Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Selectric II who wrote (7474)	5/13/2004 1:14:30 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Of course the police work of apprehending, detaining and interrogating criminals is important work. There are strict guidelines for how that work is to be accomplished. When officers break the rules they should be brought to justice. But the management of detainees in Iraq is far more critical, because the information and intelligence that can be gained from them can save lives. That is why policies and procedures need to be in place for this important work. I believe that what was happening at Abu Gharib was the policy. That the soldiers carrying out the bizzare treatment of the prisoners were following orders. So therfore they are not at fault. The fault lies up the command chain. See the difference between a policeman sodomizing a man under his own sadistic volition and the soldiers that were following orders in the treatment of detainees? The difference is in the fact that the soldiers were obviously taking part in abuse which was part of a system that was designed and approved at much higher levels. And since we agree that gathering intelligence from detainees is a critical operation, would you not expect that a system for managing and interrogating detainees should come from the top down? It doesn't take a genius to see that gathering intelligence is a very important function, and that this function would...or should I say should...come from the top of the command structure. Therefore I find Rumsfeld, or the person or persons that he charged with designing the system gathering intelligence from detainees to be at fault. They are either at fault for going forward with this sadistic torture and humiliation, or they are guilty for not putting in place another workable, and honorable system for managing the detainees and gathering intelligence. Rumsfeld also appears to have been involved in a coverup of these activities. In closed session with congressional committees he chose not to reveal his knowledge of the prisoner treatment. At the same time he asked 60 Minutes to delay the news to to the general public about these transgressions. I don't agree with many of the things that Rumsfeld has done in the prosecution of the war in Iraq. Personally I think that Colin Powell would have been a better choice for Secretary of Defense. I think that there are many qualified persons for that job. I don't think that Rumsfeld has served the interests of this country well. Allowing the boondoggle at Abu Gharib to occur is just one of the ways that he failed to lead the DOD. Failing to see the importance of managing and gathering intelligence from the prisoners and making sure that the right policies were in place is just one of his screw ups. Orca