of Jihadism I think its about time the leadership of the west looked to their resources and asked themselves, as should we all, how are we going to counter this threat?

Many people support Bush and Rumsfeld for being hard on terrorism, but for my part, this sounds horribly like the sort of denial people might fall back upon when they have no idea how else to meet the threat of violence but with more violence.

The invasion of Iraq was supposed to have been for many reasons, but paramount of them all was the notion that the invasion would provide protection and security by removing a perceived threat (WMD's)

Has that succeeded?

Are we safer now than we were before?
Or have we simply replaced a perceived threat with a real one whilst acting under the illusion of force that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have promoted.


Aquilla



Not everything is viewed through that prism. Believe it or not there are somethings that are more important than our individual personal political affiliations, and just a couple of those are the law and what we stand for (regardless of who is in office) and the well being of our citizens and soldiers.

This article is not just 'another chance to bash Bush'. It is a serious look at how our political leadership is failing to tackle the threat which we face. Don't confuse other people's opinions with your own personal political agenda.




And my point is to question why any one would have faith in a man under who's authority such investigations would arise?

And also to wonder, just how long will such investigations take? Will they take long enough for this whole matter to be swept under the rug whilst the people implicated continue to run things in the worst possible way? Whilst giving them plenty of time to re-allocate internal responsibilities in the knowledge that certain people (like Stephen Cambone) are moved to allow the machinary of 'neo con' policies to continue to operate?

What good will an investigation do if in the meantime Rumsfeld has been dumped by Bush after a possible election victory? Rumsfeld wil take the fall but the policy of using violence against violence which he stands for will still continue regardless.

Even now as the Bush administration talks of handing over authority, the 'neo con' agenda of controlling Iraq is being put into place.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1...HaaiEm4,00.html

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040515/1/3kax0.html

With such geo political moves taking place and showing the opposite side of the 'neo con' coin to the Islamic world, how is any one supposed to accept the possible outcome of an investigation which may, or may not uncover the truth at some distant point in the future?

Rumsfeld has been implicated now. He should move to either prove these allegations false, or he should resign now.




Then why is the Defense Department strongly denying the claims made in the report?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=...eld_7&printer=1

Aquilla: Nice attack on the messengers. How about the message?


Thanks for the opinions, but they're not mine. I would never - ever - call for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. If the man had personally sodomized prisoners in Abu Ghraib and were selling the tapes at Blockbuster, I'd say "Please - give the man a chance to explain himself - at least let him last out this administration!" Why? Chances are his replacement would be Paul Wolfowitz. I cannot conceive of anything which would be more damaging to this country or more threatening to the future of the world than Wolfowitz with even more power than he has now. Rumsfeld shoud be censured, condemned, and disgraced - but he should definitely remain as Secretary of Defense until we can get rid of the lot of them. Besides, why get in the way of a perfectly good train wreck?


Exactly. It is, very sadly, "same old". This sort of story is, tragically, becoming almost routine. The corruption, deceit, illegality, and amorality of this administration apparently knows no bounds whatsoever. Glad you're getting with the program.


My point is that no one is policing the police. The military is conducting an investigation into the military while those involved can't testify? Sounds failsafe to me. You think the military justice system is going to "follow the trail" to their bosses? You think they're going to "root out" Chiefs of Staff and Cabinet members? You have more faith in the system, I'm afraid, than I do. Maybe, because the some members of the press are pursuing this more stringently than the military justice system or Congress, we might one day know the full story - but it is not going to come from within the system.


Really? I've seen nothing from the Department of Defense indicating that Donald Rumsfeld gave the green light to physical coercion and sexual humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Do you have a Defense Department source for this?


Its job, in this case, is covering the tracks of the Secretary of Defense - and those following his orders. Let's not let it do its job.

The question for debate:



Wertz:

Your first sentence of the question imply's proof. "It would now appear". And the credible source for such?

An unidentified former........

A publisher of a "for profit" magizine?

Too many assumptions.

Is the Secretary of states job in serious jepardy because of an unidentified source?

Probably not.

Is [Rumsfeld's] position as Secretary of Defense now in serious jeopardy? Should it be?

Rummy's position was already in jeopardy months ago, as it should have been. Even The Weekly Standard turned against him.





For once I'm in agreement with neoconservatives.



Despite the Drudge Report's inaccurate claim that Kerry had a mistress it doesn't stop you from frequently checking it out. Is Gail Sheeny a Hersh pen name?



Couldn't have said it better myself. The Standard had nothing to say about the scandal until May 10th. When The Standard finally spoke up it was to remind readers of the Americans ambushed in Fallujah and downplay the significance of the photos, and holding Kennedy accountable for slander.

As recently as April 26th The Weekly Standard lay Iraq's problems at Rumsfeld's feet: "After all, at the end of the day, it is up to the president to ensure that the success he demands in Iraq will in fact be accomplished. If his current secretary of defense cannot make the adjustments that are necessary, the president should find one who will."

Pity Robert Kagan and William Kristol are so emersed in their own self-righteousness they can't take a breath of fresh air and admit Democrats are right even if their reason calling for Rumsfeld's resignation are different.

Whether Rumsfeld was behind the abuse or not, and it is certainly looking as though he was, the lack of control and muddled chain of command is a massive failure of management which is entirely Rumsfeld's fault.
At best, it was incompetence rather than evil that lead to the abuse... Incompetence is not something to be rewarded.

Replacing "Rummy" with "Wolfie" (unless you meant Wolf Blitzer!) would not be a comforting thought, I agree.

I initially thought about it in terms of the administration trying to get a Rumsfeld replacement up to speed, not about Wolfowitz. Scary thought.

Bush's body language, even as he praised Rumsfeld, said it all. With all of his ums and ahhs and shifting from one foot to the other, he also looked as far away from Rumsfeld's direction as he could while he praised him. Rummy stood pretty far away from him, too. One thing about Bush--you can tell when he's being insincere.

Rumsfeld's clandestine trip to Iraq was interesting in itself, as was his comment that he was not there to "throw water on a fire" (!). Who knows what he said to those in command at the Abu Ghraib prison. It could have been You idiots, how did you let them smuggle the photos out, or You screwed up big time, now don't screw up again! I have read somewhere in this forum that Rummy doesn't like the troops having digital cameras. Tough rocks, Rummy.

Anyway, Bush might not want to let Rummy go considering that he might know where a heck of a lot of bodies are buried (figuratively speaking, of course.)

In a rational world, Rumsfield would already have been gone. His post-war plan is a failure, and the prisoner abuse scandal speaks of poor management and role modeling, if not malfeasance (I personally believe he condoned or at least looked the other way on these abuses).

But this is the Bush administration, which does not admit mistakes (Perhaps we got too used to hearing Clinton apologizing for his personal failures?), especially in an election season. To let Rummy go is a tacit admission that things are going less than "swimmingly", and the political ramifications are just too huge to take on. In a world of carefully scripted adminstration campaign events, the search for a new secretary of defense would become a national debate over how to salvage the situation in Iraq--can you just imagine the Senate confirmation hearings? No, this is something Karl Rove cannot allow: Rummy is safe even if pictures are shown that show him personally dragging Iraqis around on leases.

edited to add: Of course, after the election all bets are off. If Bush wins (and I expect he will) I look foreward to Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfoweitz and Secretary of State Condi Rice with much trepidation.

Of course, I could be wrong

JACABO

I was watching a debate on CNN this morning, and they mentioned that among other "prominent news sources" which had published the photos of prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib prison was The New Yorker magazine. I remarked to my wife at the time that this seemed very out of character for that magazine. During the time I dated my first wife, and was married to her, I saw The New Yorker arrive on a weekly basis. A typical news story was that the longest running off-Broadway play was still running. Photographs were typically in the ads for Saks or Tiffany's. "Left leaning?" If I ever read anything that was aimed at the upper class, it was the New Yorker Magazine.

I haven't picked up an issue in 17 years. Perhaps the New Yorker has changed editorial staff and policy, is competing head on with Newsweek and Time, has started aiming their ads at the middle class in an effort to increase circulation, and is relying on ads for Ford F-150s, Budweiser, and A-1 steak sauce. It is after all, "The year of the Nascar dad;" but finding a breaking news story in this magazine strikes me as being as likely as finding it in the Weekly World News or the Midnight Sun.

At the same time, photos of abuse by British prison guards were being released in Britain, that have since been determined to be faked. One of the "survivors" in this administration who, it has been claimed, has planted false stories and evidence to destroy the credibility of political rivals is Karl Rove. I'd ask someone to look for his fingerprints on some of these "news releases," but I understand that he wears rubber gloves.

I don't recall what he was saying earlier today, but I remember mentioning to my wife that the ventriloquists lips had been moving in an interview on CNN today. CNN has pretty well written off Bush's chances for re-election, and perhaps Karl Rove is trying to plant enough suspicion about people that Bush is too timid to ask to step aside, that they will be forced out by public opinion. Someone had to be operating the camera in Abu Ghraib to begin with, someone able to get the pictures out of Iraq, past army sensors, back to the United States, and release the pictures to several media outlets at once. Who really has that much security clearance?

Um, no, the first sentence of my question implies the appearance that Rumsfeld authored the extension of physical coercion and sexual humiliation of prisoners to Abu Ghraib. This is why I said "It would now appear". If I were implying absolute proof, I would have said "It has now been proved". I expect you already know I'm hardly one to mince words.


The rest of that sentence is "high-level intelligence official".


I have no idea to what this questions refers. The article was researched and written by Seymour Hersh, not David Carey. For the record, Hersh is one of the most respected investigative reporters in the country. He was the Washington correspondent for the Associated Press, headed the Washington Bureau of the New York Times, and has been a regular contributor to The New Yorker on military and security matters for years. He received the Pulitzer Prize for international reporting in 1970 for exposing the My Lai massacre, the National Book Critics Circle Award and the Los Angeles Times book prize in biography for The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House, and - this month - the National Magazine Award for public-interest journalism for his articles on misuse of intelligence.

We're talking about The New Yorker here - not NewsMax.


Who's making assumptions? Hersh is reporting statements of fact made by several past and present American intelligence officials regarding events to which they were privy. The only assumption I can find in the article is that Rumsfeld and Myers may not have known at the time "that atrocities were committed".


As has been pointed out here already, we still don't know who Deep Throat was. Hersh would not have published this article without corroboration. Again - this is not Fox News or something where people just broadcast gratuitous lies for the sake of a partisan agenda. This is actual journalism.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::


Yes. His lips move.

Wertz,

Perhaps Bush and Cheney are not lying for once, when you consider the ultimate desires of the Admin, Rumsfled is helping that right along.




http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski74.html

Rumsfeld is doing a great job for this administration, using his talents and resources to support the rest of the terminally insane in the Admin...the policies, secrecy, theft and corruption which this admin has made commonplace and 'normal.
Why would they get rid of him? This admin does not work for America, it works for its own agenda and Rumsfeld does this work perfectly.

Actually, no, it's really not good journalism and here's why.....

In the opening paragraph of this piece, Hersh writes the following:



That's a pretty definitive statement. No possiblys, no allegeds, no qualifiers at all. This IS what happened, period. So, we're being told here that the rest of the article is going to tell us EXACTLY what happened, what the facts are. Right? Then, we move on to the second paragraph and read it.



Whoa! "According to interviews....." Suddenly, we have shifted gears from irrefutable proof to statements made by former and present intel people about what they think happened. And, we find out that at least some of the sources for this article are CIA folks who are ticked off at Rumsfeld for "wresting control" from the CIA. These people may be right, or they may not be, but one thing that is for sure is that they are hardly dispassionate observers to this entire matter at all. They have a dog in this fight, a big dog. This second paragraph not only fails to support the definitive statements made in the opening, but it does quite the opposite and dilutes them.

The rest of the article goes on and details some aspects of a black ops program in the Pentagon that may or may not exist, and it is possible that something like that does indeed exist, the Pentagon has black programs. And further details bureaucratic in-fighting between the CIA and the DoD and within the Pentagon itself. Hardly surprising, those folks have been fighting for years.

So what this article has become instead of a hard-hitting, fact-laden piece of investigative journalism filled with irrefutable evidence, is an article filled with opinions of people who dislike the current people in charge at the Pentagon. It's actually quite similar to Richard Clarke's book where Clarke voiced his opinions about what happened and what his perceptions were of what happened.

Now one can call this "good journalism" if they wish because they agree with what's written, but it's really not. It's interesting and it's well-written and some of it may very well be true. Equally, some of it may not be true at all. One thing for sure is that it doesn't stand by itself.

Small point Aquilla, but apart from eyewitness accounts, all journalism is "according to interviews". Were Hersh reporting on a train derailment and definitively stated (without qualifiers) that the train was derailed in his first paragraph, then - horror! - revealed in his second that he didn't actually see the train coming off the tracks, but based his article on interviews with the engineer and several passengers and the fact that the train was no longer on the tracks, you could say that he shifted gears from irrefutable proof to statements made by people on the train about what they think happened. But I don't see how you could say "it's really not good journalism".

On Good Morning, America today, Hersh said that he had "more than two" sources for every statement made in the article. No one cited in the article is, as you claim, forming "opinions" - they are reporting facts. They may, of course, be lying to Hersh about what those facts are, they may be collaborating with each other behind Hersh's back and making those facts up together for some unaccountable reason, but they are all reporting events which they claim took place, not forming "opinions" about those events.

There either was or was not an SAP authorizing the use of physical coercion and sexual humiliation in Afghanistan. Rumsfeld either did or did not extend that SAP to Iraq. There is much at Abu Ghraib which is unaccounted for - all those "civilians" marching around the place, for example. The reports which Hersh has published would account for most of the inconsistencies and inexplicable goings-on at Abu Ghraib. The DoD story so far does not.

First off, FWIW, let me state that I do find this an objective question posed by Wertz. As anyone who posts here realizes, we definitely view things from different perspectives, but I believe the question, as he framed it, is appropriate and objective.

That being said.....



Why narrow this down to conservatives? Substitute the phrase 'high ranking politicians' and the statement is every bit as true. Passing the buck is certainly not an exclusive conservative agenda--failure to realize this would be a complete misunderstanding of the operations of (American?) politics.


In general, I think this article gets down to an issue that seems to be getting short shrift in the public debate on the prisoner abuse topic--what the heck were these soldiers thinking? I find it highly improbably that such activities would have gone on in such widespread fashion unless the soldiers had at least an indication that such behaviour was acceptable. Certainly, there would be far fewer pictures of the events. So, to me anyway, it seems obvious that at the very least either the wrong impressions were relayed down the chain, or there was an incredible lack of proper supervision at this facility. Now, where this started or who is at fault is very much in doubt at this phase, but, clearly, something is at least very fishy. Is the article cited here 'the answer'? Don't know--but I do find it very possible. As such, I'm willing to state that it is at least something we should all think about. In general, I think most Americans would be completely shocked if they ever found how just how much activity such as that described in the article does go on. Whether such practices are necessary/effective/worthwhile is yet another topic...

Which leads to: If true, should such actions lead to Rumsfeld's removal? To me, this question has two sides. First, would it? I think almost certainly. The primary facet of 'black ops' is complete deniability. The only way Bush (or whoever else happened to be in charge at the time) can complete sever all ties with the incident to to chop off the head of someone who appeared to be in charge. However, I also find scapegoats a particularly annoying part of the American culture. So, whether or not these actions, if true, should lead to his dismissal would still be debatable, highly related to the ending question I posed in the paragraph above.

Well the New Yorker article sure makes a lot more sense than the official remarks on the abuse which is that a "handful of low level soldiers were responsible for this, and we will court marshall them and be done with it".

If Rummy was a tough as he portrays, he would admit that HE approved methods of treatment that blurred the line of the Geneva conventions. Wolfies' comments last week, that certainty methods of treatment would be eliminated because they violated the Geneva Convention, proves that these tactics were approved from the top of the Pentagon.

We all make mistakes and I firmly believe that Rummy made a big one concerning the treatment of the prisoners. My hope is that Bush DID NOT know about it previously, for had he been informed of Rummy's approval, then Bush would have, God I pray, put an end to it.

I am not sure how the Govenment handles insubordination, but it constitutes being fired in most of the corporate world.

Is Rummy's job in jeopardy? No, not until November. Honesty is the only thing that gets one removed from this administration.

Should it be? Absolutely. He broke International law, and failed to report his actions to his boss, the President of the United States.

This is very well put, Hobbes. I agree that the would/should issues are often conflated; it is nice to seem them differentiated.

That said, I find it suprising that some folks on this thread (and forum for that matter) have expressed "faith" that the system will work to discover the participants (active or complicit) in these crimes. I do not share their faith. The buck always stops earlier than it should. And I believe that those MPs currently going through Courts Martial (while very likely guilty) are scapegoats as well.

Did Rummy have a role in the abuses? To be honest, I can see arguments on both sides. I tend to believe he did have a role mostly because I believe that power is corrupting: the hubris/humility ratio appears to me to be much greater than one. My tendency is to view those in power with a very high level of skepticism. It is always in the government's best interest to spin-out propaganda to futher its goals. Of course, this is not unique to the current US administration.

I'm glad that we have a press that attacks the policies of the US government: not because I agree with the content of the attacks but because I believe that it serves to deflate some of the concentration of power. However, I also think that the press is a power block in itself, so I'm also glad when the press attacks itself. Wading though the propaganda, hype, political expedience, deflection and blatant rhetorical fallacies, proffered by politicians, pundits, sycophants and lobbies is a non-trivial exercise.

is his position as Secretary of Defense now in serious jeopardy? Should it be?

No, I don’t think Rumsfeld’s job is in jeopardy – not yet. Bush and Rumsfeld are firmly joined at the hip in this controversy, and neither will speak against the other. As for shoulds, if the coverage has even a grain of truth to it, he should be out on his butt so fast he wouldn’t know what hit him, and Bush would be impeached and out of office. But we all know that’s never going to happen.

Several here have denigrated the New Yorker as a “left-leaning” publication, and the article as fabrication. I'm sure Mr. Hersh faced the same skepticism when he reported on My Lai.

Is Newsweek also considered a tool of the evil liberal media? Because there is an explosive article in Newsweek that states in part:

For what it's worth, the Pentagon has responded to the cited Hersh article. From CNN we get the following.....



Moving along.....




I was unaware that being described as "left-leaning" is a denigration of some sort. It shouldn't be, especially to one on the left. I never said the article was a "fabrication". Rather I questioned whether it was truly a piece of "investigative journalism" or more a collection of perceptions and attitudes by a variety of people who had a stake in the story. There was little in the way of any real hard evidence offered at all. Just statements made by people. Those aren't necessarily facts. My Lai had pictures as evidence, hard evidence. No such thing exists here.




I have more faith in the system than I do in a single journalist, or two or three, quoting unnamed sources. Those MPs that have been charged, and any other individuals charged will be given a fair trial by the military justice system. In that process they will have evidence, hard evidence produced against them and have a chance to face their accusers and cross-examine them. They will have a chance to tell their side of what happened. It seems to me that if anyone here is looking for a scapegoat, it is those who would hang Rumsfeld based on an article in a magazine consisting of little more than hearsay by unnamed people.

I think there's quite a lot of history showing that courts (whether they be civil or military) do not necessarily have fair outcomes. But, that being said, by your own argument, you would almost have to believe that bringing Rummy to trial would be the fairest way of judging the merits of the accusations made against him.

Certainly there have been some rather surprising results in civilian courts, normally surprising on the side of the accused, which I think it a good thing and a basic tenet of our justice system. Something like "better 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent condemned". If we are going to have errors, I prefer it that way. The military justice system is if anything, probably less prone to failure because you don't have some of the circus stunts that we see from time to time in our civilian courts.

Now, as far as Rumsfeld is concerned. If an investigation, and we have alot of those happening, both inside the military and in congress, shows that Rumsfeld is somehow complicit in the prison abuses, then he should face the consequences. If that means he resigns, he resigns. If it means he's tried in court, then by all means, he should be tried in court. If that's what the evidence shows after a full investigation or ten, then by all means, off with his head! However, we aren't there yet and calls for his resignation based on a magazine article are counter-productive, That's not justice, that's partisan politics.

Not to parse words here, but:

fabricate = (1) to make, create; (2) to construct by combining or assembling.

By scoffing at the article as " collection of perceptions and attitudes by a variety of people who had a stake in the story", with what word would you characterize that statement? A lie? An embellishment? A scamockerty?

The Newsweek article referenced an internal White House memo; wouldn't that be considered "hard evidence"? Maybe this article is all hearsay, too, but I find it thought-provoking.

I agree with the sentiment you have but I disagree with the execution of it. I wish that you were right, that we don't have a court system which is, shall we say, overly ambitious. Given the choice between innocence and expedience, I believe expedience almost always wins. However, this is probably getting off-topic.


Do you really believe that we can have a full or fair investigation as to Rummy's possible wrong doings? Do you believe that the prisoner torture scandal would be getting addressed had the press (yes one or two journalists using unnamed sources) not broke the story? And what if there is evidence (good hard evidence)? Do you think it won't get lost amidst all the partisan bashing, doublespeak and spin mania?

That said, I agree with you that Rummy should be considered innocent until proven guilty just like everyone else should be. However, I can see where people may wonder: if the bar has been lowered with regard to the Geneva conventions, then why shouldn't the bar be lowered for those that lowered the bar as well?

Yes, I think we can have a full and fair investigation into all of this. There were already several on the military side happening before the press "broke" the story that the Pentagon released on 16Jan. Now, Congress is involved and if you don't think they are going to get into this fully, then you weren't around or paying attention back in the Watergate days. Congress is full of partisans on both sides and they are pretty ineffective at some things no question (like saving money), but one thing Congress is really good at doing is turning the heat up on something like this. Every military investigator is going to have a dozen lawyers looking over their shoulder, reading every word, parsing every statement. It's going to be impossible to sweep anything under the rug I think.

Well Aquilla, I would have to respectfully disagree with your assessment. Wertz posted a credible article, published in a credible newspaper that undoubtedly did their fact-checking in order to run such a controversial story. If they were wrong in any way, they would pay dearly, and I'm sure they checked all of their bases to prevent such an embarrassment and possible payback. The New Yorker might be liberal, but it's certainly not the National Enquirer. If I could politely ask-what is it about the article and it's assessment of high level approval of interrogation methods is not true? I don't think this should just be swept aside merely at the mentioning of "left-wing" All of us at America's Debate want a more sophisticated, in-depth discussion of the issues, and in keeping with that spirit, we all should strive to overcome such generalizations. I know it's hard to do, in particular because it's easy to do and it's hard for us to get out of our respective ideological mind-traps.

Why would they go to journalist? Why did "deep throat" go to Woodward and Bernstein? People who are politicians and bureaucrats don't get things do. The media is where you go when you want the spotlight of public knowledge to be thrown onto something.

MSNBC has posted a partial transcript of high level approval of interrogation tactics. From the above mentioned article:

Now, I'm no expert on Watergate, however correct me if I'm wrong. The Watergate investigations would not have happened if one or two journalists hadn't broken the story with an unnamed source. The bulk of the evidence used in those investigations came from "Deep Throat" as well as the infamous tapes. No?

Are you suggesting that we need a similar level of insider to break from the ranks to present unequivocal evidence? And if no one does, do you therefore conclude that there must not have been wrong doing?

I think Watergate is a very good example of what were seeing currently. This scandal smells like a real Watergate....

The problem I have with this article is not so much what it says as much as how it is being presented. There is no "smoking gun" here in terms of some alleged policy that was implemented that specifically allowed the abuses to happen. What this article does do in actuality is offer the opinions of intel people, former and present, that the cause of the abuse was indeed this policy, assuming the policy actually existed. That is a far cry from My Lai and Watergate where specific evidence existed that proved the nexus alleged. With My Lai, you had pictures, you had battle action reports and you had eye-witness testimony for what happened there. Lt. William Calley was court-martialed and convicted of his crimes there by the very same system that is investigating the abuses at Abu Ghraib. With Watergate, you had verifiable records of meetings, times, dates, people, places and of course, the tapes. You also had eye witness testimony from one of the original 7, James McCord, and a federal judge named Sirica who blew the lid off the entire affair. And, once again, you had the very same system that we have now that ended up resolving the entire affair - The US Congress. Richard Nixon didn't resign because Woodward and Bernstein told him to resign, he resigned because Barry Goldwater told him to resign or face certain impeachment and conviction. Calley wasn't convicted by a court martial because Hersh wrote a story about My Lai. He was convicted by that court martial because the system worked and proved him guilty. In both cases, the system, the very same system we have now worked and did the right thing.

Now some here would wish for us to dump the system and instead rely on magazine articles to determine guilt and innocence? We live in very strange times I think.

I'm no expert on the My Lai massacre, either. However, more than just that one guy was involved in the massacre. And...umm...many people consider that justice wasn't served with regard to My Lai: An Account of the My Lai Courts-Martial.

As for Watergate, you're absolutely right. Without actual taped evidence, there could have been no possibility of impeachment, thus no Nixon resignation. I believe that had the taped evidence not come out, then there would have been no resignation. The reason: not because there wasn't other good evidence but because the taped evidence was sensational. Independently of that though, many in the press were calling for Nixon's resignation at the time. Whether they were right or wrong, justified or unjustified, it should be unsurprising.

I suppose we just have to differ here. I believe that it is very unlikely that justice can be served unless there is a tremendous public outcry. And even then, if the subject matter is sufficiently distasteful (such as the My Lai massacre), justice still may not be served.

Fair enough. However, I would urge you to have a little faith in the system and patience with the way it works. The people on both the military and civilian side investigating this are good people, decent people and very competant people. I have no doubt that they are every bit as outraged about what happened as you and I are, and they are doing what they do because they want to serve this country and make a difference. Most of those folks could be making one hell of a lot more money in private practice than they are in the military or civil service. Still they serve. There must be a reason for that. Keep the faith. I don't think they are going to let you, or I down.

Unfortunately, I cannot give that which has not been earned. I, like you, believe that there must be good, honest, decent people working on this. I, unlike you, do not believe this is sufficient. Here's a quote from the end of the article I linked in my previous post:

Justice served?


And have we really learned our lessons?

[/QUOTE]
The problem I have with this article is not so much what it says as much as how it is being presented. There is no "smoking gun" here in terms of some alleged policy that was implemented that specifically allowed the abuses to happen.

Now some here would wish for us to dump the system and instead rely on magazine articles to determine guilt and innocence? We live in very strange times I think.[/QUOTE]

I can understand your point, but I would offer the following items...

The "smoking gun" is a memo by Alberto Gonzalez stating that the Geneva Conventions are out of date and that the White House should pursue a different policy with "enemy combatants" since bothering with civil liberties tends to infringe upon the war on terror. This document basically opens the gate for any abuse of prisoners since doing so might just save lives, or at least that's the analogy given. If we compare this to watergate, the memo is our dictabelt tapes of conversations regarding a nefarious activity.

The former and present unnamed intel sources are people in the know, much like the John Deans and "deep-throat" of years ago who spoke out. They reinforce the article and it's assertions. If these were disaffected hacks and the like, they would not have been listened to at all. Evidently these people know what they're talking about. What do they say?-we let other nations handle interrogations since they aren't restricted by rules as we are, and that George Tenet played a key role in that decison. Not only that, but military lawyers were shocked at the brazen attempts to pre-empt any efforts of abuse and took their case to civilians.


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/

As evidence, I've cited two news articles who quote anonymous sources(Watergate had anonymous sources too) as well as "concrete" evidence such as the Gonzalez document that Newsweek had obtained. Once again, what evidence exists that suggests the White House tried to stamp out looser standards of interrogation? Unfortunately, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Yes. I do trust the system to work. It is working. But let's not forget that per the first amendment, people like Sy Hersh are part of the system.

The Watergate investigation was brought to light first because of the reporting of Woodward and Bernstein. Neither had the name and career at the time that Hersh is laying on the line in this story. The Washington Post put its name on the line.

There is a cost when an investigative report does not pan out. Hersh would be a big loser if this does not bring more tangible evidence forward. He has faith in the system too.


Pentagon: Hersh report 'journalist malpractice'

This is not a promise of immediate vindication, but he stands behind his story and says he followed journalistic standards for multiple sources.

Edited to add link of proof of the price of getting a major story wrong.
The fakes that finished an editor, and the truth that won't go away

Is [Rumsfeld's] position as Secretary of Defense now in serious jeopardy? Should it be?

It appears that the Bush administration has had their legal team working overtime on drafting a get out of jail free card. Lawyers Decided Bans on Torture Didn't Bind Bush.







Seems to me more and more each day the whole administration was involved in this mess.

Edit: Misplaced and late post. Already discussed here.

Bad News Here.
This doesn't really look good for those in the administration who try to claim Abu Ghraib was a fluke, or just a "few bad apples." Kinda makes the case that the problem may be more widespread. As a soldier this kind of thing sickens me. That there are people in the uniform I also wear, sworn to uphold the Constitution and the ideals it represents, who can feel justified in doing such things to another human being disgusts me.

First I would like to post a link to an thread I tried to start about General Miller the man in charge of the Guantanamo prison who toured Iraqi detention centers prior to the Abu Ghraib scandal and seems to have suggested using prison guards to soften up Iraqi prisoners. In light of a recent interview, the evidence seems to be mounting that this issue gos beyond a few bad eggs.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=101223

These are comments made by Brig Gen Janis Karpinski about where responsibility lies. She is obviously in a position to want to try to deflect criticism from herself, being commander of the prison at the time of the abuses.

Some of these comments seem very damning.

Iraq abuse 'ordered from the top'






While acknowledging Karpinski's motive to deflect blame here, I still find this to be convincing added evidence that this is an issue that goes higher than the administration and the army has been publicly saying.

She also said, "I didn't know in September, I didn't know in October, I didn't know ever" about any abuse.

"Those pictures which I saw on the 23rd of January were more shocking to me than probably the rest of the world ... I was absolutely sickened by those images and I couldn't even fathom a guess as to what happened to these people to make them go in such an opposite direction of how they were trained."

If this was the modus operandi from those higher up, as she claimed, why was she so surprised? How could she have not known of the abuse? Seems contradictory to me.

More detail from Army Times on the US soldier who was beaten while playing detainee role. I have brought this up in conversation with others in my unit, and too many people have a disturbingly dismissive attitude toward this case.

The Presidential wriggling that has taken place over the last months concerning this worm is true pulp fiction at its best, and, as is usual with worms, the head is willing to excorcise its tail to survive.

Gen. Karpinski was doing exactly what she was, either directly or indirectly, instructed to do and passed these on to her command.
She didn't get to be a General by refusing orders, direct or indirect.

OF COURSE SHE KNEW OF THE ABUSE and was following orders as good soldiers do.
Why do you find contradictory her attempt to not be excorcised Mrs. Pigpen?

Regards.....Alan

You're choosing to believe her one statement, and not her other. That's your right, but she is discrediting herself there. Either the she knew of the abuse, or she didn't. It's can't be a simultaneous "He gave the order, I knew it because he told me, but I didn't know about the abuse." I'll wait for more evidence before coming to any conclusions based on the testimony of Karpinski.

The problem with focusing on Gen. Karpinski's statements is that it misses the big points.

For example, just today:Pentagon: Military Hid Iraq Prisoner from Red Cross



Or, maybe we should consider the memos generated in the DoD concerning how to make torture seem almost like it's really not illegal.

Yeah, the General is covering her own behind from the bullets being shot at her. But it's those above her who are covering their own behinds by shooting at her that we should be more worried about.

Is [Rumsfeld's] position as Secretary of Defense now in serious jeopardy? Should it be?
If things worked the way they should, his job should be more in jeopardy than ever now.

This whole issue has become such a putrid, stinking, tangled up mess of lies, prevarications and evasions that someone's head ought to roll...yeah, right, dream on, huh?

Here's a funny bit by Terry Jones.