Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Indict Rumsfeld - Gary Younge

Expand Messages
  • anjalisaga
    Calls for resignation are meaningless without any changes in policy The Guantánamo abuses wouldn t stop were Donald Rumsfeld to go - politicians must be made
    Message 1 of 1 , May 1, 2006
      Calls for resignation are meaningless without any changes in policy

      The Guantánamo abuses wouldn't stop were Donald Rumsfeld to go -
      politicians must be made accountable in other ways

      Gary Younge
      Monday May 1, 2006
      The Guardian

      If the war on terror is a plan to preserve and promote the values of
      the civilised world against barbarism, then nobody told Mohammed
      al-Kahtani. Since Kahtani has been incarcerated in Guantánamo Bay, he
      has been stripped naked and straddled by a taunting female guard, made
      to wear knickers on his head and a bra, and told that his mother was a
      whore. He has been shaved, held on a leash and forced to bark like a
      dog, put in isolation for five months in a cell continuously flooded
      with artificial light, deprived of heat, treated to a fake kidnapping
      and pumped with large quantities of intravenous liquids without access
      to a toilet so that he urinated on himself.

      "Just for the lack of a camera, it would sure look like Abu Ghraib," a
      military investigator, Lieutenant General Randall Schmidt, told the
      army inspector general in 2005, referring to Guantánamo.

      But unlike Abu Ghraib, responsibility for Kahtani's abuse could not be
      dumped on a group of working-class part-timers. According to sworn
      statements by Schmidt that were obtained by Salon.com, the US
      secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, was "personally involved" in
      Kahtani's interrogation and spoke every week with the Guantánamo
      commander involved. Schmidt did not believe that Rumsfeld authorised
      the methods used against Kahtani, but he did argue that the open-ended
      policies Rumsfeld pursued had created the conditions for the abuse to
      take place.

      As George Bush reshuffles his cabinet in an attempt to resuscitate the
      flagging fortunes of his second term, Rumsfeld's position looks safe.
      But until recently he was the weakest link. A posse of retired
      generals joined forces to torpedo his political career. They never
      mentioned Kahtani. Instead, they slammed Rumsfeld for "his absolute
      failures in managing the war", for "ignoring the advice of seasoned
      officers", for "a casualness and swagger" that had "alienated his allies".

      The desire to see Rumsfeld resign is one that many share. But the
      schadenfreude of seeing him having to fight for his political life has
      to be weighed against the specific nature of the attacks and the
      motivations of those attacking him. For whether it is Rumsfeld or
      Charles Clarke, the reflexive yearning for the demise of loathsome
      politicians can, at times, override consideration about the long-term
      consequences of the terms of their departure. There are some who hover
      at the scene of every detestable public figure floored by scandal like
      shameless undertakers, ready to chase the ambulance in the hope that
      each journey will end in a fatality. Confusing principle with payback,
      they seek not accountability but revenge - regardless of what sparked
      the crisis and who will gain from it. And so the personal becomes
      political and the political becomes perverted.

      Take the generals. Most of them were arguing not that Rumsfeld was
      wrong to take the US to war, but that he should have fought it with
      more soldiers and greater firepower. A few, like Lieutenant General
      Gregory Newbold - chief of operations for the joint staff during the
      early planning of the invasion - did have reservations about the
      entire enterprise. "I now regret that I did not more openly challenge
      those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were
      peripheral to the real threat - al-Qaida."

      Fair enough. But those concerns are political, not military. The
      correct place for Newbold to express those views would not have been
      in the White House situation room but on the street with the rest of
      us. This is no small point. Civilian control of the military is one of
      the key features that distinguish a democracy from a dictatorship.
      Rumsfeld's head is simply not worth sacrificing for many of the
      principles involved here.

      The same is true of Clarke and the revelation that more than 1,000
      foreign criminals were not deported once they had served their
      sentence. These people had already been punished. Some of them
      reoffended and should be punished again, just like native-born
      criminals. But if their crimes had nothing to do with immigration,
      what justice is there in deporting them? Clarke is being slated
      because he did not discriminate against foreigners enough. But the
      real problem here is not that Clarke did not implement the deportation
      law, but that the law exists at all. Sadly for him, his incompetence
      brought together two easy targets in one lurid tabloid headline:
      "foreigners" and "criminals".

      None of which is to say either that Rumsfeld and Clarke should stay,
      or that we should shed a tear for them if they go. But it is far more
      important why they go than that they go. Just as Clarke followed David
      Blunkett, some other reactionary could easily follow him. And there is
      no shortage of thuggish warmongers in Bush's entourage who can take
      Rumsfeld's place. Resigning can often be the easy option. Take Peter
      Mandelson. He resigned twice and ended up in a better job with even
      greater power.

      If it is a progressive shift in policy and politics, rather than
      personnel, that we seek, then we need progressive pressure from below
      to make that happen. If Clarke were to be forced out because of public
      pressure over ID cards or his anti-terror legislation, that would
      demand a change in government thinking.

      The same would be true for Rumsfeld and the White House if there had
      been a huge upswell of outrage over the Abu Ghraib revelations that
      had a similar effect on the Bush administration. But - five months
      after the atrocities were exposed - the issue did not feature in the
      presidential election. The fact that people were unable to muster a
      sufficient outrage to ensure the ouster of both Clarke and Rumsfeld is
      regrettable - but we can't short-circuit that process by riding the
      coat-tails of generals and xenophobes and rejoice because they
      resigned for something else.

      What has been lacking on both sides of the Atlantic - particularly
      over the past three years - has been accountability. The issue is not
      so much that these people don't resign, but rather that those who stay
      refuse to take responsibility for anything they do. Holding leaders
      accountable demands linking their individual acts to the institutional
      cultures that made the acts possible. That might result in
      resignation, but the ramifications are more far-reaching - for the
      issue in question and for the democracy at large - than the fate of
      one person.

      Which brings us back to Kahtani. By all accounts, the Saudi national
      is no angel. Described by military investigators as the "20th
      hijacker", he was allegedly booked on the flight headed for the White
      House that crashed in a Pennsylvania field. Before he was arrested in
      Afghanistan they say he met several times with Osama bin Laden and had
      been trained in al-Qaida camps. Whether all this is true or not is
      irrelevant. Al-Qaida never signed the Geneva convention; the US did.
      By violating both the letter and the spirit of international law
      regarding the treatment of detainees, Rumsfeld effectively turned
      himself into a war criminal. The fact that terrorists stand outside
      international norms of combat and democratic oversight is what
      separates "them" from "us". Erase that distinction and the war on
      terror morphs into a war of terror.

      "The question at this point is not whether Rumsfeld should resign,"
      Joanne Mariner, of Human Rights Watch, told Progressive magazine.
      "It's whether he should be indicted."

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.