Donald Rumsfeld -- should he resign?

OK, there has been much demand for Rumsfeld's head -- the New York Times editorial, Democrats, anti-Rumsfeld people have called for his resignation.

My prediction is that Don Rumsfeld would stay. This is because Bush wants him to stay and the Republicans in Congress supports him (and the GOP controls both houses). Furthermore, Rumsfeld quitting would weaken the Bush election campaign.

I'm not an ardent Rumsfeld fan, but I can tell you this -- calling for his head in this situation is unreasonable and unfair. Torture, as despicable as it is, is commonplace in war. In fact, in the Times today, it is reported that such tortures and sexual humiliation occur in most US prisons. The Secretary rightly took the responsibility of not informing the higher-ups (the President and Congress) of investigations into such acts. And I'm pleased that he didn't hide the fact that even more horrific acts of torture and humiliation are being investigated.

[topdog]

well, i think rumsfeld should go just for being stupid. the bush admin got themselves into this hole, the least rumsfeld could do was maintain an illusion of ethical warfare in the face of the unrelenting global scrutiny, so that they can finish their job and get the hell out.

in any case, it's not like this is anything new. except for the most naive who think that america has never done anything "unethical" in previous wars, people probably want rumsfeld to resign for making a mess of things. this was in fact the message i got reading yesterday's ny times editorial.

[el_empty]

Bush wants him to stay and the Republicans in Congress supports him

rumsfeld is such a liability! i think if bush wants to save his campaign and his ass he better does something credible like firing rumsfeld, together with his motley crew of warmongers - condie rice and wolfowitz etc.

and i doubt that the bush house will be weaken with the absence of rummy. how would it? if anything, bush is just a puppet for a neo-conservative government, or at least his administration is perceived that way. he needs to get rid of his puppeteers to regain his credibility.

Bush wants him to stay and the Republicans in Congress supports him

rumsfeld is such a liability! i think if bush wants to save his campaign and his ass he better does something credible like firing rumsfeld, together with his motley crew of warmongers - condie rice and wolfowitz etc.


At a risk of sounding like a Press Secretary, let me say this.

Well, obviously the White House disagrees with you on this -- the President has clearly stated that he wants Rumsfeld to stay.

I understand that you may not agree with the thinkings and ideas of Rice, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld, but that doesn't mean the President doesn't agree with them -- in fact he does and that's why he decided to follow many of their policies and recommendations.

There are many people who support the President for his strong leadership in fighting the war on terror, and also who support his excellent team.

-- end of pseudo-Press Secretary comments.

well, i think rumsfeld should go just for being stupid. the bush admin got themselves into this hole, the least rumsfeld could do was maintain an illusion of ethical warfare in the face of the unrelenting global scrutiny, so that they can finish their job and get the hell out.


If you were the Secretary and knew of the abuses, would you have exposed it to the media, hurting the image of the US, and also hurting the effort to rebuild a stable and free Iraq? Or would you have directed an investigation into the matter? I believe Don Rumsfeld chose the second option, of course not knowing that some American soldiers have unofficially recorded these incidents. Does this qualify as being stupid?

[Thirdshifter]

1. Afghanistan

2. Iraq

3. (War on) Terror Worldwide

You don't need a Ph.D. to figure out that Rummy hasn't done anything close to a satisfactory -- or even a half-assed -- job as the U.S. Secretary of War.

Who gives a crap what he knew or when he knew it about this heinous American atrocity?

He's incompetent; clearly not capabable of performing at the position he occupies.

Rice is just kind of a mushy dunce -- it actually doesn't much matter whether she stays or goes.

On the other hand, Rummy is a complete and utter failure -- and his job is important. It makes perfect sense to call for him to be canned.

But not for the idiotic reasoning tied to some prison out of control chain of command gone haywire torture flap.

[USSDefiantNX74205]

Rumsfeld should not be fired. Plain and simple. I mean why should he? He may be the Secretary of Defense, but that doesn't mean that he's responsible for every single act of random violence committed by US troops in Iraqi prisons. In fact, there are rules governing how a soldier should behave. If they fail to comply with those rules, then is Rumsfeld, sitting in his office in Washington, to blame? In fact, by ordering an investigation, he has done what should and can be done.

Therefore, direct, personal responsibility on the part of Rumsfeld is totally out of the question. Take it this way - if Rumsfeld should go, then so should the generals in the army, the commanding officers of those people who committed these crimes. You want someone to be responsible for all that? Court marshal those soldiers involved and jail them. They are the ones that caused all this BS in the first place.

[topdog]

well, i think rumsfeld should go just for being stupid. the bush admin got themselves into this hole, the least rumsfeld could do was maintain an illusion of ethical warfare in the face of the unrelenting global scrutiny, so that they can finish their job and get the hell out.


If you were the Secretary and knew of the abuses, would you have exposed it to the media, hurting the image of the US, and also hurting the effort to rebuild a stable and free Iraq? Or would you have directed an investigation into the matter? I believe Don Rumsfeld chose the second option, of course not knowing that some American soldiers have unofficially recorded these incidents. Does this qualify as being stupid?
i think it does. he could have said screw the media and kept the curtains closed tight on iraq. OR he could taken steps to address the issue when the red cross warned the bush admin of abuse more than a year ago! as it turned out he did a half assed job of both. what he did well was acting smug and getting caught lying with his pants down on face the nation. notwithstanding the legality of the war in iraq, he was simply not very competent at his job.

[topdog]

Rumsfeld should not be fired. Plain and simple. I mean why should he? He may be the Secretary of Defense, but that doesn't mean that he's responsible for every single act of random violence committed by US troops in Iraqi prisons.
obviously, the iraq prisoner abuse is a stupid reason to fire rumsfeld. torture has been used in wars since time immemorial. what reveals rumsfeld's incompetence is not the torture, which may or may not have been random violence committed by some punks. it is the fact that the u.s. war machine, under rumsfeld, could not cover up the torture, or at least prevent it from being turned into the convenient us govt-bashing tool it is now.

[USSDefiantNX74205]

But honestly, which would you prefer? Having the tortures covered up? Or having the world know about it and be honest? I believed Rumsfeld went for the first option, but the tortures leaked through from soldiers who gave or sold those pictures to the media. Once again you can't blame Rumsfeld for not doing a good enough job to cover it up. He already did what a politician in his situation was expected to do. To have soldiers blow his cover knowingly or unknowingly was just plain unlucky for him, if you ask me.

[el_empty]

i think the argument that the general public puts forth is the fact that there is little or ineffective communication between the top and the field players. i believe it began with the administration downplaying some federal agents' memo on the impending 911 attacks. what happened in iraq is a more graphic manifestation of this breakdown in communication.

what does it reflect? yeah so some bad hats in the us army tortured some POWs. but a bigger issue is that it reflects the administration's hubris, unilateral, and hyper neoconservative attitude towards global diplomacy. the us army, the country, the iraq transition coalition, the entire machinery has just lost its credibility and made a fool of themselves. whether you like it or not, critics are there, the hawks are there, and when you make mistakes involving LOTS of money and LOTS of lives, they will get you.

If you were the Secretary and knew of the abuses, would you have exposed it to the media, hurting the image of the US, and also hurting the effort to rebuild a stable and free Iraq?

you let the judicial system take its due course. when you hide things, someone will find out. you show your critics you punish the criminals. not send them a 'letter of reprimand.'

[oshmelvin]

Hah.... at least more people voted for rumsfield to stay. It's not a good reason to fire rumsfield just because he protected the image of the US millitary by not revealing it. Who knows, he might have actually taken some action including punishing the us soldiers who have done it or warn them not to continue with that kind of abuse. Abuse might have happened at the beginning of the war but I think it has gradually reduced. So I think the photos of the abuse could be taken even before rumsfield knew anything about it or even before he had taken any action to intervene. There are two reasons why he did not hype the news. The first is to protect the image of the US millitary and not to provoke the anger of the islamic millitants. The second reason it that it's not much of a big deal because it has only happened in a few situations. And there's another thing.... abuse could be also used as a psychological method to gain useful information from the enemy about their tactics of war or to learn more about their leader. So we have to know everything in detail before we jump into conclusions..... was the abuse done to gain any useful information which might be useful to the US? The information could be an important thing that could end the war and liberate the iraqi people.

[sanghanuman]

Hah.... at least more people voted for rumsfield to stay. It's not a good reason to fire rumsfield just because he protected the image of the US millitary by not revealing it.

I can't believe that we too, objectify the POWs. They are freaking humans. So, what's with covering US's image? This is a serious allegation. Yes, such cases are typical of wars. But the condition is different. This time, the world can see, and people will not stay put and shut up.

Who knows, he might have actually taken some action including punishing the us soldiers who have done it or warn them not to continue with that kind of abuse.

Yeah man, who knows. But from what I know, at the time that the pictures were released, more abusive soldiers still roamed free, in command of the prison, even now as we speak.

Abuse might have happened at the beginning of the war but I think it has gradually reduced.

Nope, I don't buy that. What do you mean by beginning? It's been years. Since the US "planned" to end this war soon, shouldn't now be almost the "end", and not beginning? If the pictures weren't released, do you think the abuse will "naturally" subside?

The second reason it that it's not much of a big deal because it has only happened in a few situations.

I like that. "not much of a big deal".. Right. If such war happen to Malaysia, those men in the prison will be either your friend, your dad, and hell, even you.

And there's another thing.... abuse could be also used as a psychological method to gain useful information from the enemy about their tactics of war or to learn more about their leader. So we have to know everything in detail before we jump into conclusions..... was the abuse done to gain any useful information which might be useful to the US?

How does forcing the inmates to masturbate help the government of United States to gain information? Try this, raping the women inmates? Hell yeah that's gonna work. She'll be almost dead after being raped. Can she tell anything after that? And what about the dead men? I guess they could never give any information, so might as well be dead. Great tactic.

The information could be an important thing that could end the war and liberate the iraqi people.

Last but not least. I don't see no liberation. Only oppression.
Thank you.

[el_empty]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/08/iraq.abuse.main/index.html
Congressman: Prison advisory plan was rejected


and the saga continues....

[USSDefiantNX74205]

Last but not least. I don't see no liberation. Only oppression.

Oppression? I'm sorry, but I don't see that either. Perhaps someone could point it out to me?

[oshmelvin]

I like that. "not much of a big deal".. Right. If such war happen to Malaysia, those men in the prison will be either your friend, your dad, and hell, even you.

When I said not much of a big deal, I was refering to the problem as a minor problem. Are you going to hype up a minor problem and get lots and lots of complaints from the public when you can actually solve it whether you want to reveal it or not? There's not much of a difference anyway. What can the public do even if they know about it? The initiative and the power to take any action still lies within the millitary and they had been looking into it. Besides, the abuse problem is minor and only a handful of soldiers are responsible for that. Would you want to risk tainting the millitary's image by revealing the minor problem if you were in donald's shoes? And we're only getting one side of the story. Why were the POW's abused? They might have offended the millitary you know. Every action has a reason behind it so the millitary shouldn't be the only ones blamed for their actions.


How does forcing the inmates to masturbate help the government of United States to gain information? Try this, raping the women inmates? Hell yeah that's gonna work. She'll be almost dead after being raped. Can she tell anything after that? And what about the dead men? I guess they could never give any information, so might as well be dead. Great tactic.


That's only one possible senario. I was refering to other torture/abuse methods.

[el_empty]

When I said not much of a big deal, I was refering to the problem as a minor problem. Are you going to hype up a minor problem and get lots and lots of complaints from the public when you can actually solve it whether you want to reveal it or not? There's not much of a difference anyway. What can the public do even if they know about it? The initiative and the power to take any action still lies within the millitary and they had been looking into it. Besides, the abuse problem is minor and only a handful of soldiers are responsible for that. Would you want to risk tainting the millitary's image by revealing the minor problem if you were in donald's shoes? And we're only getting one side of the story. Why were the POW's abused? They might have offended the millitary you know. Every action has a reason behind it so the millitary shouldn't be the only ones blamed for their actions.


i swear this is donald rumsfeld in recom! welcome donald, to recom. we are a forum for malaysian students exchanging opinions on various issues....

kidding... :D - but seriously, osh, i think it's not a minor problem. when you have POWs, there are conventions on how you treat your POWs. remember, a lot of the inmates are not really your bonafide terrorists - they qualify for the seemingly random sweepstakes to enjoy a retreat at the local prison as long as they're suspected of terrorism.

What can the public do even if they know about it?

this is why i thought you were donald rumsfeld incarnate. do you realize how patronizing and aristocratic that statement you just made was? here's another example:

They might have offended the millitary you know

what? offend?

inmate: "eh i don't like your pet bird"
soldier: "that's offensive! take that!" (ties inmate up and forces him to masturbate in front of a smoking female soldier)

again there are conventions. an offensive verbal abuse warrants only an impartial shrug or self restraint by the soldier. at most, the soldier shouts, and if the inmate's comments were really abusive then maybe the soldier can punch him. if it were violent (if that's what you meant by 'offensive') then perhaps solitary confinement will suffice, or being cuffed to the wall in extreme cases. but nothing... nothing justifies sexual and demeaning torture.

[masterof_none]

My stance on this is simple: Rumsfeld should go.
For the same reason what Third, empty, and all the anti-Rumsfeld said. (don't need to repeat. )

The thing that bother me is this :

the US told the Iraqis that they want to liberate the Iraqis from Saddam Tyranny. But they're doing the same, tyranny-like torture?
stripping prisoners and everything? I don't want to wait till "the investigation" finish, and wait for Bush's flowery apologies. We know that the US Army in Iraq are "Occupied" force, not the "Liberator".

(these things reminds me on the Japanese occupation in Malaya during the infamous "Tiga tahun Lapan Bulan".)

and I just watch CNN just now that some soldiers reported that they performed the interrogation according to their "higher ranking officers" command. Not at their own will

(Do you think all the ordinary GI's do all these things at their own will?
they wish they could. They must be following the command. And who is their boss of the boss? ).

This is not the matter of covering up. This is what they "want" to do to interrogate the Iraqis.

Here's some of the examples of the torture, quoted from Hersh by CNN:

another, taken a few minutes later, the Iraqi is lying on the ground, writhing in pain, with a soldier sitting on top of him, knee pressed to his back. Blood is streaming from the inmate's leg."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/09/hersh.iraq.abuse/index.html


<digress>
Do you remember that the US promise the Iraqis to hand the "liberated " Iraq back to them somewhere around June this year?.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2004/02/20/353848.html
Hope they don't break their promise.
</digress>

for those who want more reading about US-Iraq relation,
here's a good reading:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

[topdog]

even for rumsfeld supporters and those who don't see anything wrong with POW torture, how can they honestly say that rumsfeld has done a good job? this iraq POW boo boo did not just pop out of nowhere you know. i'm not even talking about guantanamo bay. even the whole 'shock and awe' deal back then was criticized by former army generals for being strategically unsound. read it up.

[ElansarGelmir]

I doubt that Rumsfeld's going, after he has Bush's support.

Do you remember that the US promise the Iraqis to hand the "liberated " Iraq back to them somewhere around June this year?.

They'd better. Else, US's reputation would be further tarnished.

Today's Star paper (May 11th, 2004) says that more than 50% of the British's public wants British troops to be withdrawn by June 30th. And many Britons want Blair to step down.

[wawa]

I'm surprised that the reason Rumsfield should not go is because he didn't want such things to happen (He's far away from Iraq and thus powerless to prevent it) and that torture/abuse comes with war.
If torture's is the norm of war, then what different are we from 5,000 years ago? What is the meaning of civilisation and humanity? What's all the Geneva convention about? Even during the World War 2, the allied made some agrements with Germany so that certain sections of the society were spared from abuse, like children and injured POWs. Of course I'm not stating the Eutopian view that no torture should happen during war, but that should be confined to certain sections only, like people who have valuable info. What's happening now is allegation of abuse of people who have been sent to jail on minor charges or on suspicion only.

[topdog]

okay, after all the outcries over iraqi prisoner abuse, let's take a deep breath and check out the link below in case we forget what the u.s. is up against.

Yahoo News: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040512/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_20)

[Thirdshifter]

okay, after all the outcries over iraqi prisoner abuse, let's take a deep breath and check out the link below in case we forget what the u.s. is up against.

Yahoo News: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040512/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_20)

Topdog, that is entirely unrelated. I don't think it is fair to generalize that the tortured were Terrorist. The abused Iraqis are prisoners of war which were held long before the insurgency in fallujah (sp?)

What happened in the prisons just gave these terrorist more reason to why they are beheading Foreigners especially Americans.

US went to Iraq because of the WMD threat which ofcourse was never there. It is now a liberation war and soon it'll be vietnam 1 and a half. A long never ending war which brings out the worst in Men and Women. Can't wait to see the next jane fonda riding a camel in baghdad.

The war in Iraq was a mistake. I support my troops but it sad to know that over 9,000 innocent civilians were killed. Over 8,000 Iraqi Soldiers perished.

[misled_youth]

In Malaysia, cops indiscriminately kill people. Should the IGP resign?

In Malaysia, two National Service trainee died due to negligence, and one has alleged rape. Should our defence minister resign?

In Malaysia, heaps of people are tortured in ISA, they are forced to strip, denied access to free trail and teh tark. Should our home minister resign?

Deii BN... Poodah Chit!
________
BUY BUBBLERS (http://bubblers.net/)

[ElansarGelmir]

I'm not saying that I'm all in for Rumsfeld, I think it's unfair for people (especially anti-US ppl) to judge the Iraqi abuse thingy through their emotion. Yeah, perhaps it's infuriating for us to see someone who claimed himself to be the superpower of the world, invaded Iraq, detained the president and citizens, and then finally, watching those incendiary abuses on the Iraqi citizens.

However, that doesn't mean that Rumsfeld know that this was happenning all the time. I doubt so. In fact, I believe that everyone, including the US citizens are just ordinary people, who are victims of anger and being unforgiving. perhaps those soldiers haven't forget the torment and suffering the terrorists inflicted into the lives of Americans due to the tragic 911 incident. Perhaps they were merely trying to vent out their anger and revenge on these prisoners... I'm just trying to draw my own conclusion. Just my opinion...

[USSDefiantNX74205]

In Malaysia, cops indiscriminately kill people. Should the IGP resign?

In Malaysia, two National Service trainee died due to negligence, and one has alleged rape. Should our defence minister resign?

In Malaysia, heaps of people are tortured in ISA, they are forced to strip, denied access to free trail and teh tark. Should our home minister resign?

If these people knew about such abuses, then they should resign with immediate effect. This being Malaysia however, I suspect everyone in the service turns a blind eye towards these acts and behave as if its not their problem, regardless of whether the people on top knew about the abuses. Rumsfeld however, didn't condone these abuses (I doubt that he would sanction these acts) and even ordered an investigation into these acts. That's the right thing to do, whether or not it was done under cover.

On a side not however, has anyone noticed that our govt has been actively calling for justice for prisoners in Iraq lately after the realease of those pics? Perhaps they should consider taking action against police brutality back here first before opening their mouths big and wide and criticize America for their treatment of Iraqi prisoners. A real shame, our govt...

[topdog]

okay, after all the outcries over iraqi prisoner abuse, let's take a deep breath and check out the link below in case we forget what the u.s. is up against.

Yahoo News: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040512/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_20)

Topdog, that is entirely unrelated. I don't think it is fair to generalize that the tortured were Terrorist. The abused Iraqis are prisoners of war which were held long before the insurgency in fallujah (sp?)

i did not generalize that the tortured were terrorists. the torture was wrong plain and simple. read the news report again. these people, the real terrorists, are out to avenge the humiliation of their muslim brothers (the iraqi POWs) by any means necessary. the u.s. is no angel and has been rightly criticized for what happened in abu ghraib, but where is the condemnation coming from arab camps over the actions of these terrorists? wait, as if condemnation would have any effect on them. they have no regard for rules of engagement, geneva convention and all that nonsense, since they are supposedly not even political entities. how do you deal with them? can you actually reason with them?


What happened in the prisons just gave these terrorist more reason to why they are beheading Foreigners especially Americans.

i agree. all the more reason why someone high up in the chain of command has got to take responsibilty for what happened. they simply lost control. whether you interpret losing control as failing to cover up the use of systemic torture, or failing to stop random torture from happening, depends on your perspective.


The war in Iraq was a mistake. I support my troops but it sad to know that over 9,000 innocent civilians were killed. Over 8,000 Iraqi Soldiers perished.
the war was a mistake, a very arrogantly committed one. but it's too late now innit? the u.s. is in too deep now. they only have 2 choices, commit more troops, or pull out. i heard there will be a draft in 2005 if bush gets reelected. i hope americans are smart enough to vote this admin out.

i heard there will be a draft in 2005 if bush gets reelected. i hope americans are smart enough to vote this admin out.

I highly doubt there will be draft. The military is too specialized to institute a draft and furthermore, the US military has many extra troops around in the world that don't play an extremely important role, like the thousands in Germany. If that's not enough, there are thousands of reserve guards waiting for duty.

Well, unless of course rogue states like N.Korea or Iran does something crazy like aiding terrorist to attack the US. Then either administration would be forced to declare war with states that aid terrorist (who directly attack the US).

[masterof_none]

In Malaysia, cops indiscriminately kill people. Should the IGP resign?

In Malaysia, two National Service trainee died due to negligence, and one has alleged rape. Should our defence minister resign?

In Malaysia, heaps of people are tortured in ISA, they are forced to strip, denied access to free trail and teh tark. Should our home minister resign?

Deii BN... Poodah Chit!


Good questions misled_youth. It is definitely something to ponder about. But I hope you understand that Rumsfeld is representing the US, the "liberator" (according to them) of Iraq, the champion in free speech, the father of democracy.

To take an analogy from Malaysian context is good. But our democracy is just 40 years old. We have to learn more from the preacher of democracy itself. But what can we learn from them from their act in Iraq? harsher torture in ISA?. Or does Rumsfeld (and Bush admin) is a wrong representation of democracy?

[Thirdshifter]

okay, after all the outcries over iraqi prisoner abuse, let's take a deep breath and check out the link below in case we forget what the u.s. is up against.

Yahoo News: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040512/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_20)

Topdog, that is entirely unrelated. I don't think it is fair to generalize that the tortured were Terrorist. The abused Iraqis are prisoners of war which were held long before the insurgency in fallujah (sp?)

i did not generalize that the tortured were terrorists. the torture was wrong plain and simple. read the news report again. these people, the real terrorists, are out to avenge the humiliation of their muslim brothers (the iraqi POWs) by any means necessary. the u.s. is no angel and has been rightly criticized for what happened in abu ghraib, but where is the condemnation coming from arab camps over the actions of these terrorists? wait, as if condemnation would have any effect on them. they have no regard for rules of engagement, geneva convention and all that nonsense, since they are supposedly not even political entities. how do you deal with them? can you actually reason with them?


You however did say 'lets not forget what the Americans are up against' in a thread talking about POWs abuse, so i'm sorry for my misunderstanding.

The terrorist or the anti-american Iraqi militia mens who beheaded mr Berg are to be held responsible and be brought to justice.. I don't think i want to watch the video.

Anyway this War needs to be resolved somehow and right now it doesnt seems like all these scandals are helping.

[__earth]

The terrorist or the anti-american Iraqi militia mens who beheaded mr Berg are to be held responsible and be brought to justice.. I don't think i want to watch the video.

I've seen it and i don't think i want to see it again. it is just barbaric.

[Thirdshifter]

In Malaysia, cops indiscriminately kill people. Should the IGP resign?

In Malaysia, two National Service trainee died due to negligence, and one has alleged rape. Should our defence minister resign?

In Malaysia, heaps of people are tortured in ISA, they are forced to strip, denied access to free trail and teh tark. Should our home minister resign?

Deii BN... Poodah Chit!


Good questions misled_youth. It is definitely something to ponder about. But I hope you understand that Rumsfeld is representing the US, the "liberator" (according to them) of Iraq, the champion in free speech, the father of democracy.

To take an analogy from Malaysian context is good. But our democracy is just 40 years old. We have to learn more from the preacher of democracy itself. But what can we learn from them from their act in Iraq? harsher torture in ISA?. Or does Rumsfeld (and Bush admin) is a wrong representation of democracy?

Malaysian democracy 40 years old? I thought it was even borned yet.

What happened in Iraq and what is going on in ISA could pretty much be the same thing, only Malaysian goverment knows how to control the information better.

I think it is unfair to take the abuse scandal and manipulate it to blame the preacher of democracy (USA) as giving a bad example. I think how the COngress publicly critisize and grill rummy ass on national television is what we should be learning.

In Malaysia to call Badawi and idiot or Hishamuddin a racist would get you into ISA. Bush got both and i dont see any democrats locked up in Cuba.

Misled_youth gave a perfect example of how Malaysians are crying over this scandal but ignoring the posibility that these kind of abuses runs rampant in Malaysian Prisons. Actually it does, Remember Anwar getting beat up? If anwar was beat up i wonder how many unlucky detainees had similar or even worst treatments.

Blaming USA is what our politicians like to do. I remember when the Patriot acts was drawn. Mahathir was first to say ' See ISA is not that bad at all ' bleh!

[pandaboy]

The terrorist or the anti-american Iraqi militia mens who beheaded mr Berg are to be held responsible and be brought to justice.. I don't think i want to watch the video.

I've seen it and i don't think i want to see it again. it is just barbaric.

what kind of world is this? I saw the full video.... .... it's too scary!! Certainly not for faint-hearted. War for religion purposes? Does religion really teaches us to support war? War against terrorism? Nonsense..... can u put of fire with fire? All these are nonsense.... I'm really really sad of the world today.

[USSDefiantNX74205]

Rumsfeld made a surprise visit to Iraq. Check it out:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040513/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rumsfeld_iraq_17

Wonder what does he hope to achieve by doing that. And those terrorists...murdering innocent people in the name of God. Its just plain disgusting. Guess the Bush administration has to keep a tighter noose on things to prevent more revenge killings like these. Then again, that wouldn't be very democratic would it? Whaddya guys think?

[topdog]

seems like a number of terrorist websites are hosted by malaysian companies. jeff ooi (http://www.jeffooi.com) is doing quite a bit of digging...

hey, who says malaysians can't compete globally? [/url]

[masterof_none]

And those terrorists...murdering innocent people in the name of God. Its just plain disgusting. Guess the Bush administration has to keep a tighter noose on things to prevent more revenge killings like these. Then again, that wouldn't be very democratic would it? Whaddya guys think?

USS, I understand that, after watching the beheading video, you'll feel a certain kind biased against barbaric behavior of the Iraqis that you label them as "terrorist". But let's look at a different angle:

The Iraqis considered the US army now, an "occupied" force. The Iraqis now look at Americans as an "invaders". and therefore, whoever they are, they must be fought.

The reason why we feel angry after watching the video is because we haven't seen the video of the American force bombing the innocent civilans, their mosques, the loss of their heads, legs and other part of the bodies that are even worse than that guy's head. (and those civilians are innocent).
Before we arrive at the conclusion that the Iraqi as mere barbaric and terrorists, we should look at how the Iraqis feel towards Americans.

Rewind.

Malaya, pre-independent.

British was an occupied force. Japanese was an Occupied force. Dutch was an occupied force. If you think that the Iraqis are the terrorists, I think you would agree that the those who fought for independence for Malaya: Tok Janggut, Mat Salleh, Mat Kilau, Dato' Maharajalela, Roslie Dobie, and the Sarawak ABorigines Hero (can't remember his name) are the terrorists.

Fast forward.

Iraqis feel the same way. So, whenever possible, they just killed Americans. They feel that it is their responsible to liberate themselves from Americans. The prisoners abuse make them more angry.

Iraqis are humans too. And they fought for their independence.
And they're using religion to justify their cause, because they believe that they're defending themselves against the occupied force.
It's the fight through whatever means that they think it's right. (of course, they can keep the guy as prisoners, but they didn't for whatever reason). Whether they're right or wrong, it's God's judgement. It is really important to understand why certain people act in certain way. Not all people act rationally (have you guys ever seen the Jerry Springer show?). Humans are irrational.

Therefore, merely see them as barbaric SOB's who act like animals (after watching the videos), IMO, require further thought + research. It's worth a try.

[topdog]

USS, I understand that, after watching the beheading video, you'll feel a certain kind biased against barbaric behavior of the Iraqis that you label them as "terrorist".
wait a minute, who said that the beheading was done by iraqis??? the cia has determined (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/8658110.htm?1c) that it was done by al qaeda. last time i checked al qaeda was not an iraqi organization.

in fact, why are you so convinced that iraqis in general support the beheading?

why is it so hard for some people to be repelled by the terrorist's evil acts without trying to find some way to justify them, or to make them seem less evil?

the u.s. was roundly criticized for the POW abuse. rumsfeld himself was fried by the american people and the u.s. issued an apology.

you may argue that the u.s. only did that because they were caught. ask yourself - will bin laden issue apologies? will al qaeda supporters criticize their leaders to keep them in check?

[masterof_none]

In Malaysia, cops indiscriminately kill people. Should the IGP resign?

In Malaysia, two National Service trainee died due to negligence, and one has alleged rape. Should our defence minister resign?

In Malaysia, heaps of people are tortured in ISA, they are forced to strip, denied access to free trail and teh tark. Should our home minister resign?

Deii BN... Poodah Chit!


Good questions misled_youth. It is definitely something to ponder about. But I hope you understand that Rumsfeld is representing the US, the "liberator" (according to them) of Iraq, the champion in free speech, the father of democracy.

To take an analogy from Malaysian context is good. But our democracy is just 40 years old. We have to learn more from the preacher of democracy itself. But what can we learn from them from their act in Iraq? harsher torture in ISA?. Or does Rumsfeld (and Bush admin) is a wrong representation of democracy?

Malaysian democracy 40 years old? I thought it was even borned yet.

What happened in Iraq and what is going on in ISA could pretty much be the same thing, only Malaysian goverment knows how to control the information better.

I think it is unfair to take the abuse scandal and manipulate it to blame the preacher of democracy (USA) as giving a bad example. I think how the COngress publicly critisize and grill rummy ass on national television is what we should be learning.

I agree with this, Third. That's why I voted for Rumsfeld to step down, because he failed to do the good job in representing Americans as the model of democracy.


In Malaysia to call Badawi and idiot or Hishamuddin a racist would get you into ISA. Bush got both and i dont see any democrats locked up in Cuba.


IMO, Malaysians are not ready for the US-style democracy yet. Before we even try to label Abdullah Badawi as an idiot, we need to look at the Malaysian Society . The Malaysian Society itself needs to evolves. There are many profitable things we can do among each other to achieve the status of civil society.
The Malaysians are like the "nation of strangers" in the country.
We don't even know each other. Our society is divided into races/religions, etc. We don't have a society like Americans who are mature enough to justify why Bush is an idiot, or why he isn't.

For Malaysians, calling the PM as an idiot is something like rude.
we're more like a "patriachal" society.

Plus, although I don't like the idea of ISA, I think a country like us need something like that. Maybe in the future, we should abandon ISA altogether, but for the time being, Malaysia's political stability is crucial. I support humans right, but at the same time, we need ensure that all the activities detrimental to the political stability should be controlled. I like the idea of moving our democracy into "stages", through evolution of the society itself, rather than adapting Western ideas hastily without further studies on how it should work in our context. But I still believe that Malaysians would achieve the status of "civil society" later. What I pointed out above is just my question on
"how can we learn from the US" to shape our democracy.
and if the democracy in Malaysia hasn't been borned yet, then , this is the time to learn more about it, and how can we avoid such things happen in our country.

my 2 cents

[Thirdshifter]

So in another way master, your saying Malaysian can't manage themself?

[topdog]

[The Malaysian Society itself needs to evolves. There are many profitable things we can do among each other to achieve the status of civil society.
The Malaysians are like the "nation of strangers" in the country.
We don't even know each other. Our society is divided into races/religions, etc.
why do you think this is so?

[masterof_none]

So in another way master, your saying Malaysian can't manage themself?

Malaysians need to learn how to manage democracy from the US.
I think we're moving toward that. But of course, we need to work hard on achieving this.

[masterof_none]

[The Malaysian Society itself needs to evolves. There are many profitable things we can do among each other to achieve the status of civil society.
The Malaysians are like the "nation of strangers" in the country.
We don't even know each other. Our society is divided into races/religions, etc.
why do you think this is so?

wah, so you guys are so fast.. :) . *Take a deep breath *

By stating divided, I mean, we still don't really understand each other well. Take our education system, for example. we don't really know why this is divided into Sekolah Kebangsaan, Sekolah Agama, Sekolah Rendah Jenis Kebangsaan...etc I think this is divisive.

Yet, we still live in the same country.

When we're divided since small kids, we don't know why Chinese do certain things.. why the Malays do certain things, why Indians do certain things.. and myths among us would usually evolves:

A simple example: why Chinese "terrer" in Math, Sci.. etc. Why they usually score well in SPM?.. , a typical Malay usually say.. "well, that's because they're way hardworking than us"..

and another said "maybe they drink a lot of waters..see those big water bottles?"

and another Malay would say. "no lah..actually, they eat pork. That's why their clever.."

and another said..."maybe we're just plain lazy."

A lot of myth evolves when we're divided like this. and when we're divided, it's hard to reach a mutual understanding among each other, and the society wouldn't evolves.

That's why I still believes that Malaysians need to evolves by knowing each other well. And learn how to fit the democracy within our context by looking around the democracy world, the US, UK, Germany, etc.. analyze them, and adopt the best model for us.

That's what I think.Feel free to dispute my argument...

[topdog]

yeah, but why are we divided? who divides us?

[masterof_none]

yeah, but why are we divided? who divides us?

Ahha, maybe I would say , the system introduced by the government.
Thus, it is crucial for us to voice our opinion against govt's. Expect ISA.
Then, it would just becom the vicious spiral, woudn't it?

[masterof_none]

Anyway, I think I'm driving this discussion off topic.
OK, back to Rumsfeld. Why he should go.
( or feel free to initiate another thread, commenting on my previous post).

[ElansarGelmir]

And those terrorists...murdering innocent people in the name of God. Its just plain disgusting. Guess the Bush administration has to keep a tighter noose on things to prevent more revenge killings like these. Then again, that wouldn't be very democratic would it? Whaddya guys think?

USS, I understand that, after watching the beheading video, you'll feel a certain kind biased against barbaric behavior of the Iraqis that you label them as "terrorist". But let's look at a different angle:

The Iraqis considered the US army now, an "occupied" force. The Iraqis now look at Americans as an "invaders". and therefore, whoever they are, they must be fought.

The reason why we feel angry after watching the video is because we haven't seen the video of the American force bombing the innocent civilans, their mosques, the loss of their heads, legs and other part of the bodies that are even worse than that guy's head. (and those civilians are innocent).
Before we arrive at the conclusion that the Iraqi as mere barbaric and terrorists, we should look at how the Iraqis feel towards Americans.


Yeah, we haven't seen how the Iraqis suffer from the bombing, right? And that's why it's ok for those terrorists to kill those Americans for revenge, right?

Perhaps the abuses of the Iraqi prisoners are also the same as this case. Perhaps the soldiers still feel the hatred and anguish towards these prisoners whom they regarded as terrorists and wish to punish them by their own way? So before we arrive at the conclusion that Rumsfeld's behind all this, we should look at how the Americans feel towards terrorists.

[masterof_none]

Yeah, we haven't seen how the Iraqis suffer from the bombing, right?


That's right.


And that's why it's ok for those terrorists to kill those Americans for revenge, right?

Did I say it's OK?. I think I want everyone to look at how Iraqis look at Americans (switch your angle).

And I'm still not sure why you label the Iraqis as terrorists.
If someone invades our country, and we fight against the occupied forces, should we call ourselves terrorists?.. or independence fighters?

Or I think you're trying to link Iraqis with Sept 11.
I think so far, Bush hasn't came up with the proof.

Please read my previous post first on why I feel Rumsfeld misrepresent Americans as the defender of democracy, and why I feel he must be replaced with someone "more" capable (if any).


Perhaps the soldiers still feel the hatred and anguish towards these prisoners whom they regarded as terrorists and wish to punish them by their own way? So before we arrive at the conclusion that Rumsfeld's behind all this, we should look at how the Americans feel towards terrorists.

I'm still not sure who terrorize whose state. Please enlighten me on this.

[__earth]

just what we need.

Malaysia Militant Suspects Claim Abuse

11 minutes ago

By JASBANT SINGH, Associated Press Writer

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia - Alleged members of an al-Qaida-linked extremist group jailed in Malaysia were routinely stripped naked, slapped, kicked and subjected to sexual abuse by police interrogators, according to a human rights document obtained by The Associated Press.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=516&ncid=721&e=10&u=/ap/20040514/ap_on_re_as/malaysia_prisoner_abuse

[ElansarGelmir]

And I'm still not sure why you label the Iraqis as terrorists.


Hmmm... Did the US simply go from house to house and throw all civillians to prison? Obviously these people are in the prison for some reasons. And the best tactic Iraq love to use is having soldiers to dress up as civillians. That's why it's so hard for everyone (including us) to draw a distinct line between civillians and Iraqi soldiers and terrorists. Perhaps there's possiblities that those prisoners are terrorists? I dunno. But as i've mentioned again, those people were in the prison for some reason.

Did I say it's OK?. I think I want everyone to look at how Iraqis look at Americans (switch your angle).

Sorry, phrased it wrongly. But you've brought up my point too. Why don't we see how Americans (not Bush, not Rumsfeld, but ordinary American citizens or soldiers) view the prisoners? Perhaps they see terrorist in them? Perhaps they saw a link between the ones they are holding detention and the ones who hijack the plane that crashed into WTO?

If you want to view from one angle, i hope you view from others too. That's to prevent us from being justified for having prejudice. Btw, i don't disagree with your POV, and i don't agree with it either, cause it's too early for us to speculate and make our judgement. We have to open ourselves to many other possibilities, i think.

[__earth]

And I'm still not sure why you label the Iraqis as terrorists.


Hmmm... Did the US simply go from house to house and throw all civillians to prison? Obviously these people are in the prison for some reasons. And the best tactic Iraq love to use is having soldiers to dress up as civillians. That's why it's so hard for everyone (including us) to draw a distinct line between civillians and Iraqi soldiers and terrorists. Perhaps there's possiblities that those prisoners are terrorists? I dunno. But as i've mentioned again, those people were in the prison for some reason.

Please make a distiction between freedom fighters and terrorists. The jailed Iraqis did not invade Iraq and it is unfair to call these Iraqis are terrorists them they are not the one that presses a foreign law on somebody else.
You may call these Iraqis as rebels, but not terrorists.

Did I say it's OK?. I think I want everyone to look at how Iraqis look at Americans (switch your angle).

Sorry, phrased it wrongly. But you've brought up my point too. Why don't we see how Americans (not Bush, not Rumsfeld, but ordinary American citizens or soldiers) view the prisoners? Perhaps they see terrorist in them? Perhaps they saw a link between the ones they are holding detention and the ones who hijack the plane that crashed into WTO?

If you want to view from one angle, i hope you view from others too. That's to prevent us from being justified for having prejudice. Btw, i don't disagree with your POV, and i don't agree with it either, cause it's too early for us to speculate and make our judgement. We have to open ourselves to many other possibilities, i think.

Is that a general American's view or a Republican's view?

I've known a lot of ppl that don't agree with your generalization.

Again, there is no such link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. That is only a Bush's make believe, of which is a lie.

[USSDefiantNX74205]

Here's an article forwarded to me by someone I don't even know...

Could Nicholas Berg's Execution Be Fake?
May 15, 2004
By Pater Havlasa, Big Bang.com

Given the incomprehensible jungle of information, the very first question, when viewing this video of an American civilian, N. Berg's execution, should be whether it is even true?

There appear to be a few problems with it, casting doubt on its authenticity. If these questions aren"t answered, one should be wary of the entire matter and be advised not to give in to the patriotic blindness brought on by the emotional charge this video packs.

Consider these inconsistencies with the video before making up your mind:

1) CIA claims it has examined the video and concluded that the hooded figure is Zaqrawi, a high level al-Qaeda operative. However, anyone who has seen the video will attest to the fact that there is no way to identify anyone from it, including the victim. Second, according to an US military report in April "03, Zaqrawi was killed in the bombing of Falluja. CIA does not elaborate whether Zaqrawi has magically sprung back to life or whether the April report was wrong.

2) The US media claimed that Zaqrawi lost a leg in 2001. Now, it says that he did not lose his leg after all. This flip flop seems too coincidental as the purported figure in the video doesn"t appear handicapped. The US does not elaborate on which intelligence is wrong.

3) The US media says the audio says that N. Berg was executed in retaliation to the US prison abuse. The reaction of the media was far too quick. It moved straight to using it in making a comparison between prison "humiliation" and a "beastly killing" saying to the shocked public "Look, we only humiliated them in the prison and look at what the animals do to us." It was quick to point out that what the terrorists do to Americans is far worse than what the US is doing to the Iraqis.

There are several problems with this. First, there have been numerous reported deaths in the US prisons caused by severe beatings so comparing "humiliation" to a death is the wrong comparison. Second, the tortures and abuses have gone on for over a year. If al-Qaeda were in the business of avenging prison abuse, it would have already done it and probably on several occasions. Otherwise, it means that Al-Qaeda gets their information from CNN or that it just happened to be a coincidence matching Abu Ghraib prison pictures with this video. It"s very unlikely that al-Qaeda would and could engage in this synchronized US media play. The timing of the video release and the media attempts to whip up an anti-Islamic frenzy suggests a media ruse timed perfectly to deflect the mounting outrage and condemnation of the US military.

4) The voice on the video says that an offer was made to the US military to exchange N. Berg for "some of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib". The US has not commented on this.

5) The Bergs claim their son was detained by the US and are blaming their son"s death on the US military but the US says that N. Berg was never detained and instead was offered a free plane ride from Iraq. It does, however, seem that in order to offer a plane ticket, the US military must have had some dealing with N. Berg. In any case, N. Berg disappeared when in US custody.

6) The victim in the video is wearing an orange prison jumpsuit, the kind seen in pictures of Guantanamo inmates. It"s hard to believe that al-Qaeda terrorists would be supplying their victims a regulation outfit. None of the recently kidnapped hostages in Iraq (Japanese and Italian) wore any uniform outfits whatsoever.

7) [WARNING: Reader"s discretion advised] A human head contains 1.5 gallons of blood yet the freshly decapitated head shown in the video is leaking none. Neck artery would squirt a foot long geyser of blood. There is no evidence of that either. Only one answer lends itself here: the video was doctored. Either a portion was clipped out or the beheading never took place as shown, with the possibility of the victim being already dead.

8) The victim never resisted the killing. Even when on the ground, only one person sufficed to completely subdue N. Berg.

This article aims at proving or alleging nothing. The point is to provoke doubt and hopefully stave off a few readers from becoming an easy emotional target and a news puppet.

I haven't seen the video yet (nor do I intend to see it) but is everything claimed here true in the video?

[ElansarGelmir]

I still dunno how you guys define terrorist, but i take it as someone who causes terror, terrorize, or commiting violence against people/ a group of people.

[masterof_none]

Hmmm... Did the US simply go from house to house and throw all civillians to prison? Obviously these people are in the prison for some reasons.

For some reason?.. that's the reason. the US soldiers raid their house, and suspect them,throw them in the jail. sounds familiar?

The US soldiers can go raid the house of Iraqis and interrogate them.
If they suspect they have link with OBL or Saddam or any other reasons you don't want to know, they can throw them in the jail.
It happen in the US too after sept 11 (read: patriot act).it happens to Jose Padilla (the suspected dirty bomber). (read about him for more info), although his case is not that like Iraqis but still, he was detained without any concrete proof. They just think that Padilla is a dirty bomber. that's all.

To USS, I'm not sure how accurate is the account given in the article, but that should tell us , not to trust American media right away.
I still think that sometimes, they are propaganda tools for US govt.
(not only media, but I suspect Hollywood movies too). I remember reading about Bush made a trip to Hollywood after sept 11. Not sure what he discussed about with filmmakers here..they should have very good reason wasting time in LA.

(that's why I'm still skeptical about this all beheading thing.).
The timing is just too perfect.

Of course, not all Americans agree with the US act in Iraq, etc.
But you'll be surprised on the amount of people who think that BUsh is right on the Patriot Act, on the Invasion of Iraq, etc. (come to the US , and u can have a lively conversation with them. I know I have. Although sometimes they got themselves confused and want to learn more about it. )

Should we say that the media propaganda works?

my 2 cents

[ElansarGelmir]

Hmm... i think these terrorists dressed up as civilians have this blatant motif that will blur the distinction between civilians and terrorists. That's why we dunno whom the Americans caught actually? To us, it could be some innocent civilians. But they could be terrorists in disguise as well. No one knows. If these people were actual terrorists, then they have succeeded in irking and triggering our ire. But then again, who knows?

[topdog]

http://www.malaysiakini.com/pages/torture/IMAGES/torture_in_malaysia.gif
source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/pages/torture/IMAGES/torture_in_malaysia.gif

[Thirdshifter]

I watched a video which UMNO disturbuted that has Sukma dermawan talking about his sex life and how anwar sodomied him. Few clips of Anwars telpehone coversation with some other guys etc. I bet that VCD is still at my moms place in KL.

If its there i'll post it on the net.

[topdog]

as if the situation in iraq is not bad enough, the bloody american fools do this (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-wowedd0520,0,6828667.story?coll=ny-nation-big-pix)!!

whatever happened to reliable intelligence???

i predict one major terrorist attack on american soil by the end of the year.

At this stage, it is not certain as to whether there are fighters in the building with children surronding them or it's intelligence failure.

But assuming the case that there are fighters in the building using children and women as human shield, do you think it's fair for the Americans to bomb the building?

[topdog]

no.

if you hold that moral judgement, osama bin laden and other terrorists can just bring a few children and women with them, knowing that the Americans (hypothetically holding that same moral judgement) will not bomb/kill him.

[__earth]

if you hold that moral judgement, osama bin laden and other terrorists can just bring a few children and women with them, knowing that the Americans (hypothetically holding that same moral judgement) will not bomb/kill him.

Then, unfortunately we are in a moral's logic trap.

The only way to break out of the loop is to be an hypocrite of which, the "gooddoers" excel in a variety of ways. They call it collateral damage but I think its not okay to do onto somebody the same thing that we abhore in the first place.

Though sometimes, being an hypocrite is a necessary evil but it is still wrong in my eyes.

[Randomphantom]

The fact that the difference between a terrorist and someone innocent lies solely on whats on his mind (and of course, whats strapped to his body). Innocent until proven guilty? Not when your long dead.

check this out
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38519