Army Confirms: Rumsfeld Authorized Criminal Conduct

[kpete]

Friday, April 28, 2006
Army Confirms: Rumsfeld Authorized Criminal Conduct
Marty Lederman

Today the Army filed criminal charges against Lt. Col Steven L. Jordan, a military intelligence officer who was second-in-command of interrogation operations at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Charge III of the Army's Charge Sheet accuses Jordan of "cruelty and maltreatment," based on the allegation that he subjected Iraqi detainees subject to his orders "to forced nudity and intimidation by military working dogs."

This is a charge under Article 93 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. 893, which provides that "ny person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

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.

more info and links at:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/04/army-confirms-rumsfeld-authorized.html

[panader0]

1. I've got a big dog

I'd like to see him in the same room with a naked Rummy. Yeah!

[kpete]

2. Spare the dog

And welcome Panader0!

[Disturbed]

3. "Rumsfeld Shouldn't be Fired, He Should be Indicted"

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

Recently it has been found out that even more detainees were "ghost detainees". The fact that Rumsfeld has not been charged speaks volumes. If Congress wishes to garner any respect they should move forward with Rep. Rangle's Impeachment Declaration of Rumsfeld.

The US, Govt., Congress, and the Justice Dept no longer abide by the Geneva Convention or the Constitution of the USA.

[Tigress DEM]

14. How bout we round them up and take 'em to Git'mo?

All these ware criminals should have their own cell and be subject only to the torture (er interrogation) techniques they authorized for others. Except, no pissing on the Bible, that's just unnecessary. Maybe we could tease them that if they did piss on it, they could get out and then say, "Silly person, why would I tell you to do something like that?"

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Ronald Dumbsfeld, my favorite war criminal, funny thing is, Nixon

wanted to fire him for being too much of a "dove" back in the day. People in high level govt/civilian positions should only be allowed to serve for 4 years and then be forced to either serve in the military "or" chuck french fries at Mickey Dees. Yeah, I feel a tad crazy... sorry for the madness.

[jmowreader]

5. But who'd eat those fries?

Come on. The deep fat frying system at McDonalds is one of the most automated devices known to man.

It sets the initial temperature of the oil properly.
It maintains the oil temperature within HACCP guidelines for the product to be cooked.
It filters the oil.
It tells the operator when to change the oil.
It dispenses french fries in precisely metered amounts.
It times the cook cycle.
It has a card telling the operator how to handle the fries post-cook.
It even tells the operator when the cooked fries must be discarded.

And the people Bush surrounded himself with would still find ways to fuck it up.

[WiseButAngrySara]

8. Good comment! ROFL! ....n/t

[Roland99]

6. Whatever punishment faces Rumsfailed needs to face Asscroft, too.

It was John "I lost to a dead man" Asscroft that culled the bastards that were used to setup Abu Ghraib. All four of them were prison administrators/wardens with horrible human rights records during their tenure.

[cliss]

7. I bet you

this is why they're hanging on to him, tooth and nail. If he's fired or resigns, they'll start criminal proceedings.

And then......watch out Rummy.

[WiseButAngrySara]

9. I wonder. Maybe some more posters will have a more definitive

answer. I'm pretty sure I've read that speculation before, but not recently.

[fooj]

11. From what I gather...if LLP gets rid of Rummy he is fair game, so to speak

Peace.

[troubleinwinter]

16. Yes, I think so. I am so mad, I have no fucking words. It is going on

in front of my face.

It does not call for jokes.

It is despicable. Reprehensible. Unforgivable. CRIMINAL. I am beyond tolerating this shit. WTF will it take to stop these maniacs. I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. This is not what I grew up to believe the U.S. was about.

I dunno. I am pretty old, and never thought that 'desperate measures' would be needed. But it has become obvious to me that these fuckers must be taken out of office. NOW.

They are not Americans and they are not patriots. They are dangerous sociopaths.

The movie about flight 93 supposedly shows good people who risked themselves to revolt against killers to save others. Perhaps this is a lesson we truly should take.

[WiseButAngrySara]

10. knr. ....n/t

[autorank]

12. Well then alrighty! This is so logical and simple it is stunning n/t Red.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. That's just too simple and straightforward to be believed

So we'll never hear about it again.

Nothing to see here .... just move along ......

[PuraVidaDreamin]

15. TO THE HAGUE!

lying weasil