Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone for the prisoner abuse scandal
in Iraq by refusing to give captives rights due prisoners of war under
the Geneva Conventions.

Actually an *editorial* in a "leading military newspaper" made that claim.

The editors at the Military Times pretty much support the same interpretation
of command responsibility that I do.

I read editorials every week in Air Force Times that are based on nothing
more
than the opinion of a single person.

The posts you make on this NG -- are they the opinion of a single person?

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone early in this war by
steadfastly refusing to give captives the rights accorded to prisoners
of war under the Geneva Convention," it said.

"it" was wrong. OIF differed substantially from OEF until a few months ago.

No, "it's" right. President Bush is ultimately repsonsible for what has
happened in Iraq, which James Webb -- no leftie, he-- called the greatest
strategic failure in the last 50 years.

From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam Hussain)
were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention.

Many have not been. In fact, I don't know that the record shows that any large
number have.

What has come out in the media in the last few days is that General Miller was
brought in from Gitmo (I have been there too, BTW) to make all the detention
facilities into interrogation centers in direct difiance of the Geneva
Convention.

It wasn't until the
introduction of foreign fighters that things got blurry.

You can try and show that.

A captured Saudi is
*not* afforded protection under the Geneva convention for fighting Americans
in
Iraq.

Where do you see that?

From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and
accorded no rights whatsoever

If they're Iraqis and in uniform they have Geneva convention rights. Remove
either of the two and they are not protected under Geneva.

Then why did Rumsfeld --say-- they were being treated in accordance with the
Geneva Conventions?

Does this mean they
should be treated as they were in Abu Gharib? Hell no, but lets not confuse
the
issue with dubious "facts".

You're practically a shill for the Bushies. You typically stay well away from
the facts.

Walt