This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). NATO (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / North America / United States B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: Biography B‑class This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the aerospace biography project.

On March 1, 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First filed a lawsuit against Rumsfeld in a federal court in Illinois on behalf of eight detainees who they say were subjected to torture and abuse by U.S. forces. ^[1] A federal judge dismissed the charges against Rumsfeld, citing the legal precedent that U.S. Government officials cannot be held personally responsible for actions committed while in office.^[2]

On December 18, 2006, U.S. citizen Donald Vance filed suit against Rumsfeld and the U.S. government alleging illegal incarceration and torture he endured in Iraq, including violation of habeas corpus rights. Vance, a former U.S. Navy sailor, went to Iraq as a civilian security-contractor for Shield Group Security (SGS). When Vance felt he was in grave danger, U.S. forces retrieved him from the Red Zone, but subsequently detained him without charges for 97 days at Camp Cropper.^[3] As of early 2008, the case had not proceeded past the evidentiary stage. ^[4]

A group of activists spearheaded by the U.S.-based Center for Constitutional Rights has sought to bring criminal charges against Rumsfeld twice in Germany. ^[5][6][7], at least once in France^[8][9] , Sweden and Argentina^[9], and has indicated an intention to do so in Spain.^[10]. The accusation is of command responsibility for alleged human rights violations committed by American forces under his direction against detainees in the War on Terrorism, or of giving improper legal advice leading to the same. The activists have also pursued former CIA Director George Tenet; Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, then-Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former Assistant Attorneys General Jay Bybee and John Yoo, lawyers William James Haynes II and David Addington, and numerous lower-ranking military officers. ^[11][5] The suits in Germany^[10][7][12] and France^[13] were rejected by local prosecutors.

Manfred Nowak, the special representative on torture at the UN Commission on Human Rights stated in January 2009 that Donald Rumsfeld and others should be prosecuted for war crimes due to their approval of the interrogation methods used on prisoners at the USA military base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. ^[14] |bg1=#ccccff|bg2=#f2dfce}}

I think some of the images can be used under fair use?

Here is one image:

• http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2009-05/46983181.jpg
• http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uspentagon0519,0,4529295.story

--Timeshifter (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article states "and also defended him in his controversial decider remark." but I can't find anything about such remark in the article. Did I miss it? or maybe info should be added? Thanks. Airproofing (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really a full blown media mention, but a new book by a former Bush speechwriter apparently claims that "Donald Rumsfeld had to be talked out of editing his own entry on Wikipedia, which he referred to as "Wika-wakka."" Joshdboz (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this right here is the funniest thing I've read all week. --129.11.12.201 (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it shows how seriously he and others take Wikipedia. Jusdafax 17:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need a section for one sentence, do we? InnerParty (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to expand it, I am sure that there is plenty more that is is relevant to that section. The period leading to the Iraq war is one which Mr. Rumsfeld is intimately involved. Unomi (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expand it? We've just dropped the charges as irrelevant and you're suggesting we expand it? I'm for removal, that way it will be more tidy. Let's hear what other editors say. InnerParty (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My position regarding the section is that the contents are well known and sourced appropriately and is placed within context which renders it meaningful to the article. I don't know what you are referring to regarding 'charges'. Unomi (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expand - There is plenty of well-sourced history out there regarding this issue. Sure looks to me like an editor here is arguing to sweep it under the rug. The section's one sentence barely scratches the surface. Happy to discuss this further, but my view is that deleting this sentence is the opposite of what Wikipedia is about. Jusdafax 17:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an expand tag to that section. Unomi (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That again? Could someone please articulate the meaning of that quote? Why is it so darn significant, isn't it normal to seek 'best info fast', isn't it normal to seek evidence of involvement or to retaliate to attacks? What is the darn context of that quote??! InnerParty (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The context is given quite succinctly by CBS News[1] CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks. Unomi (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder who wrote that sentence, not sure if its clumsy or skillfully done, you see, it actually says opposite to the context you gave, it doesn't say anything at all about the lack of evidence, it simply states Mr. Rumsfeld sought evidence. I don't think that people should have common knowledge about 'things related or not', I don't think people should click on references to get the factual info, and I don't think we should have misleading and factually inaccurate info in our articles, so hold no grudge, but I'll remove it. InnerParty (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please do not mark an edit which removes a well sourced paragraph as 'minor'. Second, it is from notes made by white house aides which documents that he saw the link to UBL as vague and sought to find evidence supporting an invasion of Iraq. As the Guardian article sums up ...these notes confirm that Baghdad was in the Pentagon's sights almost as soon as the hijackers struck.. There is nothing 'controversial' about this, it is well documented and fairly universally accepted. Please reinstate the information you deleted. Unomi (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we care what other sources sum up, either we can come up with our own sum up or we cannot. Just read what I wrote above and examine what you've provided, also, your 'universally accepted' claim has no foundation whatsoever. As a person who is against your 'expansion' I've been more than helpful. InnerParty (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that is not how it works. Where possible, we should endeavour to relate how secondary sources such as Guardian and CBS refer to the matter. I don't really see what it is you take issue with, we have at least 2 good sources one which states emphatically that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq and the other, just as directly these notes confirm that Baghdad was in the Pentagon's sights almost as soon as the hijackers struck.. If you believe there is some issue with those sources take it up at WP:RSN or contact CBS/Guardian. If there is a particular wording in the text that you removed that you take issue with please do spell it out. Unomi (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with InnerParty, and support Unomi's work, which is of value and properly sourced. Will revert it myself manually. Jusdafax 21:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why, but I've actually pointed out that your 'endeavor to relate' failed. Well, I'm glad that this version works for you, because it certainly works for me. InnerParty (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you find the text of the quote confusing we could simply go with stating the conclusions of CBS and Guardian? Unomi (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be in best interest of clarity. InnerParty (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've got some activity again, I went and took a look at Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, which surprised me with the fact that WMD were found in Iraq, albeit presumably not at the scale or quantities claimed in the leadup to the invasion. Thus, I've removed that sentence - anybody who wants to take a stab at summarizing a decently complicated subject, feel free -- I just didn't feel comfortable with a factually wrong statement on the page. In general, I think we should strive for a good, narrative treatment of Rumsfeld's role in the leadup to the Iraq war, instead of regurgitating 6-year old bits of news reporting. If anybody's willing to dive through one or two of the Rumsfeld biographies that have been written of late, that would be very welcome. Ray^Talk 00:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I don't think finding some old shells of mustard gas qualifies as finding weapons of mass destruction. Remember, the U.S. public was threatened with "mushroom clouds" over our cities from weapons coming from Iraq, this was why we had to invade at once. I think what you removed was accurate and factual, Ray. I ask you to revert the sentence back, and failing that, to be open to further discussion on a reasonably quick revert without the time-consuming process of obtaining and digesting a Rumsfeld bio re: weapons of mass destruction. There should be plenty of WP:RS sources available online. A good place to start would be the way The New York Times was gamed via Judith Miller's reporting, (suggest you start with her Wikipedia article - if you are indeed right, then it also has to be re-written) and the way the paper had to apologize for said 'reporting' by the now-Fox News reporter. Jusdafax 00:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest compromise wording. "Rumsfeld made numerous statements concerning Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which were not later substantiated." Would that work? Saying that weapons of mass destruction were never found is demonstrably false - the nomenclature on this subject is precise: nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons are all weapons of mass destruction, and mustard gas qualifies, whereas I don't think there should be any difficulty verifying that Rumsfeld made statements of fact regarding Iraqi weapons that were unsubstantiated. That said, we have a problem with the sourcing - the existing reference is not a secondary source, so much as it's a collection of Rumsfeld statements which are claimed to be false, without any further analysis link here, effectively, a collection of primary sources that do not verify the claimed statement. Ray^Talk 02:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not later substantiated sounds ok to me. As for specific sources, cross searching on google news archives for bits of the quotes finds loads[2][3][4][5][6][7]. We could pick a representative source, but I would prefer that we also keep the existing reference as it gives a good basis for further research by later editors. Unomi (talk) 04:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you Ray and glad Unomi is on board too. Good job. Will let one of you do the honors. Thanks, Jusdafax 04:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Hm. I don't think finding some old shells of mustard gas qualifies as finding weapons of mass destruction. Remember, the U.S. public was threatened with "mushroom clouds" over our cities from weapons coming from Iraq, this was why we had to invade at once. I think what you removed was accurate and factual, Ray.' POV on 'Some old shells of mustard' Links? VX precursors were found, right? Tons of mustard shells were found and detonated. cite: The continuing storm: Iraq, poisonous weapons and deterrence By Avigdor Haselkorn.// Further cite link: Link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722255.stm This is from a single Google search for 'VX Precursor' and 'Gas Artillery Shells Iraq' keyword search. Can we please try to stay non-POV?Foamking (talk) 06:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV? I don't care how many tons of mustard or any other gas were found, if there was no way to deliver it to the USA. The was no threat to the country. Seems like common sense to me. Jusdafax 03:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary going to go to the front page, but gosh, thats a tad insane

Mr Rumsfeld was sent a careful, conscientious 900-page report by the state department containing detailed plans for the post-invasion period. He reportedly dumped it, unopened, straight into his waste-paper basket.

This is from here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11135500

Donald Rumsfled,George W.Bush and Dick Cheney had involvement in 911.Dick Cheney had the responsibility of the pentagon & flight 93.George W.Bush had operation of the world trade center and Donald Rumsfled planned 9/11.Rumslfed made sure the two planes went into the world trade center.There has been evidence that Bush,Cheney and Rumsfled where involved in the September 11,2001 terrorist attacks.A U.S. House Representative & U.S. Senate is trying to find a prosecutor to prosecute Bush,Cheney and Rumsfled for murder on 9/11.George H.W. Bush helped bush jr with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.Bush,Cheney and Rumsfled could face charges of treason,murder and could face a life sentence or the death penalty.Bush could face prosecution for the Iraq war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.186.198 (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the "Nixon Administration section, Rumsfeld is described as "a member of the President's Cabinet (1969–1970)" and then again as a "member of the President's Cabinet (1971–1972)." But the info panel doesn't describe any cabinet level positions until he became Secretary of Defense in 1975. The positions he held were United States Office of Economic Opportunity (1969-1970) and Director of the Economic Stabilization Program (1971-1972). Are these generally considered cabinet-level positions? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are at the president's discretion. In this case, Nixon gave them cabinet level status. Ray^Talk 04:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something should certainly be said about the status of various arrest warrants Rumsfeld has internationally. He is considered an internationally fugitive by many nations. Germany: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,473987,00.html France: http://www.alternet.org/story/66425/ Spain: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_03/017494.php The ICC http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/12663-international-criminal-court-complaint-filed-against-bush-cheney-rumsfeld-tenet-rice-and-gonzales-international-arrest-warrants-requested.html ECT. This needs to go in, it is a very notable part of his life 97.91.187.161 (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be very meticulous about stating that someone is an international fugitive. For example, the link you cite for Spain names six Bush administration officials, NOT including Rumsfeld (they are Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, Addington, Feith, and Haynes). I know that the Center for Constitutional Rights has recently filed a complaint in Spain. I forget whether it includes Rumsfeld, but it's still just an allegation. Your link for Germany is from 2007 and I'm pretty sure that that case was subsequently ended without an adjudication against Rumsfeld. We can certainly report that Rumsfeld has been criticized over the torture issue but we can't give a false impression of an official adjudication. JamesMLane t c 21:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Statesman" is an overly glowing term, this is just peacock lanugage. I would suggest "public servant" or simply give his former titles. Hairhorn (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hairhorn lets his POV show. Actually the term is precise, as the dictionary (Webster 3rd) defines statesman as "one versed in the principles or art of government: POLITICIAN; especially: one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies; ["an assembly of the statesmen of many nations"]" It is usually used for a holder of a senior policy making office. Rjensen (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, the OED reads "a skilled, experienced, and respected political leader or figure." (And my Webster's includes "2: one who excercises political leadership wisely and without narrow partisanship".) The wiki entry is even more forthcoming about the bias in using this term. Hairhorn (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is that Hairhorn has a negative view of Rumsfeld but editors are not allowed to express their POV. The #1 definition fits just fine. Rumsfeld was indeed skilled, experienced and highly respected when he was appointed to the Sec Defense job in 2001--it was his later actions that critics disliked and which caused the POV.Rjensen (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You keep trying to make this about me, which isn't going to make your case. There's no POV in calling someone a "public servant". Hairhorn (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's redundant; the article already says he served as SecDef which is a public office. csloat (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the opening lede summarizes the article -- it is not redundant in terms of previous statements since it is the opening statement.

I would regard statesman as a more neutral term than public servant. Whereas "statesman" is shaded in its connotations towards seniority, the term "public servant," carries an aura of selflessness and nobility. I consider the shades of difference between the two terms to be too trivial to be worthy of much further reflection. I do, as I note below, object to the less specific and helpful "politician," which encompasses an excessively broad spectra of elected officials from school board members to presidents. Ray^Talk 23:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot fathom that anyone would apply wikipedia's own definition of statesman to Sec. Rumsfeld: "Statesmanship also conveys a quality of leadership that organically brings people together..., a spirit of caring for others and for the whole." Rumsfeld was intentionally divisive in his policies and language. He ranked very low in public approval, and still does. This is not the hallmark of a stateman. --Cjs56 (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't inject your own point of view into the matter, please. Statesman is a pretty generic term for people who have occupied high offices of state, particularly those with careers that cross into international relations and leave the purely domestic arena. Rumsfeld, particularly in his incarnations as secretary of defense, presidential envoy, and NATO ambassador, certainly qualifies. Politician is, in this case, a term that less accurately characterizes his career in public service, since NATO ambassadors and presidential envoys are not necessarily (or even usually, in the former case) partisan political positions. Ray^Talk 23:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]