Command Responsibility and Bush Failures

[WalterM140]

>>Now, can the president ensure that every government employee, or
>>serviceman/woman is doing their full duty 100% of the time? No.
>>
>>But he's in charge, and he is responsible.
>
>You can't be held responsible for things outside your ability to control.
>Your
>two statements above are contradictory.
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>

You never heard anything like this in the Air Force?

"When you pass along some of your duties down the chain of command to more
junior non-commissioned leaders, you hold the latter responsible for producing.
At the same time, you delegate to each subordinate the authority he needs to
carry out his duty. In this way, each level of the chain of command, from
division or air wing down to fire team, receives authority equal to its
responsibilities; and each level carries out its missions under directiion and
supervision of the next higher level.

Although you can delegate authority to your subordinates, you always carry the
ultimate responsibility for all that your unit does or leaves undone."

--"Handbook For Marine NCO's; Second Edition" p. 301 by Col. Robert Debs Heinl,
Jr.

You apparently support the president. That is coloring your judgment.

In any case, the Bush administration screwed up enough --big ticket-- items
that were, or should have been, directly under the president's eye to warrant
his ass being kicked all the way back to Crawford.

These include:

Not involving the UN in the war. Basically, as events have shown, without UN
involvement (i.e. more troops), we can't subdue the country.

Misreading (unless he just lied) the intelligence on Iraqi complicity/duplicity
in Al Quaida's attacks on the US.

Ditto on weapons of mass destruction supposedly held by Saddam.

Dismissing the Iraqi army. We could have paid them $200,000,000 for three
months (vice 5,000,000,000,000 a month that we are spending now) and not had
hundreds of thousands of military trained men hanging around unemployed.

Dismissing Ba'ath party officials. It's now suggested that at least some
Ba'athists be brought back.

Ignoring the estimate of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in Feb, 2003. Gen.
Shinseki said "several hundred thousand" US troops would be needed. The
Bushies just ignored that -- it didn't fit the plan.

Focusing on Iraq when Al Quaida is in Afghanistan. Afghan countryside is now
run by the warlords.

Bush has screwed up on -every- important decision point. He's in charge and
he's responsible and if the "American People" are worthy of that name, his
sorry ass is done.

And, yes. He still is ultimately responsible for the mistreatment of those
Iraqi POWs.

Walt

[WalterM140]

It was good to hear General Kimmet say on the Today Show this morning that
officers were responsible for what their soldiers did or failed to do. Of
course the president is ultimately responsible -- to the American people.

Walt

[Mike Williamson]

WalterM140 wrote:
> It was good to hear General Kimmet say on the Today Show this morning that
> officers were responsible for what their soldiers did or failed to do. Of
> course the president is ultimately responsible -- to the American people.
>
> Walt

Which by extension makes the citizens responsible- bringing us back
to those who are accused of the actual acts.

Personally, I'd say that the guards involved are candidates for
criminal liability if it can be proved that they actually carried
out the acts they are accused of- I haven't seen all the photos,
but I'd not want to be on the defense team at this point. Of the
officers at the camp, unless standard procedure there is for the
commanders at the camp to be absent, or they show that the incidents
were carried out by a very few with no knowledge outside the group,
then I'd say at least a command failure took place- whether it
is criminal or not is a question that I can't answer. Outside of
the camp, unless the officials knew of and condoned the treatment,
you're probably too far removed for effective liability- in fact,
I believe that an investigation began immediately after someone
passed some of the photos to the local criminal investigation folks.

Just my personal opinion.

Mike

[WalterM140]

>WalterM140 wrote:
>> It was good to hear General Kimmet say on the Today Show this morning that
>> officers were responsible for what their soldiers did or failed to do. Of
>> course the president is ultimately responsible -- to the American people.

>>
>> Walt
>
> Which by extension makes the citizens responsible- bringing us back
>to those who are accused of the actual acts.

Of course. We put an administration in office that is not much better than the
Nazis.

We can vote them out. Count on the Bush crew trying to steal this election
also.

Walt

[BUFDRVR]

>You never heard anything like this in the Air Force?

<snip>

>you always carry the
>ultimate responsibility for all that your unit does or leaves undone."

Absolutely. The Wing Commander is ultimately responsible for the *general*
conduct of every squadron in the wing...however he is not personally
responsible for for the actions of every individual in the wing...which is
exactly what you are arguing.

>You apparently support the president. That is coloring your judgment.

Unlike you, my preference for who sits in the White House has nothing to do
with my views on this issue. You are arguing the President is responsible for
the individual actions of over 1 million U.S. service members serving on all 7
continents, this is ridiculous.

>In any case, the Bush administration screwed up enough --big ticket-- items
>that were, or should have been, directly under the president's eye to warrant
>his ass being kicked all the way back to Crawford.

What was that about bias?

>Not involving the UN in the war. Basically, as events have shown, without UN
>involvement (i.e. more troops), we can't subdue the country.
>

You're a genius. You do realize you can't draft the U.N. right? That they have
to be willing? Guess what, they were *never* going to be willing. Because of
several issues, including the systematic pillaging of the oil for food program,
many UN member nations were never going to vote in favor of going to war and
removing Hussain.

>Misreading (unless he just lied) the intelligence on Iraqi
>complicity/duplicity
>in Al Quaida's attacks on the US.
>

Are you suggesting a President should discount what he's being told by
intelligence officials?

>Ditto on weapons of mass destruction supposedly held by Saddam.

When the head of the CIA says its a "slam dunk" case, who should argue with
him?

>Dismissing the Iraqi army. We could have paid them $200,000,000 for three
>months (vice 5,000,000,000,000 a month that we are spending now) and not had
>hundreds of thousands of military trained men hanging around unemployed.

Hind sight is a beautiful thing huh?

>Dismissing Ba'ath party officials. It's now suggested that at least some
>Ba'athists be brought back.

See above..

>Ignoring the estimate of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in Feb, 2003. Gen.
>Shinseki said "several hundred thousand" US troops would be needed. The
>Bushies just ignored that -- it didn't fit the plan.

Yeah, the Bush administration was the first ever adminstration to ignore advice
from the military. This was a mistake, but hardly unique. Clinton ignored the
advice of the military in Somalia in 1993 and got dozens of Americans killed in
the process. I'm willing to bet you were silent on that one.

>Focusing on Iraq when Al Quaida is in Afghanistan.

The number of A-Q in Afghanistan is very small, and even if you include
Pakistan, the numbers are much smaller than their existance in other countries.
The focus on A-Q must be global, not just in one country. This is what
President Bush is doing.

>Afghan countryside is now
>run by the warlords.

The problem is not nearly as bad as you would expect and this was always going
to be a problem. Blaming Bush for warlords controlling the "country side" is
like blaming the allies for flood of Jewish refugees after they opened the
concentration camps ater WWII. If you wanted the Taliban Govt. removed, A-Q
kicked out and the warlords subdued, you would have needed 2 million men and
the atmosphere in Afghanistan would make Iraq look like Disney World.

>Bush has screwed up on -every- important decision point.

In your not so humble, biased opinion.

>He's in charge and he's responsible

The first correct line you've typed in a week.

>and if the "American People" are worthy of that name, his
>sorry ass is done.

And if he's not will you please leave?

>And, yes. He still is ultimately responsible for the mistreatment of those
>Iraqi POWs.

No matter how you stretch command responsibility, no matter how bad you twist
it, Bush is not responsible for the mistreatment of the PWs.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
>
> >Ignoring the estimate of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in Feb, 2003.
Gen.
> >Shinseki said "several hundred thousand" US troops would be needed. The
> >Bushies just ignored that -- it didn't fit the plan.
>
> Yeah, the Bush administration was the first ever adminstration to ignore
advice
> from the military. This was a mistake, but hardly unique. Clinton ignored
the
> advice of the military in Somalia in 1993 and got dozens of Americans
killed in
> the process. I'm willing to bet you were silent on that one.

Actually, the original poster's (Bufdrvr, you really need to stop snipping
the poster ID info from the top of all of your posts--gets a bit hard to
figure who said what) premise is screwed up a bit from the get-go. First,
Shinseki was not the CJCS when he made that comment--he was the
former/retired CS of the Army (and one with an axe to grind regarding his
former superiors, given his quick "don't let the door hit you in the ass on
the way out" departure). Second, it is interesting that even now we are not
considering "several hundred thousand" US troops be deployed into Iraq, but
instead are merely delaying the previously planned reduction in the number
of deployed troops (the total is still in the 130K range for the US Army,
IIRC, despite our having to take on the additional load of the former
Spanish contingent after Spain's rapid capitulation to terrorists; total
troops deployed in the entire CENTCOM region, from all forces, is about 225K
max, with a chunk of them operating in Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa,
and including those still operating in Kuwait, Qatar, etc.). Shinseki's
flawed vision of the vast number of US troops required never has received a
great deal of support from *any* quarter other than that of John McCain
(another fellow with a bit of an anti-Bush axe to grind).

Brooks

<snip>

[WalterM140]

Your humble narrator wrote:

>>You never heard anything like this in the Air Force?
>
><snip>
>
>>you always carry the
>>ultimate responsibility for all that your unit does or leaves undone."

BUFDRVR wrote:

>
>Absolutely. The Wing Commander is ultimately responsible for the *general*
>conduct of every squadron in the wing...however he is not personally
>responsible for for the actions of every individual in the wing...which is
>exactly what you are arguing.

Yes, definitely yes. He is -ultimately- responsible, good or bad, whole or
incomplete for -everything-.

Does that mean he should be charged under the UCMJ if a Hummer driver deosn't
maintain the proper tire inflation on his vehicle and it leads to an accident
or unreasonable damage to the vehicle? No, of course not. He should hold
responsible
whichever person (probably a sergeant) is directly supervising that driver. Is
he ultimately responsible? -- yes he is.

>
>>You apparently support the president. That is coloring your judgment.
>
>Unlike you, my preference for who sits in the White House has nothing to do
>with my views on this issue. You are arguing the President is responsible for
>the individual actions of over 1 million U.S. service members serving on all
>7
>continents, this is ridiculous.

The president is absolutely responsible for what the military does or does not
do. We may be talking past each other here. But the president -is-
repsonsible to the American people. Could he have prevented or been aware
directly that a female national guardsman had an naked iraqi man on a leash?
No. Does he need to take the appropriate action to ensure that the most
culpable are held responsible, yes.

Did the blatant disregard for the rule of law by the Bush administration add to
the climate that led to the abuses at Al Ghraib? Probably. But no US service
person should have engaged in such conduct. They knew better, and to digress
slightly, they knew they didn't have to obey unlawful orders.

Of course with a fuzzy understanding of command and responsibility -- like you
have-- it's not as surprising as it might otherwise be.

Again, we may be talking past each other here, but the president is ultimately
responsible -- he --absolutely is-- as commander in chief of the armed forces
for what these guards did. Now the American people will have to decide if he
takes proportional action to correct these heinous crimes.

More later.

Walt


>

[WalterM140]

Brooks wrote:

>First,
>Shinseki was not the CJCS when he made that comment--he was the
>former/retired CS of the Army (and one with an axe to grind regarding his
>former superiors

Bull****.

"On February 25, Shinseki testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Senator Levin asked him to "give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's
force requirement for an occupation of Iraq…" Any general officer —
especially one as political as Shinseki — would have corrected the question
before answering it, because the very premise of an extended "occupation" is
antithetical to President Bush's policy of liberation. (It also plays right
into the hands of opponents in Europe and the Middle East who claim that our
real objective is only to occupy Iraq and seize its oil.) Instead of correcting
Levin, Shinseki answered that "something on the order of several hundred
thousand soldiers" would be required. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were both angered
by the response, and the next day Wolfowitz issued a pointed statement noting
that Shinseki's estimate was "wildly off the mark." According to one report,
Wolfowitz went out of his way to repudiate Shinseki, adding that "Shinseki's
prediction came at a delicate time when the Bush administration is trying to
piece together a broad-based coalition to support an invasion of Iraq to topple
Saddam Hussein." And still Shinseki remains."


http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-babbin030603.asp

Walt

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 6 May 2004 21:23:50 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

>"Mike Williamson" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Of the
>> officers at the camp, unless standard procedure there is for the
>> commanders at the camp to be absent, or they show that the incidents
>> were carried out by a very few with no knowledge outside the group,
>> then I'd say at least a command failure took place- whether it
>> is criminal or not is a question that I can't answer.
>
>Yes. Legal liability aside, the comforting "a few bad apples"
>theory misses the fact, from psychological study (the famous
>Milgram experiment) and historical precedent, that the soldiers
>who did this are probably quite normal, unexceptional people.
>In situations like this, the conditions (position of power, opportunity,
>confidence in the support of higher authority, feeling of immunity
>from punishment) make the criminals --- out of people you wouldn't
>expect to act like that all.
>
>Of course, that doesn't mean that the perpetrators would not be
>guilty; they still have a choice (although a surprisingly large
>number of people would make the wrong choice). It does mean
>that blame doesn't end here. The big question is how far the
>rot has spread.

Well, it has obviously spread to you. Rendering your "judgement"
before the investigation is closed makes your hatred of all things
relating to the US even more obvious.

Al Minyard

[Leslie Swartz]

Nothing whatsoever in what you responded to as "Bull****" in any way
challenged what was said.

Were you just trying to change the subject?

Or what?

Steve Swartz

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> Brooks wrote:
>
> >First,
> >Shinseki was not the CJCS when he made that comment--he was the
> >former/retired CS of the Army (and one with an axe to grind regarding his
> >former superiors
>
> Bull****.
>
> "On February 25, Shinseki testified before the Senate Armed Services
Committee.
> Senator Levin asked him to "give us some idea as to the magnitude of the
Army's
> force requirement for an occupation of Iraq." Any general officer -
> especially one as political as Shinseki - would have corrected the
question
> before answering it, because the very premise of an extended "occupation"
is
> antithetical to President Bush's policy of liberation. (It also plays
right
> into the hands of opponents in Europe and the Middle East who claim that
our
> real objective is only to occupy Iraq and seize its oil.) Instead of
correcting
> Levin, Shinseki answered that "something on the order of several hundred
> thousand soldiers" would be required. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were both
angered
> by the response, and the next day Wolfowitz issued a pointed statement
noting
> that Shinseki's estimate was "wildly off the mark." According to one
report,
> Wolfowitz went out of his way to repudiate Shinseki, adding that
"Shinseki's
> prediction came at a delicate time when the Bush administration is trying
to
> piece together a broad-based coalition to support an invasion of Iraq to
topple
> Saddam Hussein." And still Shinseki remains."
>
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-babbin030603.asp
>
> Walt

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> >You never heard anything like this in the Air Force?
>
> <snip>
>
> >you always carry the
> >ultimate responsibility for all that your unit does or leaves undone."
>
> Absolutely. The Wing Commander is ultimately responsible for the *general*
> conduct of every squadron in the wing...however he is not personally
> responsible for for the actions of every individual in the wing...which is
> exactly what you are arguing.

The doctrine of command responsibility does not hold a commander
responsible for isolated criminal acts committed in secret
by individuals. But it does presume an affirmative duty on
the part of the commander to take proactive steps to prevent
criminal acts, particularly acts committed by more than one
soldier acting in concert. Failure to take proper action
to prevent such crimes leaves the comande liable for crimes
that are subsequently committed.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2004/800-mp-bde.htm
....
14. (U) Formal charges under the UCMJ were preferred
against these Soldiers and an Article-32 Investigation
conducted by LTC Gentry. He recommended a general court
martial for the four accused, which BG Karpinski
supported. Despite this documented abuse, there is no
evidence that BG Karpinski ever attempted to remind 800th
MP Soldiers of the requirements of the Geneva Conventions
regarding detainee treatment or took any steps to ensure
that such abuse was not repeated. Nor is there any
evidence that LTC(P) Phillabaum, the commander of the
Soldiers involved in the Camp Bucca abuse incident, took
any initiative to ensure his Soldiers were properly
trained regarding detainee treatment. (ANNEXES 35 and
62)

....

This implies, at the very least, that Karpinski was at the
very least negligent and did not take appropriate action either
to prevent criminal acts.


>
> >Misreading (unless he just lied) the intelligence on Iraqi
> >complicity/duplicity
> >in Al Quaida's attacks on the US.
> >
>
> Are you suggesting a President should discount what he's being told by
> intelligence officials?

I'm not aware of any evidence that Bush was told by intelligence
officials that there was any substantive connection between
AL Qaida and Iraq.
>
> >Ditto on weapons of mass destruction supposedly held by Saddam.
>
> When the head of the CIA says its a "slam dunk" case, who should argue with
> him?

Please point us to some documentation that head of the CIA says its
a "slam dunk" case. Some of the iinformation presented by Powell
to the UN was obviously known to be false, specificaly the supposed
Uranium correspondence between Niger and Iraq, and the Medusa missle
tubes.

After the UN and IAEA inspectors found nothing to support any of
the US/British 'intelligence' and plenty to disprove it was
clear that the 'intelligence' was wrong and possibly deliberately
falsified.

>
> >Dismissing the Iraqi army. We could have paid them $200,000,000 for three
> >months (vice 5,000,000,000,000 a month that we are spending now) and not had
> >hundreds of thousands of military trained men hanging around unemployed.
>
> Hind sight is a beautiful thing huh?
>
> >Dismissing Ba'ath party officials. It's now suggested that at least some
> >Ba'athists be brought back.
>
> See above..

Thse were obvious mistakes at the time.

>
> Clinton ignored the
> advice of the military in Somalia in 1993 and got dozens of Americans killed in
> the process. I'm willing to bet you were silent on that one.
>

I wasn't. Nor am I silent IRT the observation that George H Bush
sent those troops to Somalia and left them there to spite
Clinton for winning the election. See also LBJ and his decision
to unilaterally halt bombing of N Vietnam after Humphrey lost.

> >Focusing on Iraq when Al Quaida is in Afghanistan.
>
> The number of A-Q in Afghanistan is very small, and even if you include
> Pakistan, the numbers are much smaller than their existance in other countries.

Clearly it was smaller in Iraq than in any other country in the
region.

> The focus on A-Q must be global, not just in one country. This is what
> President Bush is doing.

No. He pulled troops out of the hunt for Al Quada in places like the
Horn fo Africa and sent them to Iraq.

>
> >Afghan countryside is now
> >run by the warlords.
>
> The problem is not nearly as bad as you would expect and this was always going
> to be a problem. ...

I agree that there still is hope for Afghanistan.

>
> >And, yes. He still is ultimately responsible for the mistreatment of those
> >Iraqi POWs.
>
> No matter how you stretch command responsibility, no matter how bad you twist
> it, Bush is not responsible for the mistreatment of the PWs.

Under his direction this Administration has flouted the rule of law.
I daresay that the abuses of foreign prisoners in American-Run
overseas prisons are a direct and forseeable consequence of the
climate he created.

--

FF

[WalterM140]

From: "Leslie Swartz"

>Nothing whatsoever in what you responded to as "Bull****" in any way
>challenged what was said.

Brooks said that General Shenseki was retired when he said that "several
hundred thousand" troops would be needed for the Iraqi operation.

My quote substantiated that General Shenseki was still on active duty.

That was either a lie or a mistake. Either falls into the category of
"Bull****."

As for you, I have no idea what your disconnect is.

Walt

[BUFDRVR]

>>Absolutely. The Wing Commander is ultimately responsible for the *general*
>>conduct of every squadron in the wing...however he is not personally
>>responsible for for the actions of every individual in the wing...which is
>>exactly what you are arguing.

>Yes, definitely yes. He is -ultimately- responsible, good or bad, whole or
>incomplete for -everything-.

>Does that mean he should be charged under the UCMJ if a Hummer driver deosn't
>maintain the proper tire inflation on his vehicle and it leads to an accident
>or unreasonable damage to the vehicle? No, of course not.

I agree, however that is exactly what you're arguing by claiming the President
should be held accountable for the actions of individual US service members.

>But the president -is-
>repsonsible to the American people. Could he have prevented or been aware
>directly that a female national guardsman had an naked iraqi man on a leash?
>No.

This is a far cry from your intital statements and that of like Democrats
calling for the Presidents impeachment over the scandal.

>Does he need to take the appropriate action to ensure that the most
>culpable are held responsible, yes.

Absolutely.

>Did the blatant disregard for the rule of law by the Bush administration add
>to
>the climate that led to the abuses at Al Ghraib? Probably.

That's funny. I can see it now, U.S. service members sitting around discussing
the "illegal invasion of Iraq" when one looks at the other and says; "hey, if
he's breakin' the law...we should too". Please tell me you don't honestly
believe a Presidents actions have any direct influance over the actions of
individual soldiers. I seved in the U.S. military for 8 years under Clinton and
never had an inkling to smoke pot, cheat on my wife with a fat woman or make a
false official statement (although...since I was never involved in any
investigations, this one was never put to the test).

>But no US service
>person should have engaged in such conduct.

Absolutely.

>They knew better

Concur, despite what their lawyers will say.

>Of course with a fuzzy understanding of command and responsibility -- like
>you
>have-- it's not as surprising as it might otherwise be.

My understanding of command and responsibility is crystal clear, its your that
doesn't mesh with reality.

> but the president is ultimately
>responsible -- he --absolutely is

And when have I said any different? One of your problems is, you believe this
"ultimate responsibility" to mean he is answerable for the actions of
individual service members.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

>
> >Did the blatant disregard for the rule of law by the Bush administration
add
> >to
> >the climate that led to the abuses at Al Ghraib? Probably.
>
> That's funny. I can see it now, U.S. service members sitting around
discussing
> the "illegal invasion of Iraq" when one looks at the other and says; "hey,
if
> he's breakin' the law...we should too". Please tell me you don't honestly
> believe a Presidents actions have any direct influance over the actions of
> individual soldiers. I seved in the U.S. military for 8 years under
Clinton and
> never had an inkling to smoke pot, cheat on my wife with a fat woman or
make a
> false official statement (although...since I was never involved in any
> investigations, this one was never put to the test).

Ask him how the President's putting into action the Public Law signed by his
predecessor (a Mr. Clinton), which stated regime change was the US objective
in Iraq, constitutes "blatant disregard for the rule of law".

Brooks

[WalterM140]

>Ask him how the President's putting into action the Public Law signed by his
>predecessor (a Mr. Clinton), which stated regime change was the US objective
>in Iraq, constitutes "blatant disregard for the rule of law".

Tell -me- why an American citizen arrested in Chicago (Jose Padilla) was held
for two years with no charges and no access to a lawyer.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>The doctrine of command responsibility does not hold a commander
>responsible for isolated criminal acts committed in secret
>by individuals.

Yes it does.

The commander is responsible for everything that happens in his/her unit. And
military personnel are never "off duty."

Walt

[WalterM140]

> >Ditto on weapons of mass destruction supposedly held by Saddam.
>>
>> When the head of the CIA says its a "slam dunk" case, who should argue with
>> him?

>Please point us to some documentation that head of the CIA says its
>a "slam dunk" case.

That's what Woodward's book "Plan of Attack" says.

>After the UN and IAEA inspectors found nothing to support any of
>the US/British 'intelligence' and plenty to disprove it was
>clear that the 'intelligence' was wrong and possibly deliberately
>falsified.

Apparently by the Director of Central Intelligence.

>> >Dismissing the Iraqi army. We could have paid them $200,000,000 for three
>> >months (vice 5,000,000,000,000 a month that we are spending now) and not
>had
>> >hundreds of thousands of military trained men hanging around unemployed.
>>
>> Hind sight is a beautiful thing huh?
>>
>> >Dismissing Ba'ath party officials. It's now suggested that at least
>some
>> >Ba'athists be brought back.
>>
>> See above..
>
>Thse were obvious mistakes at the time.

This was one of the worst. And they all together are getting our guys killed in
Iraq in greater numbers than necessary, even if you bought the administration
rationale for the war.

They've done -everything- wrong it was possible to screw up.

>
>>
>> Clinton ignored the
>> advice of the military in Somalia in 1993 and got dozens of Americans
>killed in
>> the process. I'm willing to bet you were silent on that one.
>>
>
>I wasn't. Nor am I silent IRT the observation that George H Bush
>sent those troops to Somalia and left them there to spite
>Clinton for winning the election. See also LBJ and his decision
>to unilaterally halt bombing of N Vietnam after Humphrey lost.


Good points both.


>
>> >Focusing on Iraq when Al Quaida is in Afghanistan.
>>
>> The number of A-Q in Afghanistan is very small, and even if you include
>> Pakistan, the numbers are much smaller than their existance in other
>countries.
>
>Clearly it was smaller in Iraq than in any other country in the
>region.

All this unlovely factoid can do is suggest that this is in fact a war for oil.



>> The focus on A-Q must be global, not just in one country. This is what
>> President Bush is doing.
>
>No. He pulled troops out of the hunt for Al Quada in places like the
>Horn fo Africa and sent them to Iraq.
>

Bears repeating.

>>
>> >Afghan countryside is now
>> >run by the warlords.
>>
>> The problem is not nearly as bad as you would expect and this was always
>going
>> to be a problem. ...
>
>I agree that there still is hope for Afghanistan.
>
>>
>> >And, yes. He still is ultimately responsible for the mistreatment of those
>> >Iraqi POWs.
>>
>> No matter how you stretch command responsibility, no matter how bad you
>twist
>> it, Bush is not responsible for the mistreatment of the PWs.
>
>Under his direction this Administration has flouted the rule of law.
>I daresay that the abuses of foreign prisoners in American-Run
>overseas prisons are a direct and forseeable consequence of the
>climate he created.
>


Great comments. Don't expect to sway locksteppers like BUFDRVR

Walt

[WalterM140]

>> but the president is ultimately
>>responsible -- he --absolutely is
>
>And when have I said any different?

Repeatedly.

Walt

[BUFDRVR]

>>> but the president is ultimately
>>>responsible -- he --absolutely is
>>
>>And when have I said any different?
>
>Repeatedly.

Than you should have no problem producing that quote.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[WalterM140]

>>>> but the president is ultimately
>>>>responsible -- he --absolutely is
>>>
>>>And when have I said any different?
>>
>>Repeatedly.
>
>Than you should have no problem producing that quote.
>
>
>BUFDRVR

Here's one:

"Unlike you, my preference for who sits in the White House has nothing to do
with my views on this issue. You are arguing the President is responsible for
the individual actions of over 1 million U.S. service members serving on all 7
continents, this is ridiculous."

Walt

[BUFDRVR]

>>Thse were obvious mistakes at the time.
>
>This was one of the worst. And they all together are getting our guys killed
>in
>Iraq

"our guys"? while I'm sure a few of those service members killed were DNC card
carriers, surely you don't consider us "political neutrals" or, God forbid,
Republican card carriers as part of some group you're a part of (like fellow
American)?

>>I wasn't. Nor am I silent IRT the observation that George H Bush
>>sent those troops to Somalia and left them there to spite
>>Clinton for winning the election.

I know you didn't type this Walt, but this guy must be the DNC chairman. Bush
left those troops in Somalia to continue to protect food shipments. Only a true
left wing nut would put Somalia in the "vast right wing conspiracy" catagory.

>>> The focus on A-Q must be global, not just in one country. This is what
>>> President Bush is doing.
>>
>>No. He pulled troops out of the hunt for Al Quada in places like the
>>Horn fo Africa and sent them to Iraq.

I would love to see a site that posted that JTF-HOA was downsized so JTF-7
could be plussed up. This doesn't stand up to the facts.

>Bears repeating.

Because if you repeat something untrue enough times it makes it true?

>>Under his direction this Administration has flouted the rule of law.
>>I daresay that the abuses of foreign prisoners in American-Run
>>overseas prisons are a direct and forseeable consequence of the
>>climate he created.

Then please explain why I wasn't drawn to pot smoking, cheating on my wife with
a fat woman or lying under oath during the Clinton administration.

>Great comments. Don't expect to sway locksteppers like BUFDRVR
>
>Walt
>

Lockstepper? You lowly anti-American left wing zealot. You have no idea about
who I do, and do not support. Go away loser.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[WalterM140]

>>>I wasn't. Nor am I silent IRT the observation that George H Bush
>>>sent those troops to Somalia and left them there to spite
>>>Clinton for winning the election.
>
>I know you didn't type this Walt, but this guy must be the DNC chairman.

Can you suggest another reason that Pres. Bush rebuffed pleas by various
humanitarian organizations to send troops for a year, and then sent them once
he lost the election?

The thing is that Bush Sr. is more responsible for what happened in Modadisgu
than the Clinton administration is.

It's largely forgotten, but this was a hideous thing that Bush Sr. did.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>Then please explain why I wasn't drawn to pot smoking, cheating on my wife
>with
>a fat woman or lying under oath during the Clinton administration.
>

So you have been since?

Walt

[BUFDRVR]

>>Than you should have no problem producing that quote.
>>
>>
>>BUFDRVR
>
>Here's one:
>
>"Unlike you, my preference for who sits in the White House has nothing to do
>with my views on this issue. You are arguing the President is responsible for
>the individual actions of over 1 million U.S. service members serving on all
>7
>continents, this is ridiculous."
>
>Walt


You obviously don't know or can't comprhend the difference between the
President being "ultimately responsible" (that is; responsible as C-in-C for
the *overall conduct* of the U.S. military) and responsible for each and ever
action of over 1 million service members. You are "flip-flopping" (go Kerry
,go) yet again. Several posts ago you said a commander (much lower in the Chain
of Command than the C-In-C) was not personally responsible if a vehicle was not
properly maintained by a negligent NCO, now you're saying the "ultimate
responsibility" of the President means he's responsible for every individual
U.S. members actions. Perhaps in your examples, your commander is a Democrat?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>Can you suggest another reason that Pres. Bush rebuffed pleas by various
>humanitarian organizations to send troops for a year, and then sent them once
>he lost the election?

See, once again your politics interfere with accurate information. Here's a
qoute from Globalsecurity.org;

"Operation Provide Relief - Somalia

Operation Provide Relief in Somalia began in August 1992, when the White House
announced US military transports would support the multinational United Nations
relief effort in Somalia. Ten C-130s and 400 people deployed to Mombasa, Kenya,
during Operation Provide Relief, airlifting aid to remote areas in Somalia to
reduce reliance on truck convoys. One member of the 86th Supply Squadron
deployed with the ground support contingent, USAFE's only contribution to the
operation. The Air Force C-130s delivered 48,000 tons of food and medical
supplies in six months to international humanitarian organizations, trying to
help over three million starving people. When this proved inadequate to stop
the massive death and displacement of Somali people (500,000 dead; 1.5 million
refugees or displaced), the U.S. in December 1992 launched a major coalition
operation to assist and protect humanitarian activities. The operation was
successful in stopping the famine and saving an estimated 200,000 lives, as
well as de-escalating the high-intensity civil war into low-level, local
skirmishes."

Seems Bush was responding to an actual need and not to "set up" Clinton. You
guys and these "vast right wing conspiracies" will they never end.


>The thing is that Bush Sr. is more responsible for what happened in Modadisgu
>than the Clinton administration is.
>

Not in reality, but in your little lefty world of course it is. More from
Globalsecurity.org;

"On December 3rd, U.N. Security Resolution 794 authorized the U.S. led
intervention "to use all necessary means to establish a secure environment for
humanitarian relief operations in Somalia as soon as possible."

Say it aint so! A U.N. operation, just like all you leftys love.

More;

"By March 1993, mass starvation had been overcome, and security was much
improved. At its peak, almost 30,000 US military personnel participated in the
operation, along with 10,000 personnel from twenty-four other states."

You're right, that evil Bush, all he did was order an operation that saved
hundreds of thousands of Somalis.

>It's largely forgotten, but this was a hideous thing that Bush Sr. did.

What color is the sky in your world? The only hideous thing done in Somalia was
done by the U.N. and approved by Clinton. Once the operation changed from a
security one to "nation building" it was doomed. Every military advisor to
Clinton told him to pull out U.S. forces before the operation changed direction
OR beef up the U.S. presence significantly. Clinton ignored them, left U.S.
force strength the same and proceeded with an entirely different mission. The
results were predictible.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[George Z. Bush]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> > >Ditto on weapons of mass destruction supposedly held by Saddam.
> >>
> >> When the head of the CIA says its a "slam dunk" case, who should argue with
> >> him?
>
> >Please point us to some documentation that head of the CIA says its
> >a "slam dunk" case.
>
> That's what Woodward's book "Plan of Attack" says.

That's not all. Here are a few more links that prove the point:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/prather.php?articleid=2383
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38198
http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38198
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1124110/posts

There's a lot more but that ought to prove that an awful lot of people heard and
reported the statement. If anyone needs an audio tape of the statement, they
can probably find one somewhere in Google if it's worth the effort.

George Z.

[WalterM140]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A leading military newspaper said that US Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone for the prisoner abuse scandal
in Iraq by refusing to give captives rights due prisoners of war under
the Geneva Conventions.

"This was a failure that ran straight to the top," said the editorial
appearing in the May 17 edition of the Military Times weeklies.

"Accountability here is essential -- even if that means relieving top
leaders from duty in a time of war," it said.

Owned by Gannett, the Military Times publishes the Army, Navy and Air
Force times, weeklies that are widely read by servicemembers and
distributed on US military bases around the world.

The editorial said the soldiers caught in photographs and videos
abusing prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison are referred to around the
Pentagon as "the six morons who lost the war."

"But the folks in the Pentagon are talking about the wrong morons," it
said.

Responsibility, it said, "extends all the way up the chain of command
to the highest reaches of the military hierarchy and its civilian
leadership."

"The entire affair is a failure of leadership from start to finish,"
it said.

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone early in this war by
steadfastly refusing to give captives the rights accorded to prisoners
of war under the Geneva Convention," it said.

"From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and
accorded no rights whatsoever. The message to the troops: Anything
goes."

The editorial also faults General Richard Myers, the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, for trying to persuade CBS television to
refrain from airing the images while failing to read the army's own
damning internal report detailing the abuses.

"On the battlefield, Myers' and Rumsfelds' errors would be called a
lack of situational awareness -- a failure that amounts to
professional negligence," it said.

[BUFDRVR]

wrote:

>A leading military newspaper said that US Defense
>Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone for the prisoner abuse scandal
>in Iraq by refusing to give captives rights due prisoners of war under
>the Geneva Conventions.

Actually an *editorial* in a "leading military newspaper" made that claim.

I read editorials every week in Air Force Times that are based on nothing more
than the opinion of a single person. Hardly a news worthy item. Hell, I can
submit an editorial next week refuting everything this guy says. If they print
it does that make it true?

>"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone early in this war by
>steadfastly refusing to give captives the rights accorded to prisoners
>of war under the Geneva Convention," it said.

"it" was wrong. OIF differed substantially from OEF until a few months ago.
From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam Hussain)
were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention. It wasn't until the
introduction of foreign fighters that things got blurry. A captured Saudi is
*not* afforded protection under the Geneva convention for fighting Americans in
Iraq.

>From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and
>accorded no rights whatsoever

If they're Iraqis and in uniform they have Geneva convention rights. Remove
either of the two and they are not protected under Geneva. Does this mean they
should be treated as they were in Abu Gharib? Hell no, but lets not confuse the
issue with dubious "facts".


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[WalterM140]

>>Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone for the prisoner abuse scandal
>>in Iraq by refusing to give captives rights due prisoners of war under
>>the Geneva Conventions.
>
>Actually an *editorial* in a "leading military newspaper" made that claim.

The editors at the Military Times pretty much support the same interpretation
of command responsibility that I do.

>I read editorials every week in Air Force Times that are based on nothing
>more
>than the opinion of a single person.

The posts you make on this NG -- are they the opinion of a single person?

>>"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone early in this war by
>>steadfastly refusing to give captives the rights accorded to prisoners
>>of war under the Geneva Convention," it said.

>"it" was wrong. OIF differed substantially from OEF until a few months ago.

No, "it's" right. President Bush is ultimately repsonsible for what has
happened in Iraq, which James Webb -- no leftie, he-- called the greatest
strategic failure in the last 50 years.

>From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam Hussain)
>were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention.

Many have not been. In fact, I don't know that the record shows that any large
number have.

What has come out in the media in the last few days is that General Miller was
brought in from Gitmo (I have been there too, BTW) to make all the detention
facilities into interrogation centers in direct difiance of the Geneva
Convention.

> It wasn't until the
>introduction of foreign fighters that things got blurry.

You can try and show that.

>A captured Saudi is
>*not* afforded protection under the Geneva convention for fighting Americans
>in
>Iraq.

Where do you see that?

>>From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and
>>accorded no rights whatsoever
>
>If they're Iraqis and in uniform they have Geneva convention rights. Remove
>either of the two and they are not protected under Geneva.

Then why did Rumsfeld --say-- they were being treated in accordance with the
Geneva Conventions?

>Does this mean they
>should be treated as they were in Abu Gharib? Hell no, but lets not confuse
>the
>issue with dubious "facts".

You're practically a shill for the Bushies. You typically stay well away from
the facts.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>You obviously don't know or can't comprhend the difference between the
>President being "ultimately responsible" (that is; responsible as C-in-C for
>the *overall conduct* of the U.S. military) and responsible for each and ever
>action of over 1 million service members. You are "flip-flopping" (go Kerry
>,go) yet again. Several posts ago you said a commander (much lower in the
>Chain
>of Command than the C-In-C) was not personally responsible if a vehicle was
>not
>properly maintained by a negligent NCO, now you're saying the "ultimate
>responsibility" of the President means he's responsible for every individual
>U.S. members actions. Perhaps in your examples, your commander is a Democrat?
>

What I've said on this issue is pretty much what the editorial staff at the
Military Times has said. I am willing to leave it there.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>>Can you suggest another reason that Pres. Bush rebuffed pleas by various
>>humanitarian organizations to send troops for a year, and then sent them
>once
>>he lost the election?

>See, once again your politics interfere with accurate information. Here's a
>qoute from Globalsecurity.org;
>
>"Operation Provide Relief - Somalia
>
>Operation Provide Relief in Somalia began in August 1992,

I have a quote too. It's even from globalsecurity.org, and it gives the start
of US involvement as December 9, 1992 --- after Bush One lost the election:

"Problem. Moved by the searing images of starving Somalis United States went
ashore in Mogadishu, Somalia on 9 December 1992 to begin Operation Restore
Hope. What began as an operation to provide a secure environment for the
distribution of relief supplies and evolved into an effort to bring the Somali
people to a government ended with a whimper 27 months later."


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/HAG.htm

You are not having much luck keeping the facts straight.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>>The thing is that Bush Sr. is more responsible for what happened in
>Modadisgu
>>than the Clinton administration is.
>>
>

>Not in reality, but in your little lefty world of course it is. More from
>Globalsecurity.org;
>
>"On December 3rd, U.N. Security Resolution 794 authorized the U.S. led
>intervention "to use all necessary means to establish a secure environment for
>humanitarian relief operations in Somalia as soon as possible."

December 3 was after Bush One lost the election.

GHWB set the Clinton Adminstration up to fail. The fact that it meant US
servicemen had to die to do it meant nothing to him.

Walt

[WalterM140]

BFFDRVR says:

>>From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam
>Hussain)
>>were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention.

I don't believe that is true. You can try and back up that assertion.

This is from today's New York Times:

"Now the second highest ranking Filipino-American in the Army, General "Taguba
also pulled no punches in the 53-page document now known as the Taguba report,
which cited "egregious acts and grave breaches of international law." General
Taguba is scheduled to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee on
Tuesday as the leadoff witness in a day of hearings on the abuses."


Whatever rights the Iraqi militiamen had or didn't have, the Bush
Administration has committed, per General Taguba's report:

"egregious acts and grave breaches of international law."

And the president is responsible.

Walt

[WalterM140]

(BUFDRVR) wrote:

>From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam Hussain)
>were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention.

And yet:

"Now the second highest ranking Filipino-American in the Army, General Taguba
also pulled no punches in the 53-page document now known as the Taguba report,
which cited "egregious acts and grave breaches of international law." General
Taguba is scheduled to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee on
Tuesday as the leadoff witness in a day of hearings on the abuses."

"egregious acts and grave breaches of international law." for which President
Bush is responsible.

Walt

[BUFDRVR]

WalterM140 wrote:

>>Actually an *editorial* in a "leading military newspaper" made that claim.
>
>The editors at the Military Times pretty much support the same interpretation
>of command responsibility that I do.

Actually the guy that wrote the editorial believes those higher in the command
chain are also responsible, but he does not call for Bush to take
responsibility.

>>I read editorials every week in Air Force Times that are based on nothing
>>more
>>than the opinion of a single person.
>
>The posts you make on this NG -- are they the opinion of a single person?
>

I post my own opinion, but support them with facts. You on the other hand just
spout your typical leftist crap supported by nothing.

>No, "it's" right. President Bush is ultimately repsonsible for what has
>happened in Iraq, which James Webb -- no leftie, he-- called the greatest
>strategic failure in the last 50 years.

Once again, you suffer from lack of knowledge. You claim Iraqi prisoners have
never been treated according to the Geneva Convention;do you have any
supporting info for this claim? No? I thought not.

>Many have not been.

Then prove it.

>What has come out in the media in the last few days is that General Miller
>was
>brought in from Gitmo (I have been there too, BTW) to make all the detention
>facilities into interrogation centers in direct difiance of the Geneva
>Convention.

Interrogations are legal by the Geneva Convention you nit wit.

>> It wasn't until the
>>introduction of foreign fighters that things got blurry.
>
>You can try and show that.

So far all the abuse cases and even the Red Cross reports date back to this
winter, not to the beginning of the operation. The Red Cross had full access to
Iraqi PWs from APR 03 on and they did not report any abuse cases till this past
winter.

>>A captured Saudi is
>>*not* afforded protection under the Geneva convention for fighting Americans
>>in
>>Iraq.
>
>Where do you see that?

Where do I "see" that? In the Geneva Convention you moron. If I decide I want
to pick up and fight for India in the Kashmir region tommorow and do so without
becoming an Indian citizen and putting on a recognized military uniform I am an
unlawful combatant. Not only does the Geneva Convention offer no protection, it
states unlawful combatants, depending on their activity, can be considered
spies and executed.

>>If they're Iraqis and in uniform they have Geneva convention rights. Remove
>>either of the two and they are not protected under Geneva.
>
>Then why did Rumsfeld --say-- they were being treated in accordance with the
>Geneva Conventions?

Because we have treated every captive in accordance with Geneva. Even the
unlawful combatants captured in Afghanistan have been accorded the treatment
specified for legal combatants (with the exception of repatrioting them after
the conflict is over).

>You're practically a shill for the Bushies. You typically stay well away from
>the facts.

You're a sad, pathetic troll who has no clue about the military or military
operations.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

WalterM140 wrote:

>What I've said on this issue is pretty much what the editorial staff at the
>Military Times has said. I am willing to leave it there.
>

Actually, its what one reader wrote, but keep making yourself feel better
troll.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

WalterM140 wrote:

>>Operation Provide Relief in Somalia began in August 1992,
>
>I have a quote too. It's even from globalsecurity.org, and it gives the
>start
>of US involvement as December 9, 1992 --- after Bush One lost the election:

You sad, pathetic little troll, now you are arguing U.S. involvement didn't
begin until December? You fool, a large armed U.S. force did not appear until
December and was sent it at the request of the U.N. Operation Restore Hope was
an unqualified success and you snipped the part of my post where it was praised
for preventing 200,000 Somalis from starving to death. You are the most
pathetic troll I've seen on this news group.

>What began as an operation to provide a secure environment for the
>distribution of relief supplies and evolved into an effort to bring the
>Somali
>people to a government ended with a whimper 27 months later."

Excellent, yes the above is true. But who was President when the mission
changed from one of; "providing a secure environment for the distribution of
relief supplies" to it "evolution of; "an effort to bring the Somali people to
a government" It was Clinton you nit wit. The UN requested (after the Pakastani
convoy was attacked) that stability operations be undertaken. Clinton agreed,
much to the chagrin of *all* his military advisors who argued that the U.S.
forces in place were not equipped for stability operations.

>You are not having much luck keeping the facts straight.
>

You can't even read troll.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>GHWB set the Clinton Adminstration up to fail.

You sad, sorry troll. Bush had things in Somalia well in hand when he left
office in January. It wasn't until May (5 months later you idiot) that
Operation Restore Hope turned into Operation Continue Hope and the mission
changed from food security to "nation building". Only a moron would blame Bush
for Clintons failures 5 months after he left office. Had Clinton either
a.)removed U.S. forces when the mission changed (like I believe Bush would have
done) or b.) Beefed up U.S. forces than the disaster of "Black Hawk Down" and
the other large scale U.S. fighting would never have happened.

>The fact that it meant US
>servicemen had to die to do it meant nothing to him.

Beat it troll.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[George Z. Bush]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >>Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone for the prisoner abuse scandal
> >>in Iraq by refusing to give captives rights due prisoners of war under
> >>the Geneva Conventions.
> >
> >Actually an *editorial* in a "leading military newspaper" made that claim.
>
> The editors at the Military Times pretty much support the same interpretation
> of command responsibility that I do.
>
> >I read editorials every week in Air Force Times that are based on nothing
> >more
> >than the opinion of a single person.
>
> The posts you make on this NG -- are they the opinion of a single person?
>
> >>"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone early in this war by
> >>steadfastly refusing to give captives the rights accorded to prisoners
> >>of war under the Geneva Convention," it said.
>
> >"it" was wrong. OIF differed substantially from OEF until a few months ago.
>
> No, "it's" right. President Bush is ultimately repsonsible for what has
> happened in Iraq, which James Webb -- no leftie, he-- called the greatest
> strategic failure in the last 50 years.
>
> >From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam Hussain)
> >were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention.

If that were the case, why did the International Red Cross repeatedly advise us
both verbally and in writing since February 2004 that there were systemic
failures in the treatment of detainees in Iraq that were in violation of the
Geneva Conventions relating to the treatment of detainees? Why did nobody in
our government pay attention, or investigate, or do anything about cleaning up
the mess until a couple of weeks ago, when the stuff hit the fan and became
public knowledge?
>
> Many have not been. In fact, I don't know that the record shows that any
large
> number have.
>
> What has come out in the media in the last few days is that General Miller was
> brought in from Gitmo (I have been there too, BTW) to make all the detention
> facilities into interrogation centers in direct difiance of the Geneva
> Convention.
>
> > It wasn't until the
> >introduction of foreign fighters that things got blurry.
>
> You can try and show that.
>
> >A captured Saudi is
> >*not* afforded protection under the Geneva convention for fighting Americans
> >in
> >Iraq.

If he's a detainee, he certainly is.
>
> Where do you see that?

This is part of the 4th Geneva Convention, enacted in August 1949, to which both
the U. S. and Iraq are signatories:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to
the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed
forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by
sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be
treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour,
religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and
in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation,
cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading
treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous
judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

>
> >>From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and
> >>accorded no rights whatsoever
> >
> >If they're Iraqis and in uniform they have Geneva convention rights. Remove
> >either of the two and they are not protected under Geneva.

You obviously haven't read the Geneva Convention.....take another look - if they
were not fighting while taken prisoner, they're covered, whether or not they
were soldiers.
>
> Then why did Rumsfeld --say-- they were being treated in accordance with the
> Geneva Conventions?

You've never heard of "CYA"? Maybe it's been a while since he looked at the
Fourth Convention; anyway, anybody who can read par. (1)(c) of the Convention
(look above) wouldn't be saying that.
>
> >Does this mean they
> >should be treated as they were in Abu Gharib? Hell no, but lets not confuse
> >the
> >issue with dubious "facts".
>
> You're practically a shill for the Bushies. You typically stay well away from
> the facts.
>
> Walt

[BUFDRVR]

WalterM140, our leftist troll, wrote:

>>From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam
>Hussain)
>>were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention.
>
>And yet:
>
>"Now the second highest ranking Filipino-American in the Army, General Taguba
>also pulled no punches in the 53-page document now known as the Taguba
>report,
>which cited "egregious acts and grave breaches of international law." General
>Taguba is scheduled to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee on
>Tuesday as the leadoff witness in a day of hearings on the abuses."


I missed where the General stated that the abuse of Iraqi prisoners goes back
to the beginning of the conflict in MAR 2003. Oh...that's because he never
claimed that you twit.

>"egregious acts and grave breaches of international law." for which
>President
>Bush is responsible.

According to you and your ilk, Bush is responsible for everything wrong in the
world, and the U.S. as a whole is also responsible.

Beat it troll.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

George Z. Bush wrote:

>> >From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam
>Hussain)
>> >were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention.
>
>If that were the case, why did the International Red Cross repeatedly advise
>us
>both verbally and in writing since
>February 2004 that there were systemic
>failures in the treatment of detainees in Iraq

You're not following the argument George. I agree, this winter when things
started to turn into a full blown insurgency, our jailors began to act
unlawfully. What "Walt" is arguing is that since the beginning (March 2003) of
OIF, Iraqi PWs have been abused. According to Walt, its because Bush ordered
it, or somehow (through his "behavior") condoned it. I'm not arguing with what
happened this winter, but if you and Walt believe that this was the standard
since combat ops began, you're ignoring facts. The Red Cross had access to
Iraqi PWs since April 2003, they didn't report abuses until this past winter.

>Why did nobody in
>our government pay attention, or investigate, or do anything about cleaning
>up
>the mess until a couple of weeks ago, when the stuff hit the fan and became
>public knowledge?

Investigations were begun before this became public a few weeks ago. Why was no
immediate action taken as soon as the Red Cross report was provided? My guess
is because those who read the report didn't believe it. Prior to seeing the
pictures I wouldn't have believed it either.

>> >A captured Saudi is
>> >*not* afforded protection under the Geneva convention for fighting
>Americans
>> >in
>> >Iraq.
>
>If he's a detainee, he certainly is.

You'll have to point out where Geneva states that a third party national
conducting military operations in a foreign country is a "detainee" and not an
unlawful combatant.

>(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities

While there were some "suspects" in Abu Gharib, most were captured unlawful
combatants.

>To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
>and
>in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
>(a) violence to life...<snip>

Once again George, you aren't following my argument. I'm not trying to justify
these horrible acts. I am making two points. First, while we choose to follow
the Geneva convention for *all* combatants, both lawful and unlawful, it does
not mean that all our prisoners are automatically entitled this protection.
Second, this abhorant behavior is not a reflection of anyone other than those
immediately involved. If you listen to our resident leftist troll Walt, Bush
ordered or at least condoned these abuses and should be held accountable. Walt
attempts to prove Bush's direct involvement by claiming U.S. forces, since
combat operations began, have never afforded Iraq PWs the treatment due the
under Geneva.

>> >If they're Iraqis and in uniform they have Geneva convention rights.
>Remove
>> >either of the two and they are not protected under Geneva.
>
>You obviously haven't read the Geneva Convention....

Sorry George, every year we were required to take a test on the Geneva
Convention articles during our "Laws of Armed Conflict" training. I'm sure I've
either read or been briefed them many more times than you.

>take another look - if they
>were not fighting while taken prisoner, they're covered, whether or not they
>were soldiers.

Who has said anything about non-combatants? This is the first introduction of
non-combatants into the issue. Do you have a point to make about
non-combatants?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "WalterM140" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >>Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone for the prisoner abuse scandal
> > >>in Iraq by refusing to give captives rights due prisoners of war under
> > >>the Geneva Conventions.
> > >
> > >Actually an *editorial* in a "leading military newspaper" made that
claim.
> >
> > The editors at the Military Times pretty much support the same
interpretation
> > of command responsibility that I do.
> >
> > >I read editorials every week in Air Force Times that are based on
nothing
> > >more
> > >than the opinion of a single person.
> >
> > The posts you make on this NG -- are they the opinion of a single
person?
> >
> > >>"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone early in this war by
> > >>steadfastly refusing to give captives the rights accorded to prisoners
> > >>of war under the Geneva Convention," it said.
> >
> > >"it" was wrong. OIF differed substantially from OEF until a few months
ago.
> >
> > No, "it's" right. President Bush is ultimately repsonsible for what has
> > happened in Iraq, which James Webb -- no leftie, he-- called the
greatest
> > strategic failure in the last 50 years.
> >
> > >From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam
Hussain)
> > >were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention.
>
> If that were the case, why did the International Red Cross repeatedly
advise us
> both verbally and in writing since February 2004 that there were systemic
> failures in the treatment of detainees in Iraq that were in violation of
the
> Geneva Conventions relating to the treatment of detainees? Why did nobody
in
> our government pay attention, or investigate, or do anything about
cleaning up
> the mess until a couple of weeks ago, when the stuff hit the fan and
became
> public knowledge?

Since February 2004? Maybe because by that time we were already in the midst
of our own investigations, had already releived the Abu Ghraib MP
leadership, and were developing criminal charges against involved personnel?

If you are referring to the *original* ICRC concerns, from *last* year, then
yeah, we are guilty...of forcing PW's to sit in unlighted cells? Gosh, now
that *is* nasty...given that 90 plus percent of the *rest* of the Iraqi
population was also without benefit of electric lighting at that time.
Beyond that we don't know very much about what the specific concerns of the
ICRC were, though we know they were none too happy with our detainee policy,
etc., in general (who'd have thunk it?).

> >
> > Many have not been. In fact, I don't know that the record shows that
any
> large
> > number have.
> >
> > What has come out in the media in the last few days is that General
Miller was
> > brought in from Gitmo (I have been there too, BTW) to make all the
detention
> > facilities into interrogation centers in direct difiance of the Geneva
> > Convention.
> >
> > > It wasn't until the
> > >introduction of foreign fighters that things got blurry.
> >
> > You can try and show that.
> >
> > >A captured Saudi is
> > >*not* afforded protection under the Geneva convention for fighting
Americans
> > >in
> > >Iraq.
>
> If he's a detainee, he certainly is.
> >
> > Where do you see that?
>
> This is part of the 4th Geneva Convention, enacted in August 1949, to
which both
> the U. S. and Iraq are signatories:
>
> Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
> occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each
Party to
> the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
> provisions:
>
> (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of
armed
> forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by
> sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
circumstances be
> treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour,
> religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
>
> To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
and
> in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
> (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation,
> cruel treatment and torture;
> (b) taking of hostages;
> (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and
degrading
> treatment;
> (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous
> judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the
judicial
> guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
>

Nice, but that would only apply to the former members of the Iraqi armed
forces, or the local populace, not external insurgents; note that Article 3
also applies only to "conflict not of an international character" (i.e., a
civil war). You get an "A" for effort, but a "D" for applicability to the
posited case of the Saudi fighter captured in Iraq. You might want to peruse
Article 4:

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including
those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the
conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this
territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps,
including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following
conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war.

Note that the four requirements must *all* be met, in addition to the bit
about being a memeber of "a party to the conflict". Sorry, but the posited
Saudi insurgent does not seem to fit that mold, either. So,,,nope, he is not
entitled to PW status.

> >
> > >>From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and
> > >>accorded no rights whatsoever
> > >
> > >If they're Iraqis and in uniform they have Geneva convention rights.
Remove
> > >either of the two and they are not protected under Geneva.
>
> You obviously haven't read the Geneva Convention.....take another look -
if they
> were not fighting while taken prisoner, they're covered, whether or not
they
> were soldiers.

Not necessarily. See Article 4. Itappears that you obviously HAVE read only
those portions of the GC that (appear at first glance to) suit your
preconceived notions.

> >
> > Then why did Rumsfeld --say-- they were being treated in accordance with
the
> > Geneva Conventions?
>
> You've never heard of "CYA"? Maybe it's been a while since he looked at
the
> Fourth Convention; anyway, anybody who can read par. (1)(c) of the
Convention
> (look above) wouldn't be saying that.

Again, read both the preamble to the Article 3 and the entire Article 4. If
you can do so with an open mind (doubtful, I am afraid, given your past
track record), you will see that the case can definitely be made that the
external sourced insurgents don't meet the PW criteria, and that activities
of some of the former Iraqi military personnel who have since retaken up
arms puts them outside the purview of Article 4.

Brooks

> >
> > >Does this mean they
> > >should be treated as they were in Abu Gharib? Hell no, but lets not
confuse
> > >the
> > >issue with dubious "facts".
> >
> > You're practically a shill for the Bushies. You typically stay well away
from
> > the facts.
> >
> > Walt
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> George Z. Bush wrote:
>
> >> >From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam
> >Hussain)
> >> >were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention.
> >
> >If that were the case, why did the International Red Cross repeatedly
advise
> >us
> >both verbally and in writing since
> >February 2004 that there were systemic
> >failures in the treatment of detainees in Iraq
>
> You're not following the argument George. I agree, this winter when things
> started to turn into a full blown insurgency, our jailors began to act
> unlawfully. What "Walt" is arguing is that since the beginning (March
2003) of
> OIF, Iraqi PWs have been abused. According to Walt, its because Bush
ordered
> it, or somehow (through his "behavior") condoned it. I'm not arguing with
what
> happened this winter, but if you and Walt believe that this was the
standard
> since combat ops began, you're ignoring facts. The Red Cross had access to
> Iraqi PWs since April 2003, they didn't report abuses until this past
winter.
>
> >Why did nobody in
> >our government pay attention, or investigate, or do anything about
cleaning
> >up
> >the mess until a couple of weeks ago, when the stuff hit the fan and
became
> >public knowledge?
>
> Investigations were begun before this became public a few weeks ago. Why
was no
> immediate action taken as soon as the Red Cross report was provided? My
guess
> is because those who read the report didn't believe it. Prior to seeing
the
> pictures I wouldn't have believed it either.

We don't really know much about *what* the ICRC was actually reporting--the
only specific example I have seen so far released to the press was that they
mentioned they were concerned over keeping prisoners in unlit cells, which
would appear to be not only a pretty trivial concern but also understandable
as the lights were out across a goodly portion of Iraq during the first few
months after we took over.

Brooks

<snip>

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> "WalterM140" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > >Ditto on weapons of mass destruction supposedly held by Saddam.
> > >>
> > >> When the head of the CIA says its a "slam dunk" case, who should argue with
> > >> him?
>
> > >Please point us to some documentation that head of the CIA says its
> > >a "slam dunk" case.
> >
> > That's what Woodward's book "Plan of Attack" says.
>
> That's not all. Here are a few more links that prove the point:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/
> http://www.antiwar.com/orig/prather.php?articleid=2383
> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38198
> http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38198
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1124110/posts
>

Those all refer back to Woodward's book "Plan of Attack". In fact
most of those are copies of the same article published on multiple
web pages.


> There's a lot more but that ought to prove that an awful lot of people heard and
> reported the statement.

There is NOTHING in there to indicate that anyone other than Bush
and Tenet allegedly heard or reported the statement. McLaughlin
hould have heard it, has he said he did? Woodwards says he interviewed
75 people, he does not say that 75 people confirmed the statement.
Tenet has covered for Bush befor.

Tenet has covered for Bush befor.

No one has ever shown any hard evidence that the US intelligence
abotu WMDs in Iraq was substantively in error. It has only been
shown that the public statements were contrary to fact.

> If anyone needs an audio tape of the statement, they
> can probably find one somewhere in Google if it's worth the effort.

But could you authenticate it?

--

FF

[WalterM140]

>No one has ever shown any hard evidence that the US intelligence
>abotu WMDs in Iraq was substantively in error.

Except we can't find them.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>> >From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam
>Hussain)
>> >were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention.
>
>If that were the case, why did the International Red Cross repeatedly advise
>us
>both verbally and in writing since February 2004 that there were systemic
>failures in the treatment of detainees in Iraq that were in violation of the
>Geneva Conventions relating to the treatment of detainees?

Because Bufdrvr is in a dream world of slaveish devotion to Bush and his
agenda.

Why did nobody in
>our government pay attention, or investigate, or do anything about cleaning
>up
>the mess until a couple of weeks ago, when the stuff hit the fan and became
>public knowledge?
>>
>> Many have not been. In fact, I don't know that the record shows that any
>large
>> number have.
>>
>> What has come out in the media in the last few days is that General Miller
>was
>> brought in from Gitmo (I have been there too, BTW) to make all the
>detention
>> facilities into interrogation centers in direct difiance of the Geneva
>> Convention.
>>
>> > It wasn't until the
>> >introduction of foreign fighters that things got blurry.
>>
>> You can try and show that.
>>
>> >A captured Saudi is
>> >*not* afforded protection under the Geneva convention for fighting
>Americans
>> >in
>> >Iraq.
>
>If he's a detainee, he certainly is.

According to the Genevea Convention, he certainly is.

>>
>> Where do you see that?
>
>This is part of the 4th Geneva Convention, enacted in August 1949, to which
>both
>the U. S. and Iraq are signatories:
>
>Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
>occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party
>to
>the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
>provisions:
>
>(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of
>armed
>forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by
>sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances
>be
>treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour,
>religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

>To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
>and
>in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
>(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
>mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
>(b) taking of hostages;
>(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading
>treatment;
>(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
>previous
>judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the
>judicial
>guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
>
>>
>> >>From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and
>> >>accorded no rights whatsoever
>> >
>> >If they're Iraqis and in uniform they have Geneva convention rights.
>Remove
>> >either of the two and they are not protected under Geneva.
>
>You obviously haven't read the Geneva Convention.....take another look - if
>they
>were not fighting while taken prisoner, they're covered, whether or not they
>were soldiers.
>>
>> Then why did Rumsfeld --say-- they were being treated in accordance with
>the
>> Geneva Conventions?

Good point.


Walt

[WalterM140]

BUFDRVR sends:

>George Z. Bush wrote:
>
>>> >From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam
>>Hussain)
>>> >were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention.
>>
>>If that were the case, why did the International Red Cross repeatedly advise
>>us
>>both verbally and in writing since
>>February 2004 that there were systemic
>>failures in the treatment of detainees in Iraq
>
>You're not following the argument George. I agree, this winter when things
>started to turn into a full blown insurgency, our jailors began to act
>unlawfully. What "Walt" is arguing is that since the beginning (March 2003)
>of
>OIF, Iraqi PWs have been abused.

I don't recall saying that. I've been wondering that as things have gotten
worse and worse, and their November 2 drubbing draws closer and closer, that
the Bushies haven't ramped up the pressure. But it doesn't seem to have started
out this bad, this pressure on the detanees. Don't forget -- the Bushies
-expected- a walk over.

You do have to wonder how they could let the prisoner abse thing bite them in
the butt so badly. Hopefully, it will precipitate a Watergate-like fall. It
would be nice to see Bush and Rumsfeld given criminal indictments.

According to Walt, its because Bush ordered
>it, or somehow (through his "behavior") condoned it.

Bush is ultimately responsible.

I'm not arguing with
>what
>happened this winter, but if you and Walt believe that this was the standard
>since combat ops began, you're ignoring facts.

I don't recall ever saying anything like that.

The Red Cross had access to
>Iraqi PWs since April 2003, they didn't report abuses until this past winter.

Fine with me.


>
>>Why did nobody in
>>our government pay attention, or investigate, or do anything about cleaning
>>up
>>the mess until a couple of weeks ago, when the stuff hit the fan and became
>>public knowledge?
>
>Investigations were begun before this became public a few weeks ago.

And yet the president first saw the pictures of the abuse on "60 Minutes II"

Why was
>no
>immediate action taken as soon as the Red Cross report was provided? My guess
>is because those who read the report didn't believe it. Prior to seeing the
>pictures I wouldn't have believed it either.

I don't know why that would surprise anyone. The Bush administartion has kept
a U.S. citizen in jail for over two years with no charges, no trial and no
access to lawyers. That's Jose Padilla.

Now we recently see the heretofore unbelieveable spectacle of the Solicitor
General of the United States going before the Supreme Court to argue that an
American citizen should not be granted the protections of the sixth amendment.

The prisoner abuse episode was not the first time the Bushies have tossed out
the law.

>
>>> >A captured Saudi is
>>> >*not* afforded protection under the Geneva convention for fighting
>>Americans
>>> >in
>>> >Iraq.
>>
>>If he's a detainee, he certainly is.
>
>You'll have to point out where Geneva states that a third party national
>conducting military operations in a foreign country is a "detainee" and not
>an
>unlawful combatant.
>
>>(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities
>
>While there were some "suspects" in Abu Gharib, most were captured unlawful
>combatants.

That's not true. In fact, you're lying, as it's been reported that 60-70% were
essentially picked up at random.

>
>>To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
>>and
>>in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
>>(a) violence to life...<snip>
>
>Once again George, you aren't following my argument. I'm not trying to
>justify
>these horrible acts.

You lied and you got caught. Does that Bush re-election campaign have a shill
telling lies on every newsgroup?

I am making two points. First, while we choose to follow
>the Geneva convention for *all* combatants, both lawful and unlawful

We haven't done that. We've done just the opposite.

, it does
>not mean that all our prisoners are automatically entitled this protection.

The ones held in Iraq are:

"Rumsfeld replied that the Geneva Conventions applied to all prisoners held in
Iraq but not to those held in Guantanamo Bay, where detainees captured in the
global war on terror are held."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930

But the POW's in Iraq didn't get those protections, did they?

>Second, this abhorant behavior is not a reflection of anyone other than those
>immediately involved.

Of couse it is. Where were the lieutenants and captains? These soldiers were
put in a permssive situation, given a wink and a nod from the MI or whomever,
and it was off to the races. And the Red Cross report said such abuses were
widespread and systemic. An Afghani has also come forward to tell how -he- was
abused in similar ways.

If you listen to our resident leftist troll Walt, Bush
>ordered or at least condoned these abuses and should be held accountable.

Bush is ultimately responsble, yes. And he should be held accountable. He
may be worried about winding up in the dock next to Slobodan Milosovic.

>Walt
>attempts to prove Bush's direct involvement

I never said that. I said he is ultimately responsible. You're missing my
take on GWB. I think he's a puppet. He sounds like a retard to me.

Why did he have it leaked last Thursday or Friday that he had "admonished" the
SecDef, and then this Monday say he was doing a "superb" job? Maybe Cheney
crossed his signals.


by claiming U.S. forces, since
>combat operations began, have never afforded Iraq PWs the treatment due the
>under Geneva.

I never said anything like that. I said that Bush was ultimately responsible
for what happens or fails to happens -- the concept that was drilled into me in
the Marine Corps.

>
>>> >If they're Iraqis and in uniform they have Geneva convention rights.
>>Remove
>>> >either of the two and they are not protected under Geneva.
>>
>>You obviously haven't read the Geneva Convention....
>
>Sorry George, every year we were required to take a test on the Geneva
>Convention articles during our "Laws of Armed Conflict" training.

Then you are lying. George -did- quote it after all, and as the SedDef's
testimony I quote above shows, he knew he was obligated to make sure that the
detainees in Iraq were not sodomized, or threatened with attack dogs and all
the rest.

You seem to be forgetting also, that the SecDef has -taken- responsibility. He
-said- he was responsible. Of course he reports to GWB.


I'm sure
>I've
>either read or been briefed them many more times than you.
>
>>take another look - if they
>>were not fighting while taken prisoner, they're covered, whether or not they
>>were soldiers.
>
>Who has said anything about non-combatants? This is the first introduction of
>non-combatants into the issue. Do you have a point to make about
>non-combatants?

You got caught lying. Well, it's not the first time.

Walt

[WalterM140]

Brooks:

>4. If
>you can do so with an open mind (doubtful, I am afraid, given your past
>track record), you will see that the case can definitely be made that the
>external sourced insurgents don't meet the PW criteria, and that activities
of some of the former Iraqi military personnel who have since retaken up
>arms puts them outside the purview of Article 4.

Brooks, did you ever post a retraction of your statement that Gen Shinseki was
retired when he said that "several hundred thousand" troops would be required
in Iraq? He was in fact on active duty, you know.

Was that just a big fat lie on your part, or were you honestly mistaken?

In any case, your statement above is wrong:

"Rumsfeld replied that the Geneva Conventions applied to all prisoners held in
Iraq but not to those held in Guantanamo Bay, where detainees captured in the
global war on terror are held."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930


But those prisoners in Iraq didn't get the protection of the Geneva Convention,
did they? They were stripped and sleep deprived and humiliated and sodomized
and threatened with attack dogs, weren't they?

This is a horrible national disgrace and you and your co-shill are having a
really hard time not telling telling big fat whopping lies to cover it up.

Walt

[WalterM140]

BUFDRVR:

>>>Actually an *editorial* in a "leading military newspaper" made that claim.
>>
>>The editors at the Military Times pretty much support the same
>interpretation
>>of command responsibility that I do.
>
>Actually the guy that wrote the editorial believes those higher in the
>command
>chain are also responsible, but he does not call for Bush to take
>responsibility.

I believe he used the term "highest levels of civilian control" or words to
that effect.

>
>>>I read editorials every week in Air Force Times that are based on nothing
>>>more
>>>than the opinion of a single person.
>>
>>The posts you make on this NG -- are they the opinion of a single person?
>>
>
>I post my own opinion, but support them with facts.

You seldom do that. See below. You posted several items that are false.

You on the other hand
>just
>spout your typical leftist crap supported by nothing.

Others can judge whom they find more credible.

>
>>No, "it's" right. President Bush is ultimately repsonsible for what has
>>happened in Iraq, which James Webb -- no leftie, he-- called the greatest
>>strategic failure in the last 50 years.

No comment about Webb? He's one of my heroes, and he did call the invasion of
Iraq the greatest strategic ---blunder- may have been the word he used.


>Once again, you suffer from lack of knowledge. You claim Iraqi prisoners have
>never been treated according to the Geneva Convention;do you have any
>supporting info for this claim? No? I thought not.

I haven't said they -never- had been granted the protections of the GC. What
seems obvious is that by last fall, pressure was being put on some that was
well outside the bounds of what the GC calls for.

I think the Bushies started getting nervous as their plans disintegrated and
the election began to loom.

>
>>Many have not been.
>
>Then prove it.
>
>>What has come out in the media in the last few days is that General Miller
>>was
>>brought in from Gitmo (I have been there too, BTW) to make all the detention
>>facilities into interrogation centers in direct difiance of the Geneva
>>Convention.
>
>Interrogations are legal by the Geneva Convention you nit wit.

Not with attack dogs.

I remind you again that Rumsfeld testified that all prisoners in Iraq were
covered by the Geneva Convention. But not all received that protection.

>
>>> It wasn't until the
>>>introduction of foreign fighters that things got blurry.
>>
>>You can try and show that.
>
>So far all the abuse cases and even the Red Cross reports date back to this
>winter, not to the beginning of the operation. The Red Cross had full access
>to
>Iraqi PWs from APR 03 on and they did not report any abuse cases till this
>past
>winter.

You haven't demonstrated your point about foreign fighters. And you won't
either. It was a lie.

>
>>>A captured Saudi is
>>>*not* afforded protection under the Geneva convention for fighting
>Americans
>>>in
>>>Iraq.
>>
>>Where do you see that?
>
>Where do I "see" that? In the Geneva Convention you moron.

Rumsfeld this week testifed to another effect:

"Rumsfeld replied that the Geneva Conventions applied to all prisoners held in
Iraq but not to those held in Guantanamo Bay, where detainees captured in the
global war on terror are held."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930



If I decide I want
>to pick up and fight for India in the Kashmir region tommorow and do so
>without
>becoming an Indian citizen and putting on a recognized military uniform I am
>an
>unlawful combatant.

Only in the Bushie world, where they flaunt any laws they don't like.

Not only does the Geneva Convention offer no protection,
>it
>states unlawful combatants, depending on their activity, can be considered
>spies and executed.

That doesn't square with Rumsfeld's testimony.

>
>>>If they're Iraqis and in uniform they have Geneva convention rights. Remove
>>>either of the two and they are not protected under Geneva.
>>
>>Then why did Rumsfeld --say-- they were being treated in accordance with the
>>Geneva Conventions?
>
>Because we have treated every captive in accordance with Geneva.

Even that poor guy threatened with attack dogs?

Even the
>unlawful combatants captured in Afghanistan have been accorded the treatment
>specified for legal combatants (with the exception of repatrioting them after
>the conflict is over).

Flatly false.

Walt

[WalterM140]

I wrote:

>>What I've said on this issue is pretty much what the editorial staff at the
>>Military Times has said. I am willing to leave it there.
>>
>

BUFDRVR wrote:

>Actually, its what one reader wrote, but keep making yourself feel better
>troll.
>

No, Sorry. It was the senior editor, Robert Hodierne. He was interviewed on the
"Today" show also.

His online resume:

http://www.hodierne.com/

You lied -- again--.

You got caught --again--

Walt

[WalterM140]

>WalterM140 wrote:
>
>>>Operation Provide Relief in Somalia began in August 1992,
>>
>>I have a quote too. It's even from globalsecurity.org, and it gives the
>>start
>>of US involvement as December 9, 1992 --- after Bush One lost the election:
>
>You sad, pathetic little troll, now you are arguing U.S. involvement didn't
>begin until December?

That is how globalsecurity.org characterized it.


You fool, a large armed U.S. force did not appear until
>December and was sent it at the request of the U.N.

So GHWB was employed by the UN?

Operation Restore Hope
>was
>an unqualified success and you snipped the part of my post where it was
>praised
>for preventing 200,000 Somalis from starving to death.

Not germane. GHWB sent in troops -after- he lost the election. An
uncharitable person might theink he did that just so the incoming Clinton
administration could stumble, which they promptly did.

One thing we saw with Clinton -- his SecDef -was- fired. Rummy keeps hanging
on, with the Howdy-Doodie praises of GWB in support.

You are the most
>pathetic troll I've seen on this news group.
>

Don't like being caught in lies, huh?

Walt

[BUFDRVR]

WalterM140 wrote:

>Because Bufdrvr is in a dream world of slaveish devotion to Bush and his
>agenda.

You fool, I'm not a member, nor will I ever be, of any political party. I tend
to vote Republican in presidential elections, but I have voted democrat for the
Senate seats in my home state of record. You, on the other hand, are a blinded,
partisan fool who blames Bush for every action taken by the military while
excusing Clinton and blaming Bush ("the elder") for Somalia. You're an idiot
that's trying to have things both ways.

Go away troll.

>>If he's a detainee, he certainly is.
>
>According to the Genevea Convention, he certainly is.
>

A Saudi shooting an AK-47 at U.S. military troops in Iraq is an unlawful
combatant with no protection under the Geneva Convention. And you wonder why I
doubt your military service?

>>> Then why did Rumsfeld --say-- they were being treated in accordance with
>>the
>>> Geneva Conventions?
>
>Good point.

Because official U.S. policy is to treat all captured personnel in accordance
with the Geneva Convention. Because we choose to do that, does not mean they
are granted automatic status under Geneva.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

WalterM140 wrote:

>>You sad, pathetic little troll, now you are arguing U.S. involvement didn't
>>begin until December?
>
>That is how globalsecurity.org characterized it.

Idiot. U.S. forces were involved from the beginning. Only an idiot would argue
against facts.

>>You fool, a large armed U.S. force did not appear until
>>December and was sent it at the request of the U.N.
>
>So GHWB was employed by the UN?

Employed? Are you that dumb? The U.N. made a request, the U.S. obiliged, I
thought you leftys loved this kind of U.N. stuff?

>Not germane. GHWB sent in troops -after- he lost the election. An
>uncharitable person might theink he did that just so the incoming Clinton
>administration could stumble, which they promptly did.

So the 200,000+ lives that Bush saved by securing the food shipments is
irrelevant and it was all a big right wing conspiracy to set up Clinton? At
this point I think I may have to begin ignoring you. If you truely believe
that, while at the same time claiming "ultimate responsibility" by Bush leaves
him to blame for every infraction by every U.S. military member, than it
becomes a waste of my time dealing with you. You are beyond hope.

>Don't like being caught in lies, huh?
>

Lies? All I've ever posted were facts. Only a retarded troll like you would
call the fact that U.S. military involvement in Somalia began in August 1992 a
lie.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

WalterM140 wrote:

>I believe he used the term "highest levels of civilian control" or words to
>that effect.

So you didn't even read the article? What a boob. His "highest levels of
civilian control" ended at the SecDef, not the President. Post an article and
then not even know what it says. Typical troll.

>No comment about Webb? He's one of my heroes, and he did call the invasion
>of
>Iraq the greatest strategic ---blunder- may have been the word he used.

Why should I? I could do a 10 minute search on the internet and find an article
written by someone touting OIF as the greatst political-military victory in
history. Would you post that if you happened across it?

>I haven't said they -never- had been granted the protections of the GC. What
>seems obvious is that by last fall, pressure was being put on some that was
>well outside the bounds of what the GC calls for.

Now we can talk about lies.

On 11 May you posted this:

I said:

"From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam Hussain)
were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention."

You responded:

"Many have not been. In fact, I don't know that the record shows that any
large
number have."

Again, I tried to attach abuse reports to the growing involvement of foriegn
fighters when I wrote:

"It wasn't until the introduction of foreign fighters that things got blurry."

You retorted:

"You can try and show that."

So once again you a proven troll, and now I think my job is done. In fact I
notice I'm the only one dealing with you which means I'm the only one dense
enough to have not realized how hopeless you are. See ya troll.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(WalterM140) wrote in message >...
> >No one has ever shown any hard evidence that the US intelligence
> >abotu WMDs in Iraq was substantively in error.
>
> Except we can't find them.
>


Precisely. If we could find the evidence provided by US
intelligence I'll bet it would show that the analysts
concluded Iraq had no WMDs. The administration statements
on WMDs appear to be deliberate lies, not errors.

--

FF

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)
>
>
>BUFDRVR sends:
>
<snip>

>According to Walt, its because Bush ordered
>>it, or somehow (through his "behavior") condoned it.
>
>Bush is ultimately responsible.
>

The logical extension of that is Bush isn't responsible because he works for
and is employed by the United States citizenry. Since one can delegate
authority but not responsibility every U.S. citizen is responsible for what
happened even if they didn't vote for Bush.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[WalterM140]

Your humble narrator was quoted:

>WalterM140 wrote:
>
>>I believe he used the term "highest levels of civilian control" or words to
>>that effect.

>So you didn't even read the article? What a boob. His "highest levels of
>civilian control" ended at the SecDef, not the President. Post an article and
>then not even know what it says. Typical troll.
>

Well, here's what the Military Times editorial said:

"But while responsibility begins with the six soldiers facing criminal charges,
it extends all the way up the chain of command to the highest reaches of the
military hierarchy and its civilian leadership."

That would seem to be covered by the phrase, "words to that effect."

Also, I didn't post the article originally. It does back up substantially
what I said. The president is ultimately responsible for what the military
does or doesn't do. Or are you saying that the president -can't- sanction the
SecDef over -his- failures? That responsibility stops at the SecDef and
-cannot- go further? I mean, seriously now, Rumsfeld has -said- he is
responsible for these abuses. He said that. And to whom does he report? The
president is ultimately responsible -- to the American people, who, pray to
God, will kick his Connecticut cowboy butt all the way back to Crawford come
November.

>>No comment about Webb? He's one of my heroes, and he did call the invasion
>>of
>>Iraq the greatest strategic ---blunder- may have been the word he used.
>
>Why should I?

Because Webb is a graduate of the Naval Academy, former Marine Officer and
true American hero.

>I could do a 10 minute search on the internet and find an article
>written by someone touting OIF as the greatst political-military victory in
>history.

You should do that then.

This was in the NY Times yesterday:

It was a measure of the troubles Mr. Bush is running into within his own party
that Senator Pete V. Domenici, a New Mexico Republican who usually sides with
the administration, expressed his frustration to Secretary of Defense Donald H.
Rumsfeld on Wednesday that he could find no clear vision in the
administration's Iraq strategy.

"I am very worried about how prepared the Iraqis are to take over this
responsibility and, secondly, what we have done to prepare ourselves and them
to work together to make this work," Mr. Domenici told Mr. Rumsfeld at a budget
hearing. "I can envision that this situation will not work, and that we won't
have an organizational structure that will do anything other than have
Americans fighting and us supplying those fighters with more and more money."

The unease among conservatives has also been given voice in recent days by a
number of influential commentators. George F. Will wrote in The Washington Post
on Tuesday of a series of "failures" by the administration for which no one was
held accountable, including post-war planning that was "botched." On Monday,
the syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak wrote that there was a clear consensus
among Republicans in Congress, Republican fund-raisers, contributors and others
he had canvassed that Mr. Rumsfeld had to resign."

If you can find an article:

"touting OIF as the greatst political-military victory in
history."

I'd be glad to see it. Otherwise, you might consider stopping the
self-flagellation.

>Would you post that if you happened across it?

Maybe. Such an article would be hard to find I am thinking. Pretty much every
one knows that Operation Iraqi Freedom is a disastrous failure.

>>I haven't said they -never- had been granted the protections of the GC.
>What
>>seems obvious is that by last fall, pressure was being put on some that was
>>well outside the bounds of what the GC calls for.

>Now we can talk about lies.
>
>On 11 May you posted this:
>
>I said: (that being BUFDRVR)
>
>"From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam
>Hussain)
>were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention."
>
>You responded:
>
>"Many have not been. In fact, I don't know that the record shows that any
>large
>number have."
>

I haven't seen anything that contradicts my statement. What seems to have
happened is that it became more and more obvious that OIF was foundering, that
pressure was ramped up on the detainees.

>Again, I tried to attach abuse reports to the growing involvement of foriegn
>fighters when I wrote:
>

What I said seems pretty well ringed about with qualifications. I don't have
enough information. We do know that at some point, many detainees were treated
like animals -- worse than animals -- by US servicemen.


>"It wasn't until the introduction of foreign fighters that things got
>blurry."
>
>You retorted:
>
>"You can try and show that."
>

Can you show that or not? Do you think that changing the subject and calling
me names will get you off the hook?

Walt