yeah it probably is, but i think it is a common tactic among lawyers, which is why at the end of the trial you hear, on the accounts of x & y the jury find the defendant not guilty, on the accounts of z the jury finds the defendant guilty. I think they throw everything that applies at the case because multiple guilties compound the sentence and establish a larger picture for the prosecuting case. at least that is my take on their reasoning when putting together the case. not being a lawyer i really don’t know though, i’m proffering my best guess.
also, i think that the position of the president is also largely figurehead fortunately or unfortunately. Rumsfeld was actually the originator of many of the policies and orders, not just the conduit, and even for the orders he just passed along he was the main conduit through which everything was passed. The “was just following orders” not being an excuse only applies to command level or higher positions, because they are supposed to be in a critical decision making position, it doesn’t apply to regular soldiers except in the most grievous of cases where an exception is made. You could say almost all officers were passing orders from higher up, this is true even of the SS officers that the US tried. Very seldom is the top figurehead ever tried except in dictatorships. i’m not condoning any of this, just explaining my understanding of how things currently work.
I think if Rumsfeld was at all apologetic, or took the stance, “yeah sometimes in difficult circumstances you have to make difficult decisions and they aren’t always easy or right”, but when you see the interviews with him he actually has a very smug sociopathinc smile of glee when he discusses those things. He knew fully well what he was doing and took great pleasure in doing it. That is part of what makes him an easy person to pin a lot of this on. imho. anway, those are my thoughts for whatever they are worth.
It would be nice if we were setting the example for other to follow. 
