Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why hasn't Rumsfeld been charged?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 01:05 PM
Original message
Why hasn't Rumsfeld been charged?
From Sy Hersch's interview and article regarding General Taguba, it's clear that Rummy had knowledge of the abuses at ABU Ghraib early in 2006. We learn later in the article that the good General was asked to retire in January. But more to the point...

On the afternoon of May 6, 2004, Army Major General Antonio M. Taguba was summoned to meet, for the first time, with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in his Pentagon conference room.
...
“Here . . . comes . . . that famous General Taguba—of the Taguba report!” Rumsfeld declared, in a mocking voice. The meeting was attended by Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s deputy; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (J.C.S.); and General Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, along with Craddock and other officials. Taguba, describing the moment nearly three years later, said, sadly, “I thought they wanted to know. I assumed they wanted to know. I was ignorant of the setting.”

In the meeting, the officials professed ignorance about Abu Ghraib. “Could you tell us what happened?” Wolfowitz asked. Someone else asked, “Is it abuse or torture?” At that point, Taguba recalled, “I described a naked detainee lying on the wet floor, handcuffed, with an interrogator shoving things up his rectum, and said, ‘That’s not abuse. That’s torture.’ There was quiet.”


The very next day Rumsfeld is on the carpet in front of a committee on The Hill...

Nevertheless, Rumsfeld, in his appearances before the Senate and the House Armed Services Committees on May 7th, claimed to have had no idea of the extensive abuse. “It breaks our hearts that in fact someone didn’t say, ‘Wait, look, this is terrible. We need to do something,’ ” Rumsfeld told the congressmen. “I wish we had known more, sooner, and been able to tell you more sooner, but we didn’t.”

Rumsfeld told the legislators that, when stories about the Taguba report appeared, “it was not yet in the Pentagon, to my knowledge.” As for the photographs, Rumsfeld told the senators, “I say no one in the Pentagon had seen them”; at the House hearing, he said, “I didn’t see them until last night at 7:30.” Asked specifically when he had been made aware of the photographs, Rumsfeld said:


There were rumors of photographs in a criminal prosecution chain back sometime after January 13th . . . I don’t remember precisely when, but sometime in that period of January, February, March. . . . The legal part of it was proceeding along fine. What wasn’t proceeding along fine is the fact that the President didn’t know, and you didn’t know, and I didn’t know.


Now there's this little thing in the United States Code, Title 18, Chapter 47...

§ 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.


And agian, from the article...
On January 20th, the chief of staff at Central Command sent another e-mail to Admiral Keating, copied to General Craddock and Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the Army commander in Iraq. The chief of staff wrote, “Sir: update on alleged detainee abuse per our discussion. DID IT REALLY HAPPEN? Yes, currently have 4 confessions implicating perhaps 10 soldiers. DO PHOTOS EXIST? Yes. A CD with approx 100 photos and a video—CID has these in their possession.”

In subsequent testimony, General Myers, the J.C.S. chairman, acknowledged, without mentioning the e-mails, that in January information about the photographs had been given “to me and the Secretary up through the chain of command. . . . And the general nature of the photos, about nudity, some mock sexual acts and other abuse, was described.”


How is it that the Chairman, Joint Chiefs knows this and the Sec. Def. does not?

So, where's the investigation? Where are the charges?

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. Excellent question - of which there is no acceptable answer, excuse - or reason
Rumsfeld should have been charged a long time ago.

And not just him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Thanks Solly. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. NO - Thank you, hootinholler
Because this question should be asked daily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Asked every day every hour every minute every second every nanosecond
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Indeed. And I want an answer - a real answer
not some carefully scripted bullshit answer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rick Myers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. I just finished reading the entire article! Damn!!!
These people are SAVAGES, and deserve to be tried for treason!!! Rumsfeld is a war criminal!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Indeed. He's been charged as such in Germany. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. No he hasn't
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I'm sorry, I mis-spoke...
It's only a lawsuit to compel an investigation. My Bad.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaksavage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
4. Lower than whale shit
This is just one excuse to try his ass.
What about tamiflu and his sale of 27 MILLION dollars worth of stock a few days before it was announced it was useless? Why aren't we all worried about bird flu now?
Because it is all bullshit.
Endless piles of bullshit consumed by the huge shit eating machine that is our citizenry.

Put my name on a list.
Throw me in jail.
I won't change my mind.

IMPEACH them ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libodem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. Hoot, that just drives me wild, crazy, and insane,
with fury. This antagonizes me to no end. Where ARE the charges and where Is the investigation? WHERE? We need some of those Heritage/ American Enterprise Institutes run by Billionaire Democrats, that have lawyers on retainer, just waiting to stir up trouble, like the Republicans did to Bill Clinton. Someone rich and backed up with legal teams needs to start in and never stop until all of these lying, murdering, thieves, confess and have to give back all the war profits they have amassed and then go to JAIL, for ever!!! Amen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Rumsfeld has publicly admitted that he violated Geneva
Edited on Sun Jun-17-07 04:38 PM by Disturbed
Convention Laws. Congress chose not to indict him for his War Crimes.


Rumsfeld Shouldn't be Fired, He Should be Indicted
by Matthew Rothschild

“Secretary Rumsfeld has publicly admitted that . . . he ordered an Iraqi national held in Camp Cropper, a high security detention center in Iraq, to be kept off the prison’s rolls and not presented to the International Committee of the Red Cross,” the report noted. The Geneva Conventions require countries to grant the Red Cross access to all detainees. “

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0418-24.htm






Further Evidence Rumsfeld Implicated in War Crimes
Please read this important post by Marty Lederman, Army Confirms: Rumsfeld Authorized Criminal Conduct.

Here's a key section, but there's more:
The Army's charges against Jordan reflect the view, undoubtedly correct, that the use of forced nudity or intimidation with dogs against detainees subject to military control constitutes cruelty and maltreatment that Article 93 makes criminal. It doesn't matter whether they are or are not "torture," as such; nor does it matter whether the armed forces should be permitted to use such interrogation techniques: As things currently stand, they are unlawful, as even the Army now acknowledges.

But then how can we account for the actions of the Secretary of Defense and his close aides?

On November 27, 2002, Pentagon General Counsel William Haynes, following discussions with Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, General Myers, and Doug Feith, informed the Secretary of Defense that forced nudity and the use of the fear of dogs to induce stress were lawful techniques, and he recommended that they be approved for use at Guantanamo.
(The lists of techniques to which Haynes was referring can be found in this memorandum.) On December 2, 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld approved those techniques for use at Guantanamo -- and subsequently those techniques were used on detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani.

In other words, the Secretary of Defense authorized criminal conduct.

...

Today's Army charge under UCMJ Article 93 against Lt. Col. Jordan -- for conduct that the SecDef actually authorized as to some detainees -- demonstrates that Rumsfeld approved of, and encouraged, violations of the criminal law.
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/04/further_evidence_rumsfeld_implicated_in_war_crimes.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-18-07 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
13. I'm sure Gonzales will get right on it
He's just busy with a few other things right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC