Command Responsibility and Bush Failures

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...
You never heard anything like this in the Air Force?

snip

you always carry the
ultimate responsibility for all that your unit does or leaves undone."

Absolutely. The Wing Commander is ultimately responsible for the *general*
conduct of every squadron in the wing...however he is not personally
responsible for for the actions of every individual in the wing...which is
exactly what you are arguing.

The doctrine of command responsibility does not hold a commander
responsible for isolated criminal acts committed in secret
by individuals. But it does presume an affirmative duty on
the part of the commander to take proactive steps to prevent
criminal acts, particularly acts committed by more than one
soldier acting in concert. Failure to take proper action
to prevent such crimes leaves the comande liable for crimes
that are subsequently committed.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...800-mp-bde.htm
....
14. (U) Formal charges under the UCMJ were preferred
against these Soldiers and an Article-32 Investigation
conducted by LTC Gentry. He recommended a general court
martial for the four accused, which BG Karpinski
supported. Despite this documented abuse, there is no
evidence that BG Karpinski ever attempted to remind 800th
MP Soldiers of the requirements of the Geneva Conventions
regarding detainee treatment or took any steps to ensure
that such abuse was not repeated. Nor is there any
evidence that LTC(P) Phillabaum, the commander of the
Soldiers involved in the Camp Bucca abuse incident, took
any initiative to ensure his Soldiers were properly
trained regarding detainee treatment. (ANNEXES 35 and
62)

....

This implies, at the very least, that Karpinski was at the
very least negligent and did not take appropriate action either
to prevent criminal acts.



Misreading (unless he just lied) the intelligence on Iraqi
complicity/duplicity
in Al Quaida's attacks on the US.


Are you suggesting a President should discount what he's being told by
intelligence officials?

I'm not aware of any evidence that Bush was told by intelligence
officials that there was any substantive connection between
AL Qaida and Iraq.

Ditto on weapons of mass destruction supposedly held by Saddam.

When the head of the CIA says its a "slam dunk" case, who should argue with
him?

Please point us to some documentation that head of the CIA says its
a "slam dunk" case. Some of the iinformation presented by Powell
to the UN was obviously known to be false, specificaly the supposed
Uranium correspondence between Niger and Iraq, and the Medusa missle
tubes.

After the UN and IAEA inspectors found nothing to support any of
the US/British 'intelligence' and plenty to disprove it was
clear that the 'intelligence' was wrong and possibly deliberately
falsified.


Dismissing the Iraqi army. We could have paid them $200,000,000 for three
months (vice 5,000,000,000,000 a month that we are spending now) and not had
hundreds of thousands of military trained men hanging around unemployed.

Hind sight is a beautiful thing huh?

Dismissing Ba'ath party officials. It's now suggested that at least some
Ba'athists be brought back.

See above..

Thse were obvious mistakes at the time.


Clinton ignored the
advice of the military in Somalia in 1993 and got dozens of Americans killed in
the process. I'm willing to bet you were silent on that one.


I wasn't. Nor am I silent IRT the observation that George H Bush
sent those troops to Somalia and left them there to spite
Clinton for winning the election. See also LBJ and his decision
to unilaterally halt bombing of N Vietnam after Humphrey lost.

Focusing on Iraq when Al Quaida is in Afghanistan.

The number of A-Q in Afghanistan is very small, and even if you include
Pakistan, the numbers are much smaller than their existance in other countries.

Clearly it was smaller in Iraq than in any other country in the
region.

The focus on A-Q must be global, not just in one country. This is what
President Bush is doing.

No. He pulled troops out of the hunt for Al Quada in places like the
Horn fo Africa and sent them to Iraq.


Afghan countryside is now
run by the warlords.

The problem is not nearly as bad as you would expect and this was always going
to be a problem. ...

I agree that there still is hope for Afghanistan.


And, yes. He still is ultimately responsible for the mistreatment of those
Iraqi POWs.

No matter how you stretch command responsibility, no matter how bad you twist
it, Bush is not responsible for the mistreatment of the PWs.

Under his direction this Administration has flouted the rule of law.
I daresay that the abuses of foreign prisoners in American-Run
overseas prisons are a direct and forseeable consequence of the
climate he created.

--

FF

From: "Leslie Swartz"

Nothing whatsoever in what you responded to as "Bull****" in any way
challenged what was said.

Brooks said that General Shenseki was retired when he said that "several
hundred thousand" troops would be needed for the Iraqi operation.

My quote substantiated that General Shenseki was still on active duty.

That was either a lie or a mistake. Either falls into the category of
"Bull****."

As for you, I have no idea what your disconnect is.

Walt

Absolutely. The Wing Commander is ultimately responsible for the *general*
conduct of every squadron in the wing...however he is not personally
responsible for for the actions of every individual in the wing...which is
exactly what you are arguing.

Yes, definitely yes. He is -ultimately- responsible, good or bad, whole or
incomplete for -everything-.

Does that mean he should be charged under the UCMJ if a Hummer driver deosn't
maintain the proper tire inflation on his vehicle and it leads to an accident
or unreasonable damage to the vehicle? No, of course not.

I agree, however that is exactly what you're arguing by claiming the President
should be held accountable for the actions of individual US service members.

But the president -is-
repsonsible to the American people. Could he have prevented or been aware
directly that a female national guardsman had an naked iraqi man on a leash?
No.

This is a far cry from your intital statements and that of like Democrats
calling for the Presidents impeachment over the scandal.

Does he need to take the appropriate action to ensure that the most
culpable are held responsible, yes.

Absolutely.

Did the blatant disregard for the rule of law by the Bush administration add
to
the climate that led to the abuses at Al Ghraib? Probably.

That's funny. I can see it now, U.S. service members sitting around discussing
the "illegal invasion of Iraq" when one looks at the other and says; "hey, if
he's breakin' the law...we should too". Please tell me you don't honestly
believe a Presidents actions have any direct influance over the actions of
individual soldiers. I seved in the U.S. military for 8 years under Clinton and
never had an inkling to smoke pot, cheat on my wife with a fat woman or make a
false official statement (although...since I was never involved in any
investigations, this one was never put to the test).

But no US service
person should have engaged in such conduct.

Absolutely.

They knew better

Concur, despite what their lawyers will say.

Of course with a fuzzy understanding of command and responsibility -- like
you
have-- it's not as surprising as it might otherwise be.

My understanding of command and responsibility is crystal clear, its your that
doesn't mesh with reality.

but the president is ultimately
responsible -- he --absolutely is

And when have I said any different? One of your problems is, you believe this
"ultimate responsibility" to mean he is answerable for the actions of
individual service members.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...

snip


Did the blatant disregard for the rule of law by the Bush administration
add
to
the climate that led to the abuses at Al Ghraib? Probably.

That's funny. I can see it now, U.S. service members sitting around
discussing
the "illegal invasion of Iraq" when one looks at the other and says; "hey,
if
he's breakin' the law...we should too". Please tell me you don't honestly
believe a Presidents actions have any direct influance over the actions of
individual soldiers. I seved in the U.S. military for 8 years under
Clinton and
never had an inkling to smoke pot, cheat on my wife with a fat woman or
make a
false official statement (although...since I was never involved in any
investigations, this one was never put to the test).

Ask him how the President's putting into action the Public Law signed by his
predecessor (a Mr. Clinton), which stated regime change was the US objective
in Iraq, constitutes "blatant disregard for the rule of law".

Brooks

Ask him how the President's putting into action the Public Law signed by his
predecessor (a Mr. Clinton), which stated regime change was the US objective
in Iraq, constitutes "blatant disregard for the rule of law".

Tell -me- why an American citizen arrested in Chicago (Jose Padilla) was held
for two years with no charges and no access to a lawyer.

Walt

The doctrine of command responsibility does not hold a commander
responsible for isolated criminal acts committed in secret
by individuals.

Yes it does.

The commander is responsible for everything that happens in his/her unit. And
military personnel are never "off duty."

Walt

Ditto on weapons of mass destruction supposedly held by Saddam.

When the head of the CIA says its a "slam dunk" case, who should argue with
him?

Please point us to some documentation that head of the CIA says its
a "slam dunk" case.

That's what Woodward's book "Plan of Attack" says.

After the UN and IAEA inspectors found nothing to support any of
the US/British 'intelligence' and plenty to disprove it was
clear that the 'intelligence' was wrong and possibly deliberately
falsified.

Apparently by the Director of Central Intelligence.

Dismissing the Iraqi army. We could have paid them $200,000,000 for three
months (vice 5,000,000,000,000 a month that we are spending now) and not
had
hundreds of thousands of military trained men hanging around unemployed.

Hind sight is a beautiful thing huh?

Dismissing Ba'ath party officials. It's now suggested that at least
some
Ba'athists be brought back.

See above..

Thse were obvious mistakes at the time.

This was one of the worst. And they all together are getting our guys killed in
Iraq in greater numbers than necessary, even if you bought the administration
rationale for the war.

They've done -everything- wrong it was possible to screw up.



Clinton ignored the
advice of the military in Somalia in 1993 and got dozens of Americans
killed in
the process. I'm willing to bet you were silent on that one.


I wasn't. Nor am I silent IRT the observation that George H Bush
sent those troops to Somalia and left them there to spite
Clinton for winning the election. See also LBJ and his decision
to unilaterally halt bombing of N Vietnam after Humphrey lost.


Good points both.



Focusing on Iraq when Al Quaida is in Afghanistan.

The number of A-Q in Afghanistan is very small, and even if you include
Pakistan, the numbers are much smaller than their existance in other
countries.

Clearly it was smaller in Iraq than in any other country in the
region.

All this unlovely factoid can do is suggest that this is in fact a war for oil.



The focus on A-Q must be global, not just in one country. This is what
President Bush is doing.

No. He pulled troops out of the hunt for Al Quada in places like the
Horn fo Africa and sent them to Iraq.


Bears repeating.


Afghan countryside is now
run by the warlords.

The problem is not nearly as bad as you would expect and this was always
going
to be a problem. ...

I agree that there still is hope for Afghanistan.


And, yes. He still is ultimately responsible for the mistreatment of those
Iraqi POWs.

No matter how you stretch command responsibility, no matter how bad you
twist
it, Bush is not responsible for the mistreatment of the PWs.

Under his direction this Administration has flouted the rule of law.
I daresay that the abuses of foreign prisoners in American-Run
overseas prisons are a direct and forseeable consequence of the
climate he created.



Great comments. Don't expect to sway locksteppers like BUFDRVR

Walt

but the president is ultimately
responsible -- he --absolutely is

And when have I said any different?

Repeatedly.

Walt

but the president is ultimately
responsible -- he --absolutely is

And when have I said any different?

Repeatedly.

Than you should have no problem producing that quote.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

but the president is ultimately
responsible -- he --absolutely is

And when have I said any different?

Repeatedly.

Than you should have no problem producing that quote.


BUFDRVR

Here's one:

"Unlike you, my preference for who sits in the White House has nothing to do
with my views on this issue. You are arguing the President is responsible for
the individual actions of over 1 million U.S. service members serving on all 7
continents, this is ridiculous."

Walt