Article

2008-04-27 Home Front: WoT

Geneva Convention May Be Applied Selectively

The media continues to overlook the application of the Convention to illegal combatants, as opposed to soldiers in uniform. That would be becauee it is convienient.
The Geneva Conventions' ban on "outrages against personal dignity" does not automatically apply to terrorism suspects in the custody of U.S. intelligence agencies, the Justice Department has suggested to Congress in recent letters that lay out the Bush administration's interpretation of the international treaty.

Lawyers for the department, offering insight into the legal basis for the CIA's controversial interrogation program, reasserted in the letters the Bush administration's long-held view that it has considerable leeway in deciding how the conventions' rules apply to the harsh questioning of combatants in the war on terrorism.

While the United States is legally bound by the conventions' Common Article 3 and its requirement to treat detainees humanely, the definition of humane treatment can vary, depending on the detainee's identity and the importance of the information he possesses, a Justice Department official wrote last September and this March to a Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee.

"Some prohibitions . . . such as the prohibition on 'outrages against personal dignity,' do invite the consideration of the circumstances surrounding the action," Brian A. Benczkowski, the principal deputy assistant attorney general, asserted in one of the letters.

Benczkowski's letters were provided to The Washington Post by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who asked the Justice Department to explain the legal foundation for President Bush's executive order last year authorizing the CIA's continued interrogation of terrorism suspects. The existence of the letters was first reported last night by the New York Times.

A spokeswoman for Wyden said the administration's suggestion that the Geneva Conventions could be selectively applied was "stunning."

"The Geneva Convention in most cases is the only shield that Americans have when they are captured overseas," the spokeswoman, Jennifer Hoelzer, said in a phone interview. "And for the president to say that it is acceptable to interpret Geneva on a sliding scale means that he thinks that it is acceptable for other countries to do the same. Senator Wyden -- and I believe any other reasonable individual -- finds that argument appalling."
To my knowledge, and I've been paying attention, most American civilians and no American military, who've been captured by al-Qaeda and its work-alikes have survived the experience. The enemy specifically disavows the Geneva Conventions, all of them, in favor of the blessings of shariah, which appear to condone killing any prisoners and booby-trapping their bodies. And let us not forget the provision that applies in Soddy Arabia that you can kidnap American civilians, chop their heads off on videotape, and keep the heads in your refrigerator.

Theory, meet practice.

Posted by Bobby 2008-04-27 07:07|| || Front Page|| [11134 views ] Top

#1 "And for the president to say that it is acceptable to interpret Geneva on a sliding scale means that he thinks that it is acceptable for other countries to do the same.

That's funny - as Bobby mentions above, I don't believe I've once heard any media / leftist complain that terrorists aren't adhering to the GC, but it's okay for them to accuse our soldiers of not adhering to same.

Screw 'em.

Posted by Raj 2008-04-27 08:42|| 2008-04-27 08:42|| Front Page Top

#2 Actually, that is what we *do* expect other countries to do in similar circumstances. Beyond those minimal requirements, all the US can do is reach bilateral agreements for higher standards of treatment if both sides wish it.

If other countries have unilateral higher standards, then that is their business.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-04-27 08:46|| 2008-04-27 08:46|| Front Page Top

#3 Technically, its 'conventions'. And there are numerous addendum which all states, including in some instances the United States, have not signed on to or ratified. So all parts are not applicable, thus 'selective'.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-04-27 08:49|| 2008-04-27 08:49|| Front Page Top

#4 The GC protections do not apply to illegal combatants anyway. They can (and should in many cases) be summarily executed in the field.

If we were doing it to uniformed soldiers of another nation - who was also abiding by the GC - then I'd be concerned. Until then I just don't give a shit - bring on the next Paris Hilton story.

As it is I don't think China or Iran or whoever our next adversary is will give a flying f-k about GC protections for American prisoners. Simply because they know that we will abide by it in any event (even for illegal combatants) and that the media will ignore any of their violations and magnify our own.

Posted by CrazyFool 2008-04-27 10:17|| 2008-04-27 10:17|| Front Page Top

#5 well put crazy

Posted by sinse 2008-04-27 13:52|| 2008-04-27 13:52|| Front Page Top

#6 There are 4 major Geneva Conventions that the US is a signatory to, and one major that we said "Hell, No" to. Also, the moment the other side fails to abide by the Geneva Convention regarding conduct of warfare, we are NOT obligating to apply its provisions to them, as is STATED in that Convention.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2008-04-27 16:10|| 2008-04-27 16:10|| Front Page Top

#7 Geneva Convention is a joke. Unless both sides follow it is meaningless and McCain should stand up and say so.

We should perhaps follow similar guidelines because they are right, or because its for the best mental health of our own guys but following the letter of the law when the other guy doesn't is nonsense and actually undermines the Geneva Convention.

Personally I'd follow all of them because I don't think the convention Explicitly covers toilet paper with Koranic verse on them.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-04-27 16:19|| 2008-04-27 16:19|| Front Page Top

15:15 Griter+Slash1619
15:04 NoMoreBS
14:51 Grom the Affective
14:50 Secret Master
14:06 swksvolFF
13:45 Lord Garth
13:33 trailing wife
13:32 Ebbuger Whuque4103
13:17 Frank G
13:01 SteveS
12:56 mossomo
12:55 mossomo
12:43 swksvolFF
12:41 mossomo
12:34 mossomo
12:25 Airandee
12:13 swksvolFF
12:02 Regular joe
11:54 Regular joe
11:51 Regular joe
11:51 Abu Uluque
11:21 SteveS
11:12 Jack Fleling2104
10:52 Nero