My brain is fried from having done too many matrix inversions today. However, this deserves a mention. Rumsfeld has been accused of being "personally involved" in Guantanamo interrogations which Human Rights Watch claim carried out practices that "amounted to torture".
How bad are the allegations? The 'personal involvement' bit includes monitoring the interrogations of Mohamed al-Qahtani by phone, and being in contact weekly with Major General Miller, the commander of Camp Delta in 2002. Rumsfeld has not been accused of ordering the more "creative" methods - such as ordering al-Qahtani to wear a bra on his head and to wear a dog's leash - but it seems his policies did little to discourage such treatment.
Will any of this shit stick? It's unlikely. Guantanamo's existence should be reason enough for Rumsfeld's sacking, and it's improbable this evidence will do much more to damage him. However, one can never anticipate the propensity for an issue to snowball, especially with hackles raised over the Libby situation. At the very least it shows just how close Rumsfeld is to these barbaric acts, and should give more reason to the yanks to oust deny Republican candidate in whise administration Cheney and Rumsfeld will no doubt be involved.
Like Libby, however, the situation extends beyond political prospects of the accused. As Human Rights Watch points "The question at this point is not whether Secretary Rumsfeld should resign, it’s whether he should be indicted." Here's hoping.
The capital-mobilising deal maker
13 hours ago