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.

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.

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.

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

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.

JP, what am I kidding about? I’m looking for real life a example, I don’t understand your question.

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.

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.

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.

during WWII, the luftwaffe was put in charge of Air
Force personnel. they were protected by the Convention.

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.