The War's Lost Weekend

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Great. So now you agree he is not guilty. As to political
responsibility,
we
have a way of handling that over here--it is called an *election*.

(1) In democracies, ministers who make major blunders,
are responsible for catastrophes (or, in Britain, go to
bed with their secretary) are expected to resign or to
be fired by parliament.

Why don't you let us worry about what is "expected" of our own leadership,
OK?


(2) The situation in Iraq is in deep crisis. The USA (and
the world) need a competent and untarnished secretary
of defense to be in place ASAP if anything is to be
salvaged.

No, it is not in "deep crisis", and the sky is not falling down, either.


(3) I did not "agree that it is not guilty" except in the sense
of "not guilty until convicted." I hope that the question
of his guilt will be subject of due investigation and, if
justified, trial.

"Not his legal responsibility" were the words you used. Your whole discourse
regarding this matter has pointed to the fact that you have already
convicted him, but when pressed on the matter you back off from any "leagal
responsibility...then just as quickly, you are now back to "the question of
his guilt". In reality, there is no question--he is not guilty.


Then you should be quite happy that the 15-6 investigation executive
summary
has been produced. Though I must have missed your laudatory comments
regarding those soldiers and that one sailor who were singled out in it
for
having taken actions to prevent/stop abuse (why, one would almost
suspect
you are only interested in the negative aspects of the situation--but
that
could not be the case, now could it? LOL!).

As you might have noticed if you had actually bothered to try to
understand any of my earlier posts, I am neither claiming that all
US soldiers behaved badly, not am I out to harshly condemn those
who did, considering the circumstances. My concern is that the
US DoD has some policies in place that stimulate bad behaviour,
and that these need to be changed, and that those who put these
policies in place have to be identified and held responsible for
them. Today's decision to ban the use of "special interrogation
techniques" in Iraq illustrates, IMHO, that the US army shares
this concern; although this decision does not yet go far enough.

What "goes far enough" for you?


You are already
getting your CID investigation results, though--in the form of the
courts
martial proceedings against those found to be criminally liable.

Your talent for missing the point is truly formidable. To investigate
only the criminal liability would be a dereliction of duty.

Which is why they did the 15-6.


The steely determination of American conservatives to focus
exclusively on the criminal liability is highly significant in itself.
It reveals that they understand only too well that the Bush
administration is morally and politically responsible.

There is no focus "exclusively on criminal liability"--see the 15-6.

Brooks


To make the point, Belgian had *besides* the criminal investigations,
a commission of inquiry, a study of problems in the army that might
have contributed to the events in Somalia, and (following on the
conclusions of that review) an investigation in the occurrence of
racism in the army.

your armed forces) seem to be a bit lacking--not to mention the fact
that
unlike the US in this case, your own investigations did not even begin
until
forced upon you by the international media--are you real proud of that?

The claim that the investigation was "forced upon" military
justice by the international media is for your responsibility.
AFAIK the original investigation was prompted by reports
from human rights groups and Belgian (Flemish) state
television. Of course investigators will look into allegations
of criminal abuse that are reported in the media -- to fail to
do so would be unacceptable. To conclude from this that
they would not do so if the reports had not been in the media
is dishonest. That the media had to story first did indicate a
problem: the reporting of abuse in the Belgian army was
deficient. This problem had to be identified and corrected
by a policy review, separate from criminal investigation.


--
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel dot Gustin @t skynet dot be
Flying Guns Books and Site: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/