Ring the bell - yet another respectable big-name is calling for the fool to quit with whatever honour he has left.

The Economist Print Edition: "Resign, Rumsfeld":

YOU are fighting against international terrorists in a battle that both they and you describe as being one about values. You fight a war against Saddam Hussein at your initiative, not his, and you say that it is a war about law, democracy, freedom and honesty. A big metaphorical banner hangs above both wars proclaiming that your aim is to bring freedom, human rights and democracy to the Arab world. All of that sets admirably high standards for the conduct of your forces as well as of your government itself. Now, however, some of your own armed forces are shown to have fallen well below those standards. What do you do?

One answer is exactly what George Bush has done in response to revelations of torture and humiliating treatment of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib jail (see article): to make it clear, in public, that you find such action abhorrent and unacceptable, and that the perpetrators of it will be punished. That has also been the approach of the British government in response to the publication of photographs that may well be fakes but that could nevertheless indicate that genuine abuses have taken place (see article). Yet such statements are not enough, especially in the American case. The scandal is widening, with more allegations coming to light. Moreover, the abuse of these prisoners is not the only damaging error that has been made and it forms part of a culture of extra-legal behaviour that has been set at the highest level. Responsibility for what has occurred needs to be taken--and to be seen to be taken--at the highest level too. It is plain what that means. The secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, should resign. And if he won't resign, Mr Bush should fire him.

No argument on this end. As the article says, Responsibility for errors and indiscipline needs to be taken at the top. And it brings up another good point - wasn't one of the major reasons for our invasion that Hussein was mutilating his people? So, Iraqis are still being mutilated, many towns are without water and power, and basic security is still lacking. Good progress, right Mr President?

Also, it has been reported that we knew about these acts more than a year ago. Why, then, does the first court martial happen a few weeks after the public finds out and not a few weeks after the government found out? Perhaps they weren't planning to take action...

(Originally posted on The Obvious Tomato!)