I think you must all remember that the end does not justify the means.

athere is general disconnect on the left when it comes to comparing right and wrong. The terrorists are not legal combatants and are therefore not entitled to the status of such under the Geneva Convention. Therefore, while you might want to condem the Bush administation for using harsh interrogation methods, it is NOT a war crime based upon international law.

Furthermore, to suggest that using such methods lower us to the level of indiscriminate, ideological, facist murderers shows that the poster is completely without judgment.

If Rumsfield approved torture, let the chips fall where they may. More important is our own investigation of how we were misled into war, the billions in military contracts, and what really happened on sept. 11, (who did place all those put orders for american and united stock, anyway?)

Serves him right - but they should waterboard first until he confesses.

And Republicans talking about how it's gonna be in '08? FUGGEDDABOUDIT. You obviously have no clue how it is in '06.

You all need to get over yourself... I dont see you fighting over there for YOUR freedoms. All you do is sit back on your couch and complain like some sissys. He is a great man.

Are we talking about coercive techniques or real torture? If we are talking about coercive techniques then we need to put a lot of people in jail. When my dad was in the army during Vietnam, soldiers captured during a war game would be "tortured" by our own guys. Anyone passing this "torture" got 2-3 days of leave. My dad only knew of one person who got the leave during his the time he was stationed there. One guy. ONE! Is this torture? Is it really? No permanent damage was done to these guys. Just mental stress and pain. Is that wrong?

People who think that stopping water boarding will make the terrorists more friendly or prevent us from dropping to their level have a distorted sense of morality.

Defend the terrorist? What are you talking about? Do you have evidence that all the people tortured at Abu Graib were terrorists? If you do, I'm sure Rumsfield would love to have it. The fact is, people were tortured that had no connection to terrorism. Innocent people were subjected to "rendition". Laws were broken, period.

like the germans have anything to say about war crimes,, remember teh nazis?

From the bottom of the employment line, all the way up to the President of the United States, people are placed in jobs to do a job. In doing any job, you must decide what is the most effective way to be productive, within the rules of engagement, and the laws, in order to be successful with the task at hand. Whereever you are employeed, there are "employee handbooks" that lay out the rules, and limitations. Same thing with the laws. Regardless of what our personal feelings are regarding the rules, you are responsible for knowing the rules/laws and follow them. You don't follow the rules, you face punishment. You don't follow the law, you face punishment. So this is pretty easy stuff.

If the rules and laws were broken, he should face punishment under the system in place.

If he did not break rules and laws, then he should not.

Simple stuff. Now, if you don't agree with the rules or laws, engage yourself in the process which has a say so on those rules and laws. Until the rule or law changes, then your personal convictions..or how you feel are just that. YOUR convictions and YOUR feelings.

When Saddam gassed the Kurds the United Stated VETOED a UN resolution to place sanctions on Iraq. It wasn't in the US's interest to have sanctions at the time. Now that Saddam is going to face justice it is only fitting that a few of those who willingly aided and abetted him in his crimes swing along side him. And Rummy is near the top of the list!

Rumsfeld should be first of many in the criminal Bush administration. But - it will get little note in the U.S.

Those that see differences between terrorist organizations and folks like Bush and Rumsfeld don't see the hypocrisy of their position.

I think this is baseless and I feel no shame at the US doing anything that is required to win a war and protect our boarders. Since they are willing to fight a not traditional war with us, I fully endorse any tactics needed to get information.

Terrorists don't have Constitutional rights, nor are they covered by the Geneva Conventions. They should have been shot on sight, not taken "prisoner".

Bravo! It's about time the United States was held to the same standards as the rest of the world! Why not file against the sitting president and his cabinet? They're all guilty of war crimes!

If my mother, father, sister, brother, or friend were about to be executed by a terrorist group and I had one of the terrorist in my possession I would beat the cr*p
out of him until I got the information I needed to save my family or friends.
War is war not some silly game you play. It's kill or be killed.

Most Americans are deeply ignorant about what goes on during these secretive interrogations. We know prisoners have been turned in by jealous neighbors and kept for years without any charges on file. We also know prisoners have died during our interrogations. How do we know we have not indeed stooped to the level of the terrorists by killing innocents in horrific ways?

When "hooding" and "stripping" are classified as torture, we need to just surrender. If these techniques save the life of one person (American or foreign), Rumsfeld should be knighted.

As an american, I could give a rat's behind about what we have to do to get vital intelligence from terrorists. Terrorists target innocent civilians like me and my family. Any information that interrigators can get to keep me safe, I support. Terrorists are cowards and are lucky we are soft and don't execute them on the spot (usually).

Rumsfeld went wrong by not going to war with enough troops to properly secure the country. He was stubborn and would not admit his failings. He stayed way too long and helped cause a historic shift in power in the US.

"In order to save the village, we had to destroy it" --US Army officer, Vietnam, 1968

I'd hate to think Bush/Rumsfeld think the same about the principles of freedom--democracy, human rights etc. etc. they constantly harp on in media soundbites. If they do, they should stop waving the flag about and stop yakking about spreading this "freedom" they have so willingly violated as a matter of course since 2001.

The ends DO NOT justify the means. It IS about right vs. wrong. It is NOT about what is legal or illegal.

EVERYONE IS REALLY GOOD AT PASSING THE BUCK. TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT. I HATED HEADS ROLLING AS MUCH AS ANYONE ELSE BUT I STILL DO NOT BELIEVE THAT OUR TROOPS SHOULD HAVE BRUTALIZED PRISONERS. RUMSFELD SHOULD HAVE STEPPED DOWN A LONG TIME AGO, ALONG WITH BUSH. YOU CAN ONLY GET AWAY WITH INSULTING THE INTELLECT OF THE MASSES BEFORE IT COMES BACK AROUND TO BITE YOU. THIS WAR IS JUST ANOTHER VIET NAM AND I OPPOSE IT TOTALLY. I THINK THE ELECTIONS TURNED OUT A-OK.