Wrong in the News

I have to say i completely agree with you for once. This situation is in no way his fault but because of the ignorance of most reporters every one is pointing thier fingers at Secretary Rumsfeld. A few of our soldiers got carried away and will be punished. The reporters say we are cruel and what not but truth be told we treat 99.8% of the enemy POW's better than they were treated in thier own "army's" if they can even be called that. They beat and rape our POW's and then murder them. As far as i can tell we havent killed and POW's. Reporters are blowing this whole thing out of proportion and dont get me wrong it is important that we deal with this swiftly and firmly but g wiz if they are going to critisize our military the least they could do is konw what their talking about and who needs to be blamed. I do watch or read the news every day and its going further and further down hill. We dont need change in our military we need change in our reporting. Journalism is out of control.
Flores

actually that wasnt a news program. those werent reporters.

it was live coverage of congressional hearings to determine why no one incongress found out about this matter until a story about it appeared on 60 minutes 2 a week earlier. some members were upset because the defense department has been investigating the problem since the beginning of the year. rumsfeld was testifying to senators in the morning. in the afternoon there was another live broadcast of rumsfeld testifying to members of the house of representatives.

since rumsfeld is in charge of the defense department he gets credit when things are done right and has to take the blame when they arent. his decision that the geneva convention does not apply in certain cases may be incorrect. lawyers can say a lot of things but they dont make the rules

those members of congress were doing their jobs on your behalf by asking tough questions.

btw there seems to be evidence that at least one and possibly more prisoners died in us custody as a result of improper conduct.

  

Mr. Rumsfeld is apparently being seen as the one at fault for the violent interrogations by U.S. Soldiers. Rumsfeld is the Secretary of Defense. His concern is keeping American interests safe. He's not a general in command of an Army. He's not the officer watching over the soldiers doing the interrogating.

I think you need to rephrase "violent interrogations" to torture--no one is denying that what went on in that prison was torture.  And for the record, the Secretary of Defense is charged with overseeing the order and conduct of the military.  Bush is the commander in chief, but he's meant to get his reports from Rumsfeld.  More over, US military codes specifically hold a commanding officer responsible for the war crimes committed by those in his command--I don't know if it is a stretch to say that the entire military is under Rumsfeld's command, but I'm sure a skilled debator would be able to prove it.

Furthermore, Mr. Rumsfeld is being accused of casting aside the rules of the Geneva Convention. Rumsfeld stated clearly that, although a group of lawyers and advisers decided that these rules do not apply under this situation, they would be applied anyway. How is that casting aside the rules?

Why wouldn't the rules of the Geneva Convention apply?  There was debate that they didn't apply to the prisoners in Guantanomo Bay, but I haven't heard that debate about Iraq.  Article 3 of the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War prohibits “violence to life and person, particularly murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.”  I think that is pretty clear.

We all have so much pride that we can't admit a mistake.

You should read the statement that Secretary Rumsfeld made before the Senate Armed Services Committee.  Ignore the bad grammar and you will find that he not only admits that a mistake was made, he admits to several mistakes.  He apologies.  He told the House Committee, "I failed."  What more do you want this man to say?  Apologies aren't going to make it better, admitting mistakes aren't going to fix them.  Instead of being so hell bent on making sure America knows it did something wrong, we should be looking for ways to rectify the situation.

Mr. Rumsfeld is apparently being seen as the one at fault for the violent interrogations by U.S. Soldiers.

What was done wasn't 'violent interrogation'.  It was humiliating, degrading, torture of human beings by idiotic individuals who had no leadership, no supervision and who were getting a kick out of it.

I'd like to ask the same question as Shades: why wouldn't the Geneva Convention apply?

I know what a newscast looks like and I know what a congressional hearing looks like. Unless you are connected to my optical nerves, I suggest you refrain from telling me what I'm watching.

I don't know why the rules of the Geneva Convention don't apply. Rumsfeld said it without explanation. I'm not a mind reader. What do you want me to say?

As for the "violent interrogation" as a word choice, let me explain that when I write, understatement is my most commonly used tool. Part of this comes from the fact that I believe there is enough emotional argument in the news already. I'm tired of using multiple, extremely angry adjectives. I don't mean to minimalize what these people went through, and I obviously don't think it's right. I'm sorry you don't like my article. Write your own and make it better.