Rumsfeld caught in another lie

This is a story that NBC News just broke tonight. Yet another damning story about the true nature of this administration. I am afraid the wheels are coming off of this runaway train. Course, blatantly violating inernational law hasn’t sunk their ship yet.

By Jim Miklaszewski
NBC News
Updated: 7:08 p.m. ET June 16, 2004
Pentagon officials tell NBC News that late last year, at the same time U.S. military police were allegedly abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered that one Iraqi prisoner be held ?off the books? ? hidden entirely from the International Red Cross and anyone else ? in possible violation of international law.

It?s the first direct link between Rumsfeld and questionable though not violent treatment of prisoners in Iraq.

The Iraqi prisoner was captured last July as deadly attacks on U.S. troops began to rise. He was identified as a member of the terrorist group Ansar al Islam, suspected in the attacks on coalition forces.

Shortly after the suspect?s capture, the CIA flew him to an undisclosed location outside Iraq for interrogation. But four months later the Justice Department suggested that holding him outside Iraq might be illegal, and the prisoner was returned to Iraq at the end of October.

That?s when Rumsfeld passed the order on to Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, to keep the prisoner locked up, but off the books.

In the military?s own investigation into prisoner abuse, Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba said efforts to hide prisoners from the Red Cross were ?deceptive? and a ?violation of international law.?

Pentagon officials claim it?s entirely lawful to hold prisoners in secret if they pose an immediate threat. But today, nearly one year after his capture, he?s still being held incommunicado.

In fact, once the prisoner was returned to Iraq, the interrogations ceased because the prisoner was entirely lost in the system.

Human rights critics call it a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch said, ?If they thought he was such a threat that he could not get Red Cross visits, then how come such a threatening prisoner got lost in the system??

Pentagon officials still insist Rumsfeld acted legally, but admit it all depends on how you interpret the law.

? 2004 MSNBC Interactive

Well, I doubt the right will like me pointing it out, but it seems to go hand in hand with other actions and decisions regarding handling of prisoners.

To me, it points to the problems in Abu Ghraib coming from the top. Surely top brass would read Rumsfeld’s attitude and quite likely simply pass it along to those further down. These things happen in bureaucratic organizations.

I’m guessing the men at the very top set the tone of “do anything you have to” and the message made it all the way down the line – and got messed up in translation as these things tend to do. Again, I’d call it mismanagement.

Claiming the higher ground doesn’t leave a lot of room for mistakes… because whether or not others have done worse is not the issue at all.

[quote]vroom wrote:

Claiming the higher ground doesn’t leave a lot of room for mistakes… because whether or not others have done worse is not the issue at all.[/quote]

I understand your comment and may in fact agree with it up to a point.

Will invading Iraq be a good thing? Only time will tell. However, I believe it needed to be done. It is a worthy goal to get some sort of open and free country in the middle east with an elected government. Islamofacists can be given no quarter and if someone is secluded away, so what. War is ugly and bad things happen and if some prisoners get roughed up, tough. As long as we are taking steps to protect our toops and country, along with civilian Iraqis and approching the prisoners in a controlled manner, I don’t have a big problem with psychological games and rough treatment. And by controlled manner I mean not doing it gleefully or for fun. Gathering information is the goal. I am not excusing what happened in Abu prison, most of it appears to have been sadistic fun. Find out what happened and fire, prosecute, do what must be done. Harping on it does no one any good.

If a terrorist can get ahold of some sort of wmd, will they use it? Where would they use it? Will negotiating with a terriorist stop them from using the wmd? Will terrorists live by the negotiated agreements and rules? Are you willing to bet a U.S. city on the outcome of the negotiations?

Rain, I understand your points. My only concern is that there has been no process of determining innocence or guilt. Everyone is guilty!

Negotiating with terrorists has nothing to do with it, in my opinion. I’d suggest that freedom is risky and so is taking the moral high ground. While it may sound callous, I think doing the right thing is worth some risk.

Freedom is traditionally paid for with lives… terrorism just means that those paying the price don’t have the chance to volunteer to die for their freedom.

It’s a strange way of putting it, but there is some type of balance between appropriate behavior and increased risk as a piece of intelligence may not be gained.

There are innocent Iraqi citizens that have been abused or killed at American hands. Aren’t innocent lives of any nationality important?

Anyway, just some food for thought…

Oh darn…I wish he would just stop lying…those evil republicans…Haha

Has anyone else noticed the fact that this administration is fast becoming the terrorists they’re supposedly at war with? Hmm…