The gloves are off, folks. According to the Los Angeles Times:
The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment," according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.
It has become quite clear over the last few years that universally accepted sets of rules are not favored by the current administration and they would rather do without than have safeguards in appropriate places.
When the Washington Post reported secret prisons run by the CIA in East European countries, President Bush categorically denied allegations of torture. Ironically, his administration vehemently opposed the McCain amendment, which specifically sought to ban torture and cruel treatment of all detainees under US custody. The measure put forward by McCain eventually became the law, but Mr. Bush issued a "signing statement" quietly declaring his right to bypass the law if he sees fit.
Now, as reported by the Times, the new guidelines violate the McCain measure.
Give it to Mr. Bush, he's consistent.
The fallacy is elsewhere. The abuses at Abu Ghraib, which were recently described by Mr. Bush as the "biggest mistake," are now going to be the norm. Let's clap.
The Los Angeles Times report further points out the potential problems the administration might face:
But the exclusion of the Geneva provisions may make it more difficult for the administration to portray such incidents (Abu Ghraib) as aberrations. And it undercuts contentions that U.S. forces follow the strictest, most broadly accepted standards when fighting wars.
Again, give it to Mr. Bush. He's oblivious to the consequences. And, of course, there's no face to save either.
Thankfully, not everyone is buying into the arguments of the Pentagon, and the final version is delayed due to concerns raised by the State Department:
However, the State Department fiercely opposes the military's decision to exclude Geneva Convention protections and has been pushing for the Pentagon and White House to reconsider, the Defense Department officials acknowledged.
And several lawmakers who are not happy either:
But objections from several senators on other Field Manual issues forced a delay. The senators objected to provisions allowing harsher interrogation techniques for those considered unlawful combatants, such as suspected terrorists, as opposed to traditional prisoners of war.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
Pure nonsense, yet again.
What you're talking about here is Article 3 Section 1c, which already doesn't apply to most prisoners at places like Abu Ghraib who are criminals and not prisoners of war or wounded enemies.
The McCain measure is more specific, but the actual Geneva Convention isn't really in play here.
Dave
2 - Q Bit
Dave:
You are so wrong. May I ask you to go through the entire L. A. Times report?
Anyways, here's the relevant portion that might be helpful for your understanding of the issue.
For decades, it had been the official policy of the U.S. military to follow the minimum standards for treating all detainees as laid out in the Geneva Convention. But, in 2002, Bush suspended portions of the Geneva Convention for captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Bush's order superseded military policy at the time, touching off a wide debate over U.S. obligations under the Geneva accord, a debate that intensified after reports of detainee abuses at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
Among the directives being rewritten following Bush's 2002 order is one governing U.S. detention operations. Military lawyers and other defense officials wanted the redrawn version of the document known as DoD Directive 2310, to again embrace Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.
That provision â€" known as a "common" article because it is part of each of the four Geneva pacts approved in 1949 â€" bans torture and cruel treatment. Unlike other Geneva provisions, Article 3 covers all detainees â€" whether they are held as unlawful combatants or traditional prisoners of war. The protections for detainees in Article 3 go beyond the McCain amendment by specifically prohibiting humiliation, treatment that falls short of cruelty or torture.
The move to restore U.S. adherence to Article 3 was opposed by officials from Vice President Dick Cheney's office and by the Pentagon's intelligence arm, government sources said. David S. Addington, Cheney's chief of staff, and Stephen A. Cambone, Defense undersecretary for intelligence, said it would restrict the United States' ability to question detainees.
The Pentagon tried to satisfy some of the military lawyers' concerns by including some protections of Article 3 in the new policy, most notably a ban on inhumane treatment, but refused to embrace the actual Geneva standard in the directive it planned to issue.
3 - Dave Nalle
Q bit, I think reading the actual Geneva Convention is just a tad more relevant than reading the LA Times version of it, because the LA Times is just dead wrong in their interpretation of Article 3, especially in the context of article 5, which specifically clarifies article 3 by saying:
Which exempts terrorists from the protections of the convention so long as a security crisis or military conflict remains in effect.
Dave
4 - JP
Thankfully, a "security crisis or military conflict" will remain in effect for the next 50 years, if it's up to the Bush Administration.
5 - troll
*Which exempts terrorists from the protections of the convention so long as a security crisis or military conflict remains in effect.*
insurgents as well
in our neo-fascist western legal culture the interests of the State trump those of any individual...it is no surprise that the Convention incorporates escape clauses and grey areas
troll
6 - Q Bit
Dave:
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you - day turned out to be unsually busy.
You seem to be confused because what you have cited clearly states:
which is exactly the Pentagon wants to do without.
Furthermore, Bush administration has also violated the requirements as stated in "and in case ....Occupying Power".
It is unfortunate that in previous occassions US army complied with Geneva Convention also mentioned in the same report:
It is perhaps useful to recall what Erwin Chemerinsky wrote 3 years ago:
7 - Dave Nalle
Thankfully, a "security crisis or military conflict" will remain in effect for the next 50 years, if it's up to the Bush Administration.
except that Bush will be gone in 3 years.
And Q-Bit, Chemerinsky is just dead wrong. We have already had this discussion at length here on BC - perhaps before your day - there's no question that the prisoners at GITMO are not covered by the Geneva Convention by any stretch of the imagination. Even the human rights groups mostly acknowledge that as fact. They weren't uniformed combatants and they aren't under US law, so they are SOL.
I think that we SHOULD apply the Geneva convention or something like it whenever possible, but it's very clear that it doesn't apply in most of the situations where questions have been raised.
I notice that you don't even attempt to deal with article 5 and the definition of who is protected, because it doesn't support your position at all.
Dave
8 - Q Bit
I didn't deal with it because it's very clear about the definition of "protected "
AND
the third para CLEARLY states the rights of those who are "unprotected",
AND I repeat, the above mentioned rights are violated by the Bush administration.
I don't want to get into Chemerinsky for the reason you mentioned. Too bad, I missed out.
9 - Dave Nalle
Come again, Q? You think the third paragraph of Article 5 provides protections to those not falling under the convention. I suggest you read it again. It encourages humane treatment, but clearly says that security issues totally override any obligation to provide such protections.
Dave
10 - Q Bit
True, the third para doesn't provide protections to those who fall into the categories as defined in the prev two paras. But it does establish how these people should be treated.
It is not a matter of encouragement -- it clearly states the rights of the "unprotected".
I think your interpretation of encouragement doesn't reflect the actual.
11 - Dave Nalle
But it also leaves a bigass loophole for those who want to say that security provides the excuse not to apply humane treatment for an indefinite period.
Dave