Rummy Gets a Lesson from The General
It appears that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, disagree on what the United States' responsibility is when it comes to stopping inhumane treatment of detainees.
During a Pentagon news conference, Pace said "It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene to stop it."
Rummy then stated: "But I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it," to which the General replied "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it."
The Secretary of Defense of the United States doesn't believe that members of our armed forces have an obligation to stop inhumane treatment, if they witness it. So he has to go to Human Rights 101 class and learn from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that indeed, our service men and women do have an obligation to try to physically stop inhumane treatment.
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051129-042325-2961r
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Helloooo......terrorists are NOT protected by the Geneva convention and deserve ANY treatment they get.
Comment by NOT in neverneverland— 2005/11/30 @ 03:04 AM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2005/11/30 @ 09:30 AM — (Reply)
Perhaps this will make them talk.
We can withstand your guns and tanks, but please, kill us all before you inflict more sensitivity training!
The War on Terror has entered a new successful stage once the US field commanders began to force the enemy units to comply with the same government-imposed rules and restrictions that the US Army increasingly faces on a daily basis.
One man, identified only as a "Soldier for Allah" explained, "We were led into a classroom and had to sit in circles for what they called 'Collective Self-Attaining Support Sessions' where they lectured us on matters such as "Gender Awareness." "Multicultural Identity." and "Environmental Racism." For the love of Allah (peace be upon him and his messenger, the Prophet Muhammad), even in Saddam's prisons, I was never accused so often of being guilty!"
So it's true that you used hurtful language while raping that Italian journalist?" Trembling, he continued. "We had...had...gender role-playing. We had...had...non-dairy vegan diets. We had...had," at which point he broke down and cried, "You win, America! I had to write a 17-page memo explaining why my unit did not have an Hispanic presence! Please, you win!"
Inspired by this success, the US Senate voted 90 to 9 in support of Sen. McCain's bill to ban inhumane treatment of captured terrorists. Echoing that decision, Pentagon officials also released a new directive on Defense Department intelligence interrogations, mandating that all questioning of detainees in U.S. military custody include "humane" treatment and that interrogators can no longer "inflict suffering, harm, pain, or any kind of inconvenience on enemy combatants."
The directive ostensibly reduces the military's tactics to what the ACLU has called "progressive engagement" similar to what one would expect as a disinterested actor." Although this directive is incoherent, a majority of lawyers believe that it means, "enemies must be treated as though they are United States civilians."
Despite grim predictions by Republican politicians and conservative pundits, the new progressive tactics have turned more effective in defeating the enemy than conventional combat had ever been. To wit, most radical Islamic groups in Iraq and Afghanistan have surrendered to the United States after being compelled to live under U.S.-mandated "progressive" laws.
As one Iraqi insurgent put it, "We can withstand your guns and tanks, but please, kill us all before you inflict more sensitivity training!" In fact, the very thought of such punishments has made even the most battle-hardened insurgents whimper for mercy.
In fact , Diversity requirements have been among the most effective weapons wielded by the Americans. An army officer pointed out, "The enemy needs to understand that they must meet our goals and timetables. That is, if you're a terrorist and you shoot at us, we're gonna speak with you. And if your terrorist group doesn't meet our minority-and-women representation requirements, you're gonna be filling out forms for the rest of your days.
"We also check for other signs of discrimination. Were the correct percentage of your weapons built by approved minority vendors? Were your explosive belts manufactured by non-union labor? Were you using hurtful language while you were tossing grenades at us? Is everyone in your death squad being treated equally? These things matter more to us than whether you kill our troops. You see, individuals are replaceable, but our progressive philosophy is sacrosanct. And if you attack our philosophy, you're going to be explaining yourself in remedial education sessions and you're going to be doing a lot...and I mean a lot...of writing!"
The war is not over, though, as Osama bin Laden is still in hiding. In a taped message, he said, "I will surrender if the United States promises to overlook my family's lack of compliance with WBE and MBE requirements in their construction business." However, military experts believe that is an irrelevant point. Said one, "We don't care about his family. But he has led an organization that is guilty of de facto religious discrimination. If you're going to butcher Americans, you had better do it with a diverse group of murderers. Al Qaeda is comprised only of Muslims, and that's wrong. We're going to find Mr. Bin Laden, and he will definitely learn what it means to meet diversity goals
Comment by elmers brother— 2005/11/30 @ 02:50 PM — (Reply)
First of all, let's get one thing straight here:
Not all of the people we are holding in detention are "terrorists."
Many of these are people who we rounded up in the heat of the battle, in places like Tora Bora. We jsut simply rounded them up, because they took up arms against us after our invasion.
Perhaps this analogy will put things into perspective:
Let's say some foreign country invades the United States, and tries to overthrow the Bush Crime Team.
Now, I'm no fan of George Bush at all, but I will not tolerate any foreign body, invading the United States and trying to topple our government.
So let's say I take up arms against our foreign invaders, and fight them. They round me up, and hold me in detention.
Because I took up arms against them, does not make me a terrorist. That makes me someone defending my country against a foreign invasion.
Moreover, we are holding many of these people in detention indefinitely, without any charges.
If the United States truly believed these folks were terrorists, they would bring charges against them, not just hold them without bringing any charges.
And my last and perhaps most important point: Even the Bush administration has acknowledged that what happened at Abu Gharib, has helped to make more enemies in the Muslim world.
You do know, don't you, that a U.S. judge has ordered the government to release more photos of the atrocities and torture at Abu Gharib.
The United States is ignoring that judge's order, and has filed an appeal. And in their appeal, they basically say that these unreleased photos are WORSE than the ones we have already seen, and it would only help to inflame the anti-U.S. sentiment in the Muslim world.
If the United States government was truly proud of how they had conducted themselves at Abu Gharib, they would not have to file appeals to keep these photos from being released.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/11/30 @ 03:58 PM — (Reply)
Let's see 5 people out of roughly 150,000 and you chose to focus on the 5. (who we held accountable).
The only one makIng more terrorists here is you.
Comment by elmers brother— 2005/11/30 @ 04:27 PM — (Reply)
Many of these are people who we rounded up in the heat of the battle, in places like Tora Bora. We jsut simply rounded them up, because they took up arms against us after our invasion.
This is usually what you do when people take up arms and "simply" START SHOTING at you.
Comment by — 2005/11/30 @ 04:30 PM — (Reply)
Now, I'm no fan of George Bush at all, but I will not tolerate any foreign body, invading the United States and trying to topple our government.
What would you do....hold a meeting?
Comment by — 2005/11/30 @ 04:32 PM — (Reply)
If Dick approves the plan that's all I need to know!
Comment by Cheneyknowswhatheistalkingabout— 2005/11/30 @ 04:36 PM — (Reply)
As usual, your intellecutal laziness causes you to miss the point. I told you in my original post that I would PICK UP ARMS AND FIGHT.
And furthermore, I explained that me picking up arms and fighting a foreign invader doesn't make me a terrorist. And it doesn't make me an insurgent.
It makes me someone fighting against a foreign invader.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/11/30 @ 04:37 PM — (Reply)
so why didn't you?
no your not a terrorist oh wise one you just give aid and comfort to them.
Comment by elmers brother— 2005/11/30 @ 04:40 PM — (Reply)
Frist of all let's get one thing straight you typical intellctually lazy repugnut who doesn't live in the reality based community.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/30 @ 04:49 PM — (Reply)
Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, U.S. Central Command:
[The] problem set does not go away if we were victorious tomorrow in either Iraq or Afghanistan."
There is a large network of these organizations virtually connected in some cases, physically connected in others."
All share an ideology that wants to turn the clock back 15 centuries and create a global caliphate, he said. "That is clearly the intention of al Qaeda and its associated movements," Kimmitt said. "It has been said time after time after time."
PULL YOUR HEAD OUT SHALANA!
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/30 @ 04:57 PM — (Reply)
We are not engaged in a true battle against Al Qaeda. You just heard George W. Bush today say that. He admitted that, in regards to the people we are "fighting" in Iraq, people who affiliate themselves with Al Qaeda are actually in the minority. He said: "The third group is the smallest, but the most lethal: the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda ." So George W. Bush just told you today, that people who either affiliate themselves with, or are inspired by Al Qaeda, make up the smallest group of people we are fighting in Iraq.
Comment by SMillard— 2005/11/30 @ 07:10 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/30 @ 07:59 PM — (Reply)
You just astound me with your laziness. Being dumb as a door nail doesn't suit you very well.
Allow me to educate you.
Following is a portion of a conversation between Wolf Blitzer and Richard Clarke on the March 28, 2004 episode of CNN's Late Edition:
"CLARKE: Well, let's contrast the performance of that administration when they had word from George Tenet that some attack was going to take place somewhere, with the performance of the Clinton administration in December of 1999 when they had similar information.
In December 1999, the president ordered daily meetings of the FBI director, the attorney general and the head of the CIA and the secretary of defense in the White House, with the national security team, to shake out any information and prevent the attacks. And they were successful in doing that.
Presented with even more frightening information, President Bush did not choose to do that, did not choose to get personally involved, except getting those morning intelligence briefings."
Also, you will find the following interesting:
Rather, Clinton had made Clarke a cabinet member. He was given the authority to call other key cabinet members and security officials to "battle stations," involving heightened alerts in their bureaucracies and daily meetings. Clarke did this with Clinton's approval in December of 1999 because of increased chatter and because the Jordanians caught a break when they cracked Raed al-Hijazi's cell in Amman.
Early in 2001, in contrast, Bush demoted Clarke from being a cabinet member, and much reduced his authority. Clarke wanted the high Bush officials or "principals" to meet on terrorism regularly. He couldn't get them to do it. Rice knew what al-Qaeda was, but she, like other administration officials, was disconcerted by Clarke's focus on it as an independent actor. The Bush group-think holds that asymmetrical organizations are not a threat in themselves, that the threat comes from the states that allegedly harbor them. That funny look she gave Clarke wasn't unfamiliarity, it was puzzlement that someone so high in the system should be so wrongly focused.
In summer of 2001 the chatter was much greater and more ominous than in fall of 1999. Clarke wanted to go to battle stations and have daily meetings with the "principals" (i.e. Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Powell, Tenet). He wanted to repeat the procedures that had foiled the Millennium Plot. He could not convince anyone to let him do that.
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/4423.html
Comment by Shalana— 2005/11/30 @ 08:32 PM — (Reply)
Oh I forgot to include "intellectually lazy in your latest comments or did I ....that's why I come here...to get the real deal on the war and politics etc.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/30 @ 08:37 PM — (Reply)
And another goodie for you:
‘He Can Make Us Safe’
A prominent 9/11 widow—and former Republican—explains why she now wants Kerry to win the White House race
Kristen Breitweiser steps up to the podium to endorse John Kerry as other 9/11 widows wait with a survivor of the attack for their turn to speak
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Jennifer Barrett Ozols
Newsweek
Updated: 4:21 p.m. ET Sept. 17, 2004
Sept. 17 - Kristen Breitweiser supported George W. Bush in 2000. This year, she’s endorsing his opponent. She is certainly not the only woman in America to change her mind about whom she plans to vote for this election, but Breitweiser is no ordinary voter. The New Jersey lawyer-turned-stay-at-home-mom has taken on an increasingly prominent role since September 11. After her husband, Ron, a vice president at Fiduciary Trust, was killed in the World Trade Center, she joined three other widows from her state as activists demanding a full investigation into the 2001 attacks. The group, who call themselves "The Jersey Girls,” have since testified before Congress, met with administration officials, and lobbied successfully for the creation of the 9/11 Commission to look into intelligence failures leading up to the 2001 attacks.
Now Breitweiser has volunteered to join John Kerry’s campaign, speaking out in support of the Democratic challenger across the nation—even agreeing, for the first time since 9/11, to fly on an airplane to get the word out. This Tuesday, she and four other 9/11 widows, along with a survivor of the Pentagon attacks, held a press conference to endorse Kerry. As they described it, their reasons for speaking out are twofold: anger at the war on Iraq and a growing frustration with an administration they accuse of obstructing the investigation into intelligence failures. NEWSWEEK’s Jennifer Barrett Ozols spoke with Breitweiser about her decision and her new role in the White House race. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: You supported Bush in 2000. Why are you changing your vote this year?
Kristen Breitweiser: The predominant reason is because I don’t feel President Bush has done everything he could do to make us safer in the three years since 9/11. I’ve personally spent the last three years fighting to try to fix the problems that plague our intelligence apparatus, so we would not be so vulnerable to Al Qaeda the next time around. And during the three years, our largest adversary was the administration. Because of that, I can’t in good conscience vote for President Bush.
The second largest reason is the war in Iraq. We have lost more than a thousand soldiers in Iraq, thousands have been wounded—Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The net result is that we are more vulnerable to terrorism because Al Qaeda has increased [its] recruitment there, the hatred and animosity toward Americans has increased, worldwide support for Americans has decreased … If President Bush is in office for another four years, I shudder to think of how many other wars unrelated to terrorism he’ll take us into.
Was there a particular moment that triggered your decision to speak out in favor of Kerry?
For me, it was the [Republican National Convention] … At the convention, 9/11 was spoken about constantly and I thought, where was this interest, this passion, this fervor for the last three years when we [9/11 widows] were begging and pleading and screaming to get 9/11 issues addressed by this administration? They wanted nothing to do with it, and then there’s a convention where that’s all they’re talking about: 9/11. I can [also] give you a laundry list of other things that could have been done by this administration in the past three years that were not done. That’s upsetting to me.
Can you give some examples?
Border security. The 9/11 Commission found that border security is in very bad shape. We’re less secure with regard to border safety than we were. That would take a simple reallocation of funds and for whatever reason it hasn’t been done. There are harder things to do, too, like the reorganization of the intelligence community. I understand that’s a concept that has been out there for 15 years and couldn’t get accomplished. But my God, if 9/11—the largest intelligence failure in U.S. history—was not enough to awaken President Bush to the need to reorganize the intelligence community, I don’t know what is.
What role will you have in the Kerry campaign?
I want to be able to talk to people across the country and make them understand that homeland security must be a priority and explain to them why, in the last four years, homeland security was not a priority. Bush is constantly saying national security is a priority, but where is the proof?
Did the Kerry campaign approach you?
No, I called the Kerry campaign and said we [the group of 9/11 widows] want to support John Kerry and do what we need to do to get the word out. Because we feel like he can make us safe.
You say you encountered initial resistance from the administration regarding the creation of a 9/11 commission. Why was that?
Well, the first argument was that we were a nation at war and we couldn’t spare the vital resources. But if we had established a commission sooner to investigate, as we did with Pearl Harbor, we might not have gone to Iraq because we might have learned that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
In your opinion, what needs to be done now to improve our national security?
Obviously, I’d like to see the 9/11 Commission recommendations thoughtfully put into legislation, which would entail a reorganization of our intelligence committee to better fight terrorism and groups like Al Qaeda specifically. And I would like to know that our transportation system—whether it be subways, buses or planes—are a serious part of our homeland security plan. Borders, nuclear plants, water plants are all vulnerable. Also, I’m a lawyer, and I know that our judicial system needs to be set up so we can successfully prosecute the terrorists. It’s not now. We need to make sure detainees’ rights aren’t being violated, [that] prisoners aren’t being abused. We need to dry up those money lines [to terrorist groups]. We have not made the efforts there.
How hopeful are you that all the 9/11 Commission recommendations will be implemented?
I truly feel the only way the 9/11 Commission recommendations will be implemented with the spirit and intent of what the commission wanted is if Kerry is elected.
Did you ever imagine you would be campaigning for Kerry or playing such a public role?
No, I am a very private person; I am a mom. Now I am a single mom. But what is so motivating for me is the amount of people who have contacted me to say thank you or to say, I feel the same way, I am scared. They ask me, why aren’t we fixing border security and looking into alternative energy sources to oil? That is what keeps you going … We have spent three years being very engaged in this because we feel we have to be. I would love nothing better then to have spent the last three years instead knowing we are safe. I think it’s sad that homeland security is even an issue in this election. I wouldn’t be here talking to you right now if we had addressed this earlier.
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/11/30 @ 08:40 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/30 @ 08:42 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/30 @ 08:42 PM — (Reply)
Since you don't have a clue:
That post was not about Wolf Blitzer. Who the hell cares about Wolf Blitzer?
It was about Richard Clarke, and what he had to say. He was there in the trenches, during the Administrations of four Presidents, to help protect this country.
And how dare you raise the issue of objectivety. I have two words for you: FOX NEWS.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/11/30 @ 08:43 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/30 @ 08:44 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/30 @ 08:44 PM — (Reply)
I don't need to post ANYTHING that gives the enemy aide and comfort. You do that quite well, thank you.
I'll leave the aiding and comforting of the enemy up to you. You've become an expert at it.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/11/30 @ 08:44 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/30 @ 08:50 PM — (Reply)
Has it ever occured to you that we tortured the very same people we said we were going to liberate?
The United States government, in OUR name, said we were going to liberate the Iraqi people because we cared about them.
So we went over there and tortured and raped and sodomized the very people we claimed to have wanted to liberate.
Nice going.
Comment by SMillard— 2005/11/30 @ 08:53 PM — (Reply)
Where's the post supporting the troops?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/30 @ 08:57 PM — (Reply)
Because I do support the troops, I have spoken ad nauseum about the fact that we went into this war without an exit strategy, and that on the eve of the war, our military leaders on the ground were reviewing slides that had been prepared for them by the White House and Pentagon. And when they got to the slide about post-war Iraq, it said "To Be Provided."
Because I do support the troops, I have spoken on this blog about issues like the reservists not having jobs to return to, when they come back from Iraq.
You talk a good game, but your continued support of the Bush Crime Team shows that you do not support our troops. You could care less about them.
Comment by SMillard— 2005/11/30 @ 09:01 PM — (Reply)
I don't need to post ANYTHING that gives the enemy aide and comfort. You do that quite well, thank you.Is it my support of Valour IT, honoring theirsacrifice or exposing the enemy for who what he want to do to you that gives aid and comfort?
(red burka comes to mind)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/30 @ 09:01 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/30 @ 09:02 PM — (Reply)