home

U.S. to Give Geneva Rights to Detainees

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 10:56:41 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


The Bush Administration has announced that it will now give detainees their rights under the Geneva Convention.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the policy, outlined in a new Defense Department memo, reflects the recent 5-3 Supreme Court decision blocking military tribunals set up by President Bush. That decision struck down the tribunals because they did not obey international law and had not been authorized by Congress.

The policy, described in a memo (pdf) by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, appears to change the administration's earlier insistence that the detainees are not prisoners of war and thus not subject to the Geneva protections.

What to make of it? Read Law Prof Marty Lederman at Balkinization who says the "devil, of course, will be in the details."

1. What about the CIA?

2. The memo does not state that the Administration agrees with the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 3, and does not foreclose the possibility that the Administration will promote legislation that would undermine the Court's ruling. Will the Administration, for instance, propose any legislation amending the War Crimes Act, or authorizing conduct that Common Article 3 would forbid? Etc.

3. And a possible point of significant dispute and/or misdirection: The letter states, correctly, that "humane treatment" is the "overarching requirement" of Common Article 3. It juxtaposes this truism with a reminder that the President had already directed all U.S. Armed Forces to treat detainees "humanely." But what the Administration means by "humane," and what Common Article 3 means by "humane," are entirely different animals.

See the examples Lederman provides as to what is "humane" under the Bush directive vs. what is humane under the Geneva Conventions.

< William Haynes Judicial Confirmation Hearing Begins | Judge Approves $1.6 Mil Settlement for Students Victimized by Armed Drug Raid >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    U.S. to Give Geneva Rights to Detainees | 18 comments (18 topical)
    Re: U.S. to Give Geneva Rights to Detainees (none / 0) (#1)
    by glanton on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 11:11:40 AM EST
    Well isn't that generous of the Bush Administration?

    Re: U.S. to Give Geneva Rights to Detainees (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 11:38:19 AM EST
    So they are going to try to give the appearance of agreeing with the SC and try to give the appearance of it being their idea all along to treat the prisoners "humanely" (sic), while in reality bending and twisting the definitions beyond recognition? "We do not torture" -- dubya
    At times President Bush inspires a kind of awe. It is a rare individual who can repeat obvious falsehoods with so much tenacity and conviction that millions of listeners eventually mistake them for the truth.
    ...
    We do not torture? The government already has documented hundreds of cases of abuse, torture and killing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration embarked on this course knowingly -- arguing, through its lawyers, that the Geneva Convention does not apply to suspected terrorists. Prisoners have suffered beatings, hypothermia, near-drowning, and a dozen other forms of abuse. We do not torture? What would Bush call it?


    Re: U.S. to Give Geneva Rights to Detainees (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 11:42:27 AM EST
    I wonder if WH lawyers get paid overtime. If they do they are sure to make a killing on this one. How do you define.....mid term elections?

    Re: U.S. to Give Geneva Rights to Detainees (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 11:46:42 AM EST
    so the president cannot have a lawyer create a new designation of battlefield captive in order to fit their policy? Interesting. I believe on this very blog there were many defenders of the "enemy combatant" and the legality of the newly created rules. Will we get an apology from those that staunchly defended it, or more wisdom of how wrong the SC is? Lawyers are pond scum when they are defenders of liberty and heroic patriots when stripping them away. Thank goodness we do not have 5 pepsi can pubic hair observers on the SC.....

    Re: U.S. to Give Geneva Rights to Detainees (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 11:48:19 AM EST
    it looks as though the tide is beginning to turn on the neoclowns. time will tell.

    Re: U.S. to Give Geneva Rights to Detainees (none / 0) (#6)
    by Punchy on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 11:49:59 AM EST
    who says the "devil, of course, will be in the details."
    And every last detail will be classified and stamped "national security"... Nothing will change. Bush has demonstrated over and over that if he doesn't get his way, he just does it anyway. God forbid 5 men in robes tell the King what to do.

    Re: U.S. to Give Geneva Rights to Detainees (none / 0) (#7)
    by desertswine on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 12:19:35 PM EST
    To risk repeating myself but in the proper thread:
    "It's not really a reversal of policy," Snow asserted.
    Flip-flop. With emphasis on the flop.

    Re: U.S. to Give Geneva Rights to Detainees (none / 0) (#8)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 12:52:18 PM EST
    More fraternity pranks
    A new report describes Canadian teen Omar Khadr being carried into Guantanamo Bay interrogations on a stretcher, dangling from a door frame for hours and used as a human floor mop to clean his own urine.
    link

    Re: U.S. to Give Geneva Rights to Detainees (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 01:58:01 PM EST
    desertwine, Not a reversal of policy? No, Tony, you're right, it's merely a shift of 360 degrees, minus 180, plus 90, minus 90, plus 0.

    Re: U.S. to Give Geneva Rights to Detainees (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 02:02:24 PM EST
    Does that mean my consulate will finally be allowed access to Mr. Khadr? I would very much like for Canadian officials to see the results of King George's 'not torture'. I can only hope they protest when they do instead of playing the role of enabler (we have a conservative government now too).

    Re: U.S. to Give Geneva Rights to Detainees (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 03:41:11 PM EST
    Al Q can arrange for the immediate release of these fellows. it's really quite simple. All they have to do is surrender. Once they do, we have no need to detain these guys and they can be shipped back to their home countries. No doubt their homies will welcome them with open arms, right?

    Re: U.S. to Give Geneva Rights to Detainees (none / 0) (#12)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 04:03:33 PM EST
    Al Q can arrange for the immediate release of these fellows. it's really quite simple. All they have to do is surrender. Once they do, we have no need to detain these guys and they can be shipped back to their home countries.
    No evidence has been presented that anyone at Gitmo has anything to do with AQ. That's, ya know, the problem here. The mere accusation, from an unknown source, that they are bad guys, has been enough to get them locked up for the forseeable future. What if the accuser is wrong, or has a personal grudge against the detainee? What if there is an unfortunate coincidence with identical names, or a mistaken identification? How would YOU suggest any such errors be cleared up, if not by some examination of the accusation and the evidence that supports it?
    No doubt their homies will welcome them with open arms, right?
    Until they have been proven to be AQ, that is the statement of someone desperate for an argumnent. Show me the evidence against them, give them an opportunity to respond to it without threats or intimidation, and I'll tell you on a case by case basis how they should be dealt with. Fair enough?

    Re: U.S. to Give Geneva Rights to Detainees (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimcee on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 05:00:21 PM EST
    Soccerdad, The fact that a 15 year old Canadian citizen was wounded and captured in Afghanistan in 2002 begs a few questions: 1)Where did his parents think he was? 2) What was a Canadian minor doing in a war zone half a world away? 3)Aside from the lawyer's statements what evidence exist that this young man was 'tortured'? Quite frankly he was humiliated but tortured? I guess people have gotten soft since the Inquisition. Canuck,eh, Yes the Harper gov't is Conservative and more White House friendly but has only been there a short time. The Liberal regime headed by Chretien (sp?) was rather hostile to the Bush WH and would have made political hay out of it if there was really a story there with elections and all. If the CBC reported correctly this fellow has been held since before the Harper gov't took power. What is with that? Et al, The SC ruled the way they did and the Left cried vindication, Bush was wrong! The Left won a political victory and in the meantime while everyone was celebrating the SC's b*tch-slap of Bush no one noticed that if Bush followed the Geneva Conventions then these prisoners won't be released until the WOT is over. But hey it made Bushco look bad even though your clients in Gitmo will now cool thier heels indefinatly. I'm sure they appreciate all the help. Let the celebration continue....

    Re: U.S. to Give Geneva Rights to Detainees (none / 0) (#14)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 05:09:56 PM EST
    You have no answers to your questions and no knowledge to whether they are even relevant but you try to make an implication based on nothing.
    I guess people have gotten soft since the Inquisition.
    I had hope we had evolved as humans since then but there is always someone around like yourself to shatter my hopes.

    Re: U.S. to Give Geneva Rights to Detainees (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 05:10:37 PM EST
    I wonder if the internees who are officers will speak up now. Officers are entitled to special treatment under the geneva conventions. They will be able to get an orderly assigned to them.

    Re: U.S. to Give Geneva Rights to Detainees (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimcee on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 06:22:05 PM EST
    Soccerdad, My only answer is that the SC ruled that the Military Tribunals were improper and that the majority opinion was that the US must regard detainees according to the GC. That would appear to mean that as long as there is a 'WOT' and without some drastic changes, they are there for an indefinate amount of time. Those that are celebrating the SC decision are celebrating an empty victory for the detainees.

    Re: U.S. to Give Geneva Rights to Detainees (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 08:41:28 PM EST
    file this under "A Day Late and A Dollar Short"...

    Re: U.S. to Give Geneva Rights to Detainees (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 09:56:56 AM EST
    Those that are celebrating the SC decision are celebrating an empty victory for the detainees. No.... They are celebrating the fact that the SC has ruled that bushco should follow and respect the Constitution and the Geneva Convention with all that entails. We already know that bushco and bushco supporters will do everything in their power to try to make it an "empty victory for the detainees". You didn't really need to state the obvious.

    U.S. to Give Geneva Rights to Detainees | 18 comments (18 topical)