If you were a bookie... Polls and bets on the 2004 elections

Hey nimh, missed ya.

<shrugs, that was it really>

<goes back to programming>

Yo, Craven ;-)

My bad: the new Seymour Hersh story about Rumsfeld's authorization of "physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners" -- and -- the "White House memo" story Newsweek has about Bush, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft "sign[ing] off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods" are in fact two separate stories, on different lines of new information. Both covered here.

Ah, Nimh - do you guys have a "Westminster" system as well?

Here, the Correctional Services Minister (prisons are state run, not federally run) would probably go if the prison abuse proved widespread.

The Defence Minister would almost certainly go if the type of military prisoner abuse that seems to be being uncovered here had occurred - whether the PM would end up going too would probably end up being a political decision - ie how unpopular had it made the PM with the electorate - though, if the PM here were the Commander in Chief I believe they would end up having to resign. I would have thought that, with the US President, being commander in chief - which they seem to enjoy as an upside - would have the downside of responsibility, if the abuse proves widespread.

It not being expected that Bush would accept responsibility if the abuse proves widespread seems odd to eyes used to a system where the politicians eventually have to carry the can. I mean, they wiggle and such, as you would expect - but eventually they normally do.

One can also consider the issue in light of other organizations.

For example, the fairly recent executive resignations at the BBC or the NY Times. Those gentlemen's resignations assumed responsibility for serious failures in the organization below them even when, in the case of the BBC, those executive's staffs did not wish the resignations to take place. It seems also to be the case that those BBC execs did not believe themselves to be wrong, but resigned anyway.

The chances of Rumsfeld behaving in that manner seem close to zero. If he does resign, my guess would be that such a move would be strategized as Bush's best bet to not fall further.

"Interrogation techniques" are part and parcel of war. If they allude to this, all the Defense Secty's and PMs and Presidents can go home.

If these standard interrogation techniques were horribly altered by some general or some CIA interrogators in Iraq--I still don'tsee how you can send home an administration. Partisan leanings aside--it just doesn't seem reasonable.

But, I guess we're all entrenched in our thinking on this subject.

The BBC thing is entirely different. Those men were on-site, and approved the bogus reporting, IMO.

sofia

Re the BBC...there's not a lot of agreement that the reporting was bogus. Certainly, that's not the case with the majority of Brit citizens.

But your 'approved by' point stands. And what or how much either Rumsfeld or Bush knew and approved isn't something we are likely to find out in specificity. That's the sort of information which, if it exists, gets revealed normally only by a whistleblower. Or white house tape recordings, but we'll assume that's become an unpopular idea.

If it is the case, and I think it seems probable now, that legal codes governing treatment of prisoners were purposefully ignored, then a citizenry may well consider that cause for removal of an administration. We'll see.

Editorial from US News and World Report- May 24, 2004- Mortimer Zuckerman-

quote

"In all the furor over the photographs from Abu Gharib, what's been overlooked by many is the fact that the American millitary was not only already investigating allegations but announced that the inquiry had begun three months ago. Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba's investigation was thorough, and his conclusion was that the abuse was the result of the actions of a handful of guards and their superiors, not the result of an official policy or order.

...The murder of Nick Berg underscores the stakes. Our enemies will never understand America and its values, but they would surely recognize weakness, if we ever allowed them to see it"

end of quote

Putting aside, for the moment, the whole chain of command thing and a "commander's" (PM's, etc) responsibility for what happens under his command (with or without his knowledge) -- the question here now also in particular seems - what if it wasn't some general or CIA interrogator who altered the standard interrogation techniques? What if the Pentagon or the White House somehow authorized a change from standard interrogation techniques?

Not, for sure, an explicit "go ahead and rape and photograph them" -- but some kind of "don't worry too much about the standard rules, you won't be held accountable on them, really"? That memo apparently did say, after all, "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions". Which apparently made Powell flip. Did that become official policy in Iraq - was the thrust of it relayed downwards in terms of instructing on-the-ground practice in some way?



When it comes to opinions about whether Rumsfeld is a principled, brave man or a failing crook who needs to go - yeah, definitely :wink:

But when above, I mentioned that ...

"if there'd be some mind-boggling shocker of a prison scandal here [..] I would most definitely expect our PM to take the heat and be forced to resign",

... I was not being anti-Bush or partisan at all, really. Just expressing my from-another-country frownful wonder at a system in which a minister or Prime Minister would not be expected to take responsibility for a huge scandal that occurred under his watch.

I don't know whether this scandal would have been enough to oust a PM here - depends on his political position otherwise - but it would most surely have cost the Defense Minister's head. Even if he had not personally known about it - or, like I said, perhaps especially if he had not known. For sure, occasionally a minister does end up stubbornly staying even after a scandal (though rarely after a scandal of this size) - but at least he'd be expected to go.

But then in most of Europe individual ministers can be dismissed by parliament (that is, parliament can pass a motion of non-confidence). Bottom line, each minister is accountable to parliament. That doesn't work that way in America, I think? Your parliament (Congress) seems to have a lot less power vis-a-vis the executive than here.

Article I read today gave me a whole other (unpleasant) perspective on the case again. It would seem that much of what the soldiers at Abu G. did in the way of mistreating prisoners, is done by prison guards in some US States on a routine basis (not the naked pyramids, but much of the other stuff). In that respect its perhaps significant that one of the soldiers had worked in an American prison for many years before. Perhaps thats why it hadnt struck him as all that outlandish at all. But that's probably something for a new thread. Tomorrow, p'haps.

K, after this I'll stop, but this quote from the Newsweek article undercuts that line of argument:



I added the two emphases in order to note that apparently, the "interrogation techniques" that are part and parcel of war, come in different degrees and standards, and different "Defence Secrataries and Presidents" impose or allow a different slide down (or up) the scale. E.g., obviously, the interrogation techniques that were "part and parcel" of what Stalins armies did were different from those of Roosevelt's army - and apparently, those of Powell's army would be different from those of Rumsfeld's army.

Forsure more will happen in every war than is nice or even allowed by Geneva - but it is still very much up to the respective Defence secretary, President, government or dictator how much more. Blanket "**** will happen" arguments kinda ignore that. Powell or Rumsfeld would impose different standards on the "part and parcel" thing - and that might be reverberating here.

New story out now :



EDIT: OK, that should go somewhere else, I guess.

Editorial from US News and World Report by Mortimer Zuckerman- Editor in Chief- May 24, 2004-

quote

"It is staid that the images from Abu Ghraid blur the moral difference between America and Saddam Hussein. This reflects the moral obtuseness of those who say such things. Moral obtuseness,of course, is an art form for those in Europe, who consistenly IGNORE THE CRIMES OF TERRORISTS. SUCH PEOPLE, IN THE WORDS OF RAYMOND ARON, ARE "MERCILESS TOWARD THE FAILINGS OF THE DEMOCRACIES BUT READY TO TOLERATE THE WORST CRIMES AS LONG AS THEY ARE COMMITTED INTHE NAME OF THE PROPER DOCTRINE.


Kind of a European Political Correctness!!!

Take Zogby's online poll of presidential preferences and get his free essay (.pdf, 34 pages) on elections past and present. Here's the description:



A link to the report, "The Armageddon Election: Bush vs. Kerry And The New Partisan Era", is available at the end of the survey:

http://interactive.zogby.com/battleground/indexweb.cfm

It starts off with the comparisons of this year's election to the contest in 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, and gets better from there.

I am very sorry but Zogby is not objective. Some people do not know that Zogby comes from Arabic stock. I do not expect people like Zogby to be objective. I will stick with the tried and true Gallup Poll.

John Zogby, the pollster, is the brother of James Zogby, the head of the Arab American Institute.


There will be NO objectivity there.

Editorial from US News and World Report- Mortimer Zuckerman- May 2,2004

"Once again the American Public has kept a better perspective than themews media. In two polls, A Washington Post/ABC and a CNN/USA today/Gallup Poll, roughly 70 percent reject any move to oust Rumsfeld, recognizing that it would be an implicit admission that a central thrust of the war against terrorism has been a failure. Rumsfeld should remain: He is a uniquely gifted secretary of defense.

President Bush's critics seek to use Rumsfeld as a pinata and this scandal as a chance to discredit the entire Iraqi venture. But we must not lose faith, The murder of Nick Berg underscores the stakes. Our enemies will never understand America and its values, but they would surely recognize weakness, if we ever allowed them to see it."

A brilliant editorial

gosh, thanks for sharing this. I was beginning to think it was too complicated for me to really understand but now I realize it's all very simple.

No, dyslexia, I am very much afraid that it is not very simple. It is complex. However, if you will take the time to read Professor Bernard Lewis's essay on the Roots of Muslim Rage, you will find that the situation is quite complicated.

gosh mporter the way you explain it, it's all very simple, perhaps Prof Lewis needs your imput so he can understand it as well as you do. In the meantime I will continue striking the pinata just 'cause I like the candy and toys.

Why don't you try to read it, Dyslexia. Then you can tell us if it is indeed understandable.

Or does your name reveal a barrier to such understanding?

I read it several times. I will give you my brief analysis.

Professor Lewis says that although most of Islam does not agree with the radical fundamentialists, the small fraction of Muslims that are radical fundamentalists cannot be mollified since their impetus is religious and thus beyond an appeal to reason. These fundamentalists represent a clash of civilizations.

But, I do not have the skills of Professor Lewis. If you are really interested, go to:

www.theatlantic.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm

It is interesting to note that the essay was written in 1990.