Administration Bows to Court Ruling On Geneva Conventions

The Bush Administration will comply with the Supreme Court's ruling that Gitmo detainees are entitled to treatment under Geneva Conventions Common Article 3. (tip) The action comes in the wake of growing US opposition to the entanglement in Iraq: two-thirds of Americans are calling for withdrawal, with 31 percent calling for an "immediate" withdrawal.

In 2002, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said that detainees "do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention." The Telegraph also dubbed the Geneva Conventions concession an about face because

In January 2002 a White House memo stated that the "new paradigm" of the fight against terrorism "renders obsolete" the Geneva Conventions' "strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions".

The new policy does not apply to the detainees being held by the CIA in a network of secret prisons across the globe.

Like the White House, the National Review argues that this is not a reversal in policy. In addition, the NRO calls for the US to withdraw from Common Article 3 -- a provision we've been party to since 1955.

The NRO writes that detainees "are entitled to be treated humanely, which was already U.S. policy." This overlooks the Geneva Conventions prohibitition against "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." There is little argument, based on news reports, that treatment of detainees at Gitmo has been "degrading." It also overlooks a Pentagon report from 2003 on interrogation techniques approved by Army Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez.

Most Were Not Active Terrorists
This is a reminder, yet again, that traditional media continue to ignore two studies -- using the government's own data -- that show that most of the detainees at Gitmo are not affiliated with a terrorist organization nor were they captured in the midst of terrorist activity.

In fact, data show that bounties were paid and few questions asked for most of those imprisoned at Gitmo. (tip)

Rule Change Good for Direction
The WaPost reports that experts believe the rule change will provide "clarity" for soldiers in Iraq.

"It's a significant change in my view because the troops on the ground in Iraq have never been sure it was a requirement" to observe the Geneva rules, said Gary D. Solis, a former Marine Corps infantry commander who is an expert on the law of war. "It sets the philosophic tone for our soldiers and Marines."

For years, these experts said, U.S. military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan were operating under guidelines that were not clear. As prisoners were taken in Afghanistan late in 2001 and early in 2002, for example, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that the United States "for the most part" was treating the prisoners "in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Geneva Convention." But he said that it was not required to do so, because the detainees are "unlawful combatants" who "do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention."

In addition, the WaPost article notes:

[I]n September 2003, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the top U.S. commander on the ground in Iraq, approved 29 interrogation techniques, but in doing so he noted that some allies believed some of the methods were inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions. A month later, he was told by Central Command, the U.S. military headquarters for the region, that 10 of the 29 techniques were "unacceptably aggressive," according to a subsequent Pentagon inquiry.

Technorati Profile
Technorati tags: Terrorism, Politics
gada.be tags: Terrorism, Politics

^{Category: Terrorism}