June 2004 . . . (A serious thought to ponder because American lives have been and are at stake.)
Someone rescue me from Administrative Illogic:
Firstly we learn of memos from the Administration’s lawyers advocating that because the Geneva Conventions don't apply to suspected terrorist detainees in Cuba, that's it's okay to torture them, e.g., induce sleep deprivation, fear of drowning, and to strike them. Next we're told by Bush that the Administration read these memos (and in the same breath) vigorously denounced them as advocating inhumane treatment of detainees, saying that it told its lawyers that it would nonetheless adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Then we learn that military personnel in Cuba violated the Geneva Conventions by so torturing some of the detainees. We also learn that some military personnel refused to follow Administrative directives to torture detainees. Where did those Administrative directives come from other than from Rumsfeld himself or at his behest??? And if so, it was an idle act by Rumsfeld to tell the Administration’s attorneys, "Thanks for the memos, but we're going to follow the Geneva Conventions," for he didn't intend to, neither in Cuba nor in Iraq.
What clear-thinking person who ever wore a stripe in the military would advocate violating the Geneva Conventions, for doing so would only seriously threaten the welfare of his own troops???
One of the problems with the Neo-conservatives behind invading Iraq is that few if any of these ideologues ever had to think about themselves as a captive held or interrogated by hostile forces. So thinking about forcing confessions out of prisoners may make sense to them. It clearly doesn't, however, to the Army Chief of Staff and fellow military personnel because ***they know*** of the horrible repercussions torture would have on their own troops if captured.
This recent scrape over "torture" with Bush disavowing it (wonderful, who wouldn't when pressed to do so?), reveals the fuzzy logic and poor thinking of the Bush Administration and its so-called "Secretary of Defense." He is a "Secretary of Offense," i.e., one who thinks without fullness, without well considering the probable consequences of his acts. That can get American G.I.'s killed, and probably already has and continues to do so.
Logic compels one to believe that Rumsfeld should be removed from his defense post, for his poor thinking (e.g., he admits he authorized the torture of 2 Iraqi detainees) does not bode well for future Defense operations. Who likely fostered the climate for humliation and abuse of detainees at the Abu Gharib prison, outraging the World? Answer: Rumsfeld. We can do better in the Defense Post than this, and ought to try. If Powell could clone himself for the job, that would be a major improvement.
Shouldn't we consider "cleaning house" in November?