Who is responsible indeed, Jack Rabbit!!

[MaryBear]

Another well done article.

:thumbsup:

[LittleApple81]

1. Link? n/t

[MrBenchley]

2. Amen to that!!

Well done in every way....

Worth noting that Texas prisons under this unelected drunk were serveral times cited for abuse of prisoners...

And you will recall the insistence by the GOP that "Americans" not be subject to the ICC...well, now we know why they were insisting...

[arcane1]

3. heck yes!

:yourock:

[MissMarple]

4. OK, I found it.

:D

[Jack Rabbit]

5. Thank you all. The Link (for those who requested)

Please click here.

[Merlin]

6. Thanks for simplifying this hugely complex story, JR. Great job!

I especially like the last two sections.

Early this am I saw a replay of yesterday's Senate hearings. Under questioning by Kennedy, UnderSec Stephen Cambone said unequivocally that detainees in Iraq ARE subject to the Geneva Conventions.

But Kennedy brought out that Rumsfeld said otherwise. Rumsfeld was very careful, he said, to distinguish the fact that, as in Gitmo, the detainees in Iraq were handled in a manner "consistent with" but not "pursuant to" the GCs. Cambone did not know what Rumsfeld meant.

So we have one of three situations. (1) Rumsfeld, the Sec Def, is promulgating a policy whereby the GCs are no longer followed (and, incidentally, we have no written record of any substitute policy for use in Iraq), OR (2) Rumsfeld is just plain wrong, in which case he should be required to acknowledge his error, OR (3) Rumsfeld's dissing of the GCs and tough guy policy has lead to a situation where those in the chain of command who want to please the Sec Def have thrown off the GCs and an informal policy of virtual abandonment of constraints has taken hold in its place. The facts suggest the third alternative is what has happened.