NationStates Jolt Archive

I mean...let's get serious for just a minute..I know some of you wish to lay every aspect of anything that could go wrong there on Bush...but it isn't going to happen..so let's hear some realistic judgements..

As for me..the prison thing....The junior enlisted who actually committed the abuse must be court-martialed, without a doubt..air the damn thing on Al-Jazeera just to show we do punish those who commit this abuse (note I say abuse....I do not suscribe to the belief that it was torture)....the immediate officers...cashiered without a doubt...the higher chains of command..up to the Brigadier General of the facility should be allowed to "retire" on active duty.

The Federal Agents CIA/NSA/DIA should be fired for attempting to co-opt military police into "softening up" their prisoners intended for interrogation.

As for the Fallujah thing..I would have brought in local Iraqi military from the get go to take out Al-Sadr and bring him under arrest before an Iraqi judge..I wouldn't ever had let US troops do it..to me that falls under the heading of the Immediate Chains of Commands for the Marines on the ground..up to General Abazid..

I blame Bremer for giving carte blanche contracts to Haliburton and it's subsidiaries..whether he did wrong in this is irrevelent...for a distinguished diplomat he should have known better..

But realistically..this is about as high up the Chain of Command I am willing to concede to the Anti-Bushies/Anti-Iraq War crowd.

As far as events on the ground go yeah it makes sense to draw the line at Bremner. But the wider implications, the legality of the war, the WMD etc etc, how many more excuses can be used to let Bush wriggle off the hook.

Even if we accept that he acted in good faith the conclusion still is that he made decisions with wide ranging global and long term implications based on false information. We don't want a war monger in charge but we don't want incompetence either

As far as events on the ground go yeah it makes sense to draw the line at Bremner. But the wider implications, the legality of the war, the WMD etc etc, how many more excuses can be used to let Bush wriggle off the hook.

Even if we accept that he acted in good faith the conclusion still is that he made decisions with wide ranging global and long term implications based on false information. We don't want a war monger in charge but we don't want incompetence either

Here is where I give Bush the benefit of the doubt..he made military decisions based on what we know know was faulty intelligence...on this I give Bush a "pass"..now..as to the legality of the War itself..under our present Constitution and the War Powers Act he has the authority..whether or not some here can accept it or not....various Internional treaties (Law indicate I as a citizen voted for them in some referendum, that isn't so)..do not, nor have they ever trumped the US Constitution in this country as far as the legal procedures for anything, including making war...and if they ever do...then I believe we would be on the slippery slope of losing our sovereignity to a World Government that does not have my best interest at hand.

But in the end...realistically....Bremer is where the situation on the ground currently lays at his doorstep for the civilians...General Abasid for the military.

Well, lets not forget the fabulous mixed signals Donald Rumsfeld has been sending.. How many times now has he said and I quote "The Geneva Conventions may not apply" The problem is systemic. Rumsfeld has to go. He stands for every thing that went wrong. There is a difference between criminal accountability and political accountability.. Rumsfeld should do the right thing and resign!

Here is where I give Bush the benefit of the doubt..he made military decisions based on what we know know was faulty intelligence

That's the thing though. The intelligence was severely questionned before thr invasion and looks increasingly like they made the decision to go to war anyway regardless.

I completely disagree. The fact of the matter is that not only was this systemic abuse across the entire system, but that Rumsfeld knew about it and did nothing, including informing his boss before the story broke in the media. This argues that Rumsfeld is either tacitly condoning the actions (at least until they were caught) or completely out of touch with the situation their. Either way, it's gross incompetance or neglect on his part and, like any other job, those are grounds for termination. When coupled with the debacle in Fallujah and the seemingly endless streak of missteps and fiascos that both Bremer and Rumsfeld have countenanced over the course of this campaign, I believe there is enough cause to have them both removed. Otherwise, it becomes the exact situation that Tactical Grace was talking about on another thread. Just one more case of the people on the ground taking all the blame for the mistakes those in command made but never have to be accountible for.

Oh, and welcome back, Salishe. :D

I completely disagree. The fact of the matter is that not only was this systemic abuse across the entire system, but that Rumsfeld knew about it and did nothing, including informing his boss before the story broke in the media. This argues that Rumsfeld is either tacitly condoning the actions (at least until they were caught) or completely out of touch with the situation their. Either way, it's gross incompetance or neglect on his part and, like any other job, those are grounds for termination. When coupled with the debacle in Fallujah and the seemingly endless streak of missteps and fiascos that both Bremer and Rumsfeld have countenanced over the course of this campaign, I believe there is enough cause to have them both removed. Otherwise, it becomes the exact situation that Tactical Grace was talking about on another thread. Just one more case of the people on the ground taking all the blame for the mistakes those in command made but never have to be accountible for.

Now...without condoning the actions Rumsfeld took as regards the prison, I as a former military man myself thinking..."Why is this coming to me all the way in Washington?"...to me that is what General Abasid and the Military Provost Marshal in charge of the prison would be for....the Prison had it's own Commanding General..and a Theatre Operations Commander....both men high enough up the Chain of Command to deal with it..and it should have been dealth with by them...Rumsfeld is a continent away...and he should be able to trust in the leadership capability of those Generals he has in theatre. While..Rumsfeld in all likelihood should have told Bush bout the situation..what did you expect him to do, hop up on a plane and fly there immediately?...He is the Secretary of Defense..his domain covers more then just the situation in Iraq....now..I might have sent a Deputy Secretary of Defense or other person to gauge how the situation was on the ground..but it's a military situation..let the soldiers deal with it..

all the commanding officers need to be court martialled. anyone who did know, should have known, could have known, might have known
need to be brought to public justice immediately

everyone else who can be fired should be fired up to and including rumsfeld. we have other good officers to take their places

this kind of abuse fuels terrorism around the world. each picture creates another 1000 volunteers for suicide bombing against us, if not 10,000

we have to be seen by the world to be horrified by this and be seen to take swift and decisive action against it, not just courtmartialling a few common soldiers.

they did what they were allowed to do. their commanding officers are guilty too.

if we try to brush it off and just try a few of the more obvious offenders we will get the kind of response we will then DESERVE from the islamic world.

i can barely even think about these things, we are in such a dangerous position and our leaders are so clueless about how offensive we are to the rest of the world.

Now...without condoning the actions Rumsfeld took as regards the prison, I as a former military man myself thinking..."Why is this coming to me all the way in Washington?"...to me that is what General Abasid and the Military Provost Marshal in charge of the prison would be for....the Prison had it's own Commanding General..and a Theatre Operations Commander....both men high enough up the Chain of Command to deal with it..and it should have been dealth with by them...Rumsfeld is a continent away...and he should be able to trust in the leadership capability of those Generals he has in theatre.

I agree. Normally this should never have gone to Rumsfeld because his generals should have put a stop to it immediately. However, they didn't. When the information finally either trickled up to him or was acknowledged by him (either way it'a a problem), his inaction and the Pentagon's attempts to lean on CBS to stop them from breaking the story are unforgivable. Here we have someone who is clearly out of control of their department and their subordinates are making huge mistakes that are costing us the campaign. In any other management position, if the people you were managing screwed up to this extent, you would be held accountable and fired as well. Why is this any different?

Additionally, this isn't just a war about control, but a war about concept. We have claimed that one of the reasons we went in there was to liberate the Iraqis from this exact type of behavior. Yet now we are doing it ourselves. We claim that we are trying to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, yet we're beating them to death or "softening them up" for interrogation. How are we credible? This is the only major conflict our country is currently engaged in, therefore it should be occupying a majority of Rumsfeld's attention. Because of the actions of these soliders and their superiors and because of Rumsfeld and Bremer's inaction or lack of control of their subordinates, we have lost the conceptual war and made ourselves global liars and hypocrites.


While..Rumsfeld in all likelihood should have told Bush bout the situation..what did you expect him to do, hop up on a plane and fly there immediately?...He is the Secretary of Defense..his domain covers more then just the situation in Iraq....now..I might have sent a Deputy Secretary of Defense or other person to gauge how the situation was on the ground..but it's a military situation..let the soldiers deal with it..

But it's not just a "military situation". It's on the world stage and it's about perception. Rumsfeld absolutely should have told Bush and the fact that he didn't hop on a plane immediately and go there is yet another example of the arrogance of this administration. Their attitude from the very beginning has been, We'll do what we want and screw the rest of you. Rumsfeld blindness to the volitility of this situation, coupled with the debacle of Fallujah (just to name one other mistake), is the exact same hubris that got us into Iraq in the first place. World opinion does count and you would have thought the men and women in this administration would have figured that out by now. Apparently not. An intrinsic part of both Rumsfeld's and Bremer's jobs are the politics. If they can't handle that aspect as well as the administrative duties, then they are not the right people for those positions. They both blew this one by either not being able to see the potential ramifications of the situation or being unwilling or unconcerned in dealing with them. Either way, they both need to go and in as public a manner as possible, so that we can try and gain back a little of all the credibility we have lost through their mishandling of the situation.

Now, after having said all this, I'd also just like to say I don't expect it to happen. It should happen, I want it to happen, lots of people want it to happen, but I don't think it actually will happen. Again, this administration has shown that it has no respect for anyone else on this planet and this arrogance will serve it again in this case. The people on the ground will suffer, but the bosses will escape any culpability. It's a sickening and sad comment on the state of affairs in United States government and just one more reason why the toady-ridden, old-boys-network Bush administration must go.

I mean...let's get serious for just a minute..I know some of you wish to lay every aspect of anything that could go wrong there on Bush...but it isn't going to happen..so let's hear some realistic judgements..

As for me..the prison thing....The junior enlisted who actually committed the abuse must be court-martialed, without a doubt..air the damn thing on Al-Jazeera just to show we do punish those who commit this abuse (note I say abuse....I do not suscribe to the belief that it was torture)....the immediate officers...cashiered without a doubt...the higher chains of command..up to the Brigadier General of the facility should be allowed to "retire" on active duty.

The Federal Agents CIA/NSA/DIA should be fired for attempting to co-opt military police into "softening up" their prisoners intended for interrogation.

As for the Fallujah thing..I would have brought in local Iraqi military from the get go to take out Al-Sadr and bring him under arrest before an Iraqi judge..I wouldn't ever had let US troops do it..to me that falls under the heading of the Immediate Chains of Commands for the Marines on the ground..up to General Abazid..

I blame Bremer for giving carte blanche contracts to Haliburton and it's subsidiaries..whether he did wrong in this is irrevelent...for a distinguished diplomat he should have known better..

But realistically..this is about as high up the Chain of Command I am willing to concede to the Anti-Bushies/Anti-Iraq War crowd.

No offense Salishe, seems you are giving the CEO a walk for the incredible gross ineptitude of almost every significant area of the occuption!

The Buck Stops Here!

Remember that one?

I'm not blaming Shrub and Co as being complicit in planning some of this stuff. But I DO believe that they have abdicated responsibility to provide proper oversight of their policies.

What galls most of us is the fact that there seems to be this buffer where all information stops before it gets to the top.

Planes as weapons? Gosh no - we never thought of that.... even if we did get that warning about it from Egypt, did have studies done on it, and Norad actually practiced the scenario...

The WMD reports weren't iron-clad? Gosh - we thought they were. We never got told that the intel was often uncorroberated (or even refuted as in teh Uranium claim that bounced in and out of GW's speeches becuase people were told to remove it). I mean.... it's not like France Germany and Russia all looked at it and held their noses is it?

Looting after an invasion? Whoda thunk it? What do you mean that almost every General in our forces said that 130,000 troops weren't going to be enough to provide security.... we never heard anything from them....

Abuse in prison? Hey - we just heard that aparently the Red Cross had been complaining about it for months! Those reports just were sooooo thick! Who has time to read that?

What do you mean that several CPA orders contravene the Geneva Conventions? I mean - they put out at least one a month... who has the time or money to run it past even just a law student who would tell you flat out that it was a violation?


I mean, really.... what information DID the top get? Did they even ever just open a firckin' newspaper? Or have they surrounded themselves with yes men and fall guys (or gals) who hide the truth from them?


Either they have deliberately insulated themselves from facts, or they don't really care about facts. Any way you slice it, the leadership of your country has made one error after another, seems to operate in an information vacuum, and seems to be doing nothing to rectify that given that we seem to hear of new instances of such things on a weekly basis.

That reeks of adventurism and incompetence.

Here is where I give Bush the benefit of the doubt..he made military decisions based on what we know know was faulty intelligence
That is true. And naturaly they have dealt with that problem going forward. In fact, the primary conduit of much of the bogus reports, lying "eye-witnesses" to things like mobile labs, and provider of falsified documents on Niger uranium deals has been adequately punished....

... he is STILL a senior member on the CPA, and was recently tasked with handling a) developing the legal framewwork for Saddam's trial, and b) heading up the Oil For Food investigation from the IRaq side of things.


Yep - leadership you can trust!

All documentation for this leadership provided by The Chalabi Fiction Company.....


-Z-

as to the legality of the War itself..under our present Constitution and the War Powers Act he has the authority..whether or not some here can accept it or not....various Internional treaties (Law indicate I as a citizen voted for them in some referendum, that isn't so)..do not, nor have they ever trumped the US Constitution in this country as far as the legal procedures for anything, including making war...and if they ever do...then I believe we would be on the slippery slope of losing our sovereignity to a World Government that does not have my best interest at hand.
Under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties (of which the U.N. Charter is one) are considered the supreme law of the land. Article 103 of the U.N. Charter makes clear that the charter supercedes all other conflicting treaties. It says: "In the event of conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail."

I mean, really.... what information DID the top get? Did they even ever just open a firckin' newspaper? Or have they surrounded themselves with yes men and fall guys (or gals) who hide the truth from them?
-Z-
the president has publicly stated that he gets no news from common news sources, he feels that they are biased or its just their spin on things or something. he has stated that he gets his NEWS only from his closest advisors because they would never mislead him

very very scary

as to the legality of the War itself..under our present Constitution and the War Powers Act he has the authority..whether or not some here can accept it or not....various Internional treaties (Law indicate I as a citizen voted for them in some referendum, that isn't so)..do not, nor have they ever trumped the US Constitution in this country as far as the legal procedures for anything, including making war...and if they ever do...then I believe we would be on the slippery slope of losing our sovereignity to a World Government that does not have my best interest at hand.
Under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties (of which the U.N. Charter is one) are considered the supreme law of the land. Article 103 of the U.N. Charter makes clear that the charter supercedes all other conflicting treaties. It says: "In the event of conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail."

Ahmm..psylos..you're reading it wrong..it says "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

It clearly indicates the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land, followed by Laws which our legistlative Branch makes, and finally..any treaties we are party too...Nowhere will you find in my Constitution any shred of text that would indicate we subordinate American rights and our system of government to a foreign power.

Ahmm..psylos..you're reading it wrong..it says "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

It clearly indicates the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land, followed by Laws which our legistlative Branch makes, and finally..any treaties we are party too...Nowhere will you find in my Constitution any shred of text that would indicate we subordinate American rights and our system of government to a foreign power.

Actually, it doesn't quite say that either, Salishe. It says that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all treaties and contracts the United States enter into must be in compliance with the Constitution. It doesn't give a specific heirarchy of precedence, except in the sense that no treaty or contract we as a country enter in to or agree to can violate Constitutional law. Basically, this Amendment accomplishes two things. One, it outlines exactly what sort of treaties and contracts we can consider. If a treaty or contract should violate consitutional law, then it can not even be considered, let alone ratified by 2/3rd vote in the Senate. Two, it prevents the President from entering into treaties or contracts without 2/3rds approval of the Senate.

However, so long as a treaty or contract is appropriately ratified and does not violate any Constitutional provisions, it must be treated as the law of the land, in accordance with Constitutional law, as outlined in Article IV, paragraph 2: ...and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Hence, once the above procedures have been met, the ratified treaty is the law of the land and must be obeyed by judges, even if said treaty is contradictory to that particular state's constitution or state laws.

So, actually, a sort of heirarchy is set up. A bona fide treaty that has been properly ratified takes precedence over state constitutions and laws, but not over federal Constitutional provisions (although a bona fide treaty, by definition, must not break Constitutional provision).

This is the crux of the argument concerning the legality of the US even being in the United Nations in the first place. As Thomas Jefferson said: If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution. There is some question if the ratification of the UN Charter in 1945 was appropriate and legal.

Ahmm..psylos..you're reading it wrong..it says "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

It clearly indicates the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land, followed by Laws which our legistlative Branch makes, and finally..any treaties we are party too...Nowhere will you find in my Constitution any shred of text that would indicate we subordinate American rights and our system of government to a foreign power.

Actually, it doesn't quite say that either, Salishe. It says that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all treaties and contracts the United States enter into must be in compliance with the Constitution. It doesn't give a specific heirarchy of precedence, except in the sense that no treaty or contract we as a country enter in to or agree to can violate Constitutional law. Basically, this Amendment accomplishes two things. One, it outlines exactly what sort of treaties and contracts we can consider. If a treaty or contract should violate consitutional law, then it can not even be considered, let alone ratified by 2/3rd vote in the Senate. Two, it prevents the President from entering into treaties or contracts without 2/3rds approval of the Senate.

However, so long as a treaty or contract is appropriately ratified and does not violate any Constitutional provisions, it must be treated as the law of the land, in accordance with Constitutional law, as outlined in Article IV, paragraph 2: ...and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Hence, once the above procedures have been met, the ratified treaty is the law of the land and must be obeyed by judges, even if said treaty is contradictory to that particular state's constitution or state laws.

So, actually, a sort of heirarchy is set up. A bona fide treaty that has been properly ratified takes precedence over state constitutions and laws, but not over federal Constitutional provisions (although a bona fide treaty, by definition, must not break Constitutional provision).

This is the crux of the argument concerning the legality of the US even being in the United Nations in the first place. As Thomas Jefferson said: If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution. There is some question if the ratification of the UN Charter in 1945 was appropriate and legal.

I stand corrected...not being a Constitutional scholar...I missed the subtle nuances which you correctly pointed out...but my point to psylos I believe was made..at no point does our form of govenment per our Constitution subordinate itself to a foreign power

I stand corrected...not being a Constitutional scholar...I missed the subtle nuances which you correctly pointed out...but my point to psylos I believe was made..at no point does our form of govenment per our Constitution subordinate itself to a foreign powerJust note the UN charter does not contradict the US constitution.

I stand corrected...not being a Constitutional scholar...I missed the subtle nuances which you correctly pointed out...but my point to psylos I believe was made..at no point does our form of govenment per our Constitution subordinate itself to a foreign powerJust note the UN charter does not contradict the US constitution.

Perhaps not, but the argument is that it is a foreign power exercising control on the US, which has been argued to be in direct conflict with Article IV. While the UN Charter may not directly violate the US Constitution in spirit (which is debateable), in theory the simple fact that we ratified it, giving outside control to any organization or country, is what's under scrutiny.

I stand corrected...not being a Constitutional scholar...I missed the subtle nuances which you correctly pointed out...but my point to psylos I believe was made..at no point does our form of govenment per our Constitution subordinate itself to a foreign powerJust note the UN charter does not contradict the US constitution.

Perhaps not, but the argument is that it is a foreign power exercising control on the US, which has been argued to be in direct conflict with Article IV. While the UN Charter may not directly violate the US Constitution in spirit (which is debateable), in theory the simple fact that we ratified it, giving outside control to any organization or country, is what's under scrutiny.

I just love being around all you smart guys and gals..lol...I really..really should have gone to college after Vietnam...I know..I know..you're going to tell me that it's never too late to start..so my sons tell me..and they're full grown now going to classes on their off-duty time...too set in my ways I guess..I prefer sitting out on my back porch with my dogs on a lazy nite to studying..and there's been WAY to many years since I opened a book...

But perhaps I should read up a bit more on my positions here..might give me a more legitimate basis for them.

I stand corrected...not being a Constitutional scholar...I missed the subtle nuances which you correctly pointed out...but my point to psylos I believe was made..at no point does our form of govenment per our Constitution subordinate itself to a foreign powerJust note the UN charter does not contradict the US constitution.

Perhaps not, but the argument is that it is a foreign power exercising control on the US, which has been argued to be in direct conflict with Article IV. While the UN Charter may not directly violate the US Constitution in spirit (which is debateable), in theory the simple fact that we ratified it, giving outside control to any organization or country, is what's under scrutiny.

I just love being around all you smart guys and gals..lol...I really..really should have gone to college after Vietnam...I know..I know..you're going to tell me that it's never too late to start..so my sons tell me..and they're full grown now going to classes on their off-duty time...too set in my ways I guess..I prefer sitting out on my back porch with my dogs on a lazy nite to studying..and there's been WAY to many years since I opened a book...

But perhaps I should read up a bit more on my positions here..might give me a more legitimate basis for them.

It's never too late to learn, Salishe. :D

Sorry, it had to be said. And why can't you sit out on your back porch with your dogs AND study at the same time?

Perhaps not, but the argument is that it is a foreign power exercising control on the US, which has been argued to be in direct conflict with Article IV. While the UN Charter may not directly violate the US Constitution in spirit (which is debateable), in theory the simple fact that we ratified it, giving outside control to any organization or country, is what's under scrutiny.I believe a national jury can be divided on the issue, but surely, whether or not they are in contradiction, an international jury will say that the UN charter prevails over the US constitution, which is an agreement between the states (as stated in the UN charter).
It sounds logical to me that the UN charter prevails because it impacts more people than the US constitution. And also, what will you say if Saddam said his treaty not to make WMD was in direct conflict with his national law and therefore NULL and void?

Well, firstly its interesting to see how many of the lower ranks are claiming to have been "only following orders".

This, of course, is now infamous as "The Nuremberg Defence", based on so many making the same claims at the War Crimes trials after WW11.

However, the frequency of this response makes one wonder as to its accuracy in terms of perception or reality, while still dismissing it as any reralistic defence.

Were orders issued? By whom? Who knew what and when?

Just exactly where does "the buck stop"?

I think there are many more revelations, investigations and prosecutions ahead.