|
That's touching, Rummy, but you aren't the one in charge.
|
|
By Mike Cuenca | May 9, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was right to take responsibility
for the violations of the human rights of those Iraqi prisoners at Abu
Ghraib prison. His May 7 apology to joint a House and Senate committee
session appropriately follows the military tradition that a commander
is responsible for those under him; for those actions that occur on his
"watch," as Rumsfeld put it. Unfortunately for those in the White House
who may be hoping Rumsfeld's apology should suffice to account for this
latest damaging revelation, we must all remember that the Secretary of
Defense is not the ultimate commander of the military. As Commander in
Chief, the President is in charge of the military. It is the President
who ultimately bears responsibility for the conduct of all people in
the military, of all ranks, in all assignments, everywhere in the world
they may be.
Of course, to protect the President or the Presidency, some will argue
that the President shouldn't be responsible for every order that's
given down through the ranks. And that's true to a degree; no one would
expect him to micro-manage tactical operations or any other activities
of the military. However, we can expect the Commander in Chief to be
responsible for clearly establishing the moral priorities and standards
to be expected from everyone in the military and in the executive
branch of our government. It is ultimately the President's
responsibility to give the order that every human in our care will be
treated with utmost respect and humanity, with zero tolerance for human
rights abuses.
Unfortunately, George W. Bush has instead
established moral priorities and standards that directly result in the
types of abuses in Iraq that have apparently been occurring for months
and which are now becoming more widely known. As he has clearly
established, leading by example if not by direct order, protecting
individual rights has not been a priority for his administration.
Clearly, this President's administration does not operate under an
order from him that violating an individual's civil rights or human
rights is not to be tolerated. On the contrary, his actions, his words
and his silences have established that protecting the rights of
individuals is subordinate to political ideologies and necessities. He
is leading an administration that is responsible for Guantanamo and
other notoriously inhumane U.S. installations and practices. He's
leading an administration that has attacked affirmative action and
abortion rights and undermined civil rights law enforcement. Again, one
might argue that Bush has not "pulled the trigger" in these actions;
that he may not have directly ordered these practices and approaches.
But no one can argue that he has taken any public actions at all to
stop them or to demonstrate his opposition to them. He should be
expected to have done at least that.
This attitude of his
administration has defined both our foreign policy and our domestic
policy. The mistreatment of those Iraqi prisoners is merely one symptom
of a national illness of pandemic proportions. The United States has
acted as if only its own collective rights and interests are inviolate,
while the rights of individuals—even individual American citizens—are
vulnerable if "need" be. Across this nation, too many individuals and
government officials, while waving the flag and crying for "security",
have violated one Constitutional right after another, from the freedom
to dissent to the right of habeas corpus. Abroad, we've ignored human
rights abuses among our trading partners, in favor of profits, and
among our "allies", in favor of intelligence. We've ignored genocide
and holocaust both abroad and in our own country.
As the
electorate in a democracy, each of us as an individual voter is
responsible for the actions of our government. It is now our
responsibility to hold this President and this government responsible
for their actions and inactions. We must make sure that we hold our
Congressional representatives accountable if they refuse to act
appropriately. At this critical moment in history, we must, as a
nation, prove that we neither sanction nor condone human rights and
civil rights violations, whether by direct order or by our silence.
Nothing less will appease the righteous indignation of the world
community and help restore this nation's integrity.
|
|
|
