Detainee Policies Reversed (or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Geneva Conventions)
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Foreign Policy, The War On TerrorismWhile it’s very easy to say “too little, too late,” I think this has the chance of really turning around the WOT. Not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but soon…
From the Financial Times:
The White House confirmed on Tuesday that the Pentagon had decided, in a major policy shift, that all detainees held in US military custody around the world are entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions.The FT has learned that Gordon England, deputy defence secretary, sent a memo to senior defence officials and military officers last Friday, telling them that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions – which prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners and requires certain basic legal rights at trial – would apply to all detainees held in US military custody.
I’m sure you’re familiar with the old policy, but if not…
The White House had argued that Mr Bush, as commander-in-chief, had the authority to convene the military commissions. Critics who rejected this interpretation said the commissions were unjust because, for instance, defendants were unable to see all the evidence levelled against them.
This also heads off Congress making a law that would allow the President to circumvent the Geneva Conventions, a move that would undoubtedly do even more harm still to our already tarnished image as a beacon of truth, justice and all that other stuff.
Good move. Bravo.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 11th, 2006 and is filed under Foreign Policy, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:23 am
Sounds good to me.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
The Pentagon did the right thing, but then that’s the way the system works. The government sets policy and the military salutes and says “Yes, sir!”
Ambiguity as to the limits of conduct is a dangerous thing in wartime, and the Pentagon knows that. I’m betting there was a collective sigh of relief from the brass on this one.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Finally! A somewhat reasonable strategy to the “war” on terror. The notion that this is a war and these are soldiers is so far off base. A willingness to kill and die does not a soldier make. Give these individuals a fair, transparent, and unbiased trial…THAT is how to combat terrorism, not with heavy-handed authoritarian tactics (the chief cause of terrorist sentiment)
July 11th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Considering that the enemy is not party to the Geneva Convention, one wonders whether the Geneva Convention even matters at all. Guantanamo Bay Prison is already a state of the art prison that utilizes only psychological interrogation tactices. In other words, whether we say we will apply the Geneva Convention or not is immaterial. Enemy combatants should not be allowed to see evidence that could compromise national security information. This isn’t tired rhetoric, simply truth.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Does anyone have one example of how the Geneva Convention has ever helped an American soldier? When have our troops ever gotten any protection from the Geneva Convention? Please give me an example.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
The only way to win the war on terror is to uphold the rules of engagement, the rights of prisoners, and the engagement of an enemy as we have set forth for the past century. When we circumvent our own judgements, the terrorists win. Whenever they can get us to contradict ourselves, the terrorists win. This administration has shamefullly fallen into their trap time and again by their infantile ‘exceptions’ to international law. It’s time to win this fight on terror the RIGHT way.
July 11th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
to “bernie”
during WWII, the luftwaffe was put in charge of Air
Force personnel. they were protected by the Convention.
July 11th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
A Light in the distance – I applaud.
But there is a warning tone from the old Probligo Scepticism Meter – why has this come after the SCOTUS ruling on Gitmo?
By recognising Geneva, is the Pentagon now recognising that their detainees are POW’s?
Immediate consequence – SCOTUS no longer has any jurisdiction.
July 11th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
I thnk the US needes to focus on the WAR..
The POW’s are not getting a fair trial. Or a Trial at all.
This makes the US look week and hippercritical to other countries.
It’s not helping your image as a “beacon of truth, justice”.
I love the USA but guy’s your image is costing export $$’s.
Clean up this problem and get on with the job, you need support from other countires to find the terrorists. So don’t be isolationist.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
Bernie, you have GOT to be kidding, right? I salute this decision, a positive step in the “war” on terror.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:16 am
This post should be renamed — “Be Careful of What You Wish For.”
The effect of Bush’s unilateral cowboy belligerence on this issue was to bring a constant supply of international and national criticism and a “world is watch” ethos to the detainee situation. The result was some VERY well taken care of terrorist detainees, even if there was an initial period of ambigious lawlessness in their treatment. Bush being a bad guy was good for the detainees. And if anyone says this is a intellectually disingenious statement, you just don’t have the balls to argue the point on the merits.
So the Administration feels the heat — not, btw, from the outcries of the international community (they could care less), but from SCOTUS –and pre-empts the Court. The Hamdan opinion is from any kind of “moderate” legal theory position — a dubious extension of judicial power into the executive realm, particularly during wartime. There was no overnight epiphany on the political or moral ramifications of the detainee policy.
They accomplish several goals. First, the Great Orwellian Diluted Mass of Paranoids — or as Spiro Agnew catagorized them, the “nattering nabobs of negativism” and his 4-Club of “hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history” — will hoop and holler in victory (a shallow victory) and preceive such a “new” policy a concession to their point & a general elevation of this administration into the ranks of human beings. But also, and probably more importantly, they have simply taken the load off their own shoulders at a very low price. The administration can now claim compliance with a treaty provision (interpreted seven-ways from Sunday by signatory countries) and downgrade detainees treatment. Another advantage to the administration, which Justin seems to deem as good, is that this takes pressure off legislative involvement. Yes, finally, just what I was thinking, this War on Terror needs less congressional oversight.
It was a stretch for SCOTUS to opine upon Common Articles 3’s application to enemy combatants. They had to perform absurd linguistic gymnastics on the Common Article 3 to get to the pre-ordained application. The administration has thrown them a bone — worth dogshit and good European PR (which are comparable in value.) They have lessened Congressional pressure to articulate a “peoples” position with regards to the detainees. Meanwhile, Article 3 allows them to HOLD the detainees until the end of hostilities without legal review.
Yes, bravo, good day not to be a detainee — I think I’d perfer getting water boarded.
July 12th, 2006 at 4:43 am
Thanks, Dave K, that helps, however I was really looking for something after 1949, under the current revision to the convention. That is a start though, thank you.
JP, what am I kidding about? I’m looking for real life a example, I don’t understand your question.
July 12th, 2006 at 7:34 am
Dos,
PLEASE! That’s a bit of liguistic gymnastics itself. From the sounds of Top Brass in the millitary, they were not happy with decisions made by the DOD on this issue from the start. And to suppose that the detainee’s would be better off without the Geneva Conventions is ludacris. It upholds your general rightie defense of this administration and its legally stretched to the breaking point policies, and quite frankly makes you look ridiculous.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Don’t worry DosPeros, I’m sure you will be happy to note the administration will continue doing as they’ve been doing
How many people have actually read the memo? It’s quite the hoot.
In the memo, the administration maintains that it has been adhering to the Geneva Conventions on matters of torture. To quote: “…aside from the military commission procedures (my note: these are the tribunals SCOTUS knocked down), existing DOD orders, policies directives, excutive orders, and doctrine COMPLY (my emphasis) with the standards of Common Article 3, and there for, actionss by DoD personal that comply with such issuances would comply with the standards…
The memo goes on to urge people to review these past practices and then continue to do as they are doing–and here’s the kicker, asks for a reply
“Your reply confirming complete of this review should be submitted … including a reply of “REVIEWED AND NO EFFECT (my emphasis)” where applicable….
Nothing there to celebrate….it’s same old same old
July 12th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
bernie,
It does not matter whether or not the Geneva Convention has helped one American soldier. We can’t revert to a policy of “if you do this to us, we’ll do it to you,” or the corollary of that, “if you don’t follow the Geneva Convention, why should we”?
What makes (made) me proud of being a citizen of this country is that we hold and carry out principles of fairness, justice and human rights NO MATTER WHAT. If it starts to turn out that those principles gradually become more circumvented and eventually extinct, I’m moving! I just won’t stand for that kind of BS.
July 12th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Meredith, where would you go?
July 12th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
I believe that as a nation we have a responsibility to the humane treatment of captives. I don’t think the Geneva Convention is worded clearly enough. There are to many words that are open to interpretation. I think wearing an orange jumpsuit in a small cell under armed guard is degrading. If this convention has never helped an American then why subject ourselves to it. We have our own laws that we can ammend as the times change, John McCain did that with the torture issue. Why should we bind ourselves to a treaty that no other nation follows when dealing with us.
The WOT is a mixture of both police and military action. The Geneva Convention does not seem to work well for this. The full rights for captured enemy are significantly greater than the rights of a common criminal, and rightly so. I don’t think that those rights should be given to terrorists and right now they are only granted the rights under common article 3. I don’t know what changes the future would bring. If we capture a Hezbollah terrorist after attacking us would he be considered a lawfull combatant? Should he have the full protections of the convention? The world no longer fits easy catagorization of people into soldier, civillian, or criminal. I don’t want a treaty that binds this country to the UN’s interpretation when we get no benifits from it.
July 13th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Well, I would definitely shop around before picking a destination. I would check out Canada and Ireland first. Then maybe some of the more democratic socialist countries in Europe. I know they have their bad points, but it might be fun.
In response to the rest of your comment, I don’t think the rights of a captured enemy are greater than the rights of a common criminal, if by “common criminal” you mean someone who has to be arrested and searched with a warrant, has the right to an attorney, etc. Criminals receive the full rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments to our Consitution. I don’t think the Geneva Convention provides that many rights, even to a uniformed, lawful combatant.
As to your question about the Hezbollah fellow, he at least gets the rights from Article 3 of the Geneva Convention – no torture, no killing, no hostages, no humiliating or degrading treatment, and no sentences or executions without some type of court proceeding. But, if we knew he attacked us, we could then bring criminal charges, have a trial and sentence and all that good stuff.
It may seem like the world no longer fits into the categorizations from decades ago, but following the simple rules for observing human rights, in Articles 3 and 4 the Geneva Convention, and then following our own rules for charging, trying and convicting people we KNOW and can PROVE have done something aren’t really that difficult.