July 11, 2006

Geneva Rights For Terrorists -- An Unfortunate Policy Decision

The entire purpose of the Geneva Conventions was to ensure that the laws of war were followed by all combattants. By acting in a certain manner, they acquired certain rights and protections -- and failing to act in that manner (uniforms, organization, refraining from intentional attacks on civilians) put one outside those protections.

We've just taken away our enemy's incentive for following the laws of war with this decision.

The Bush administration has agreed to apply the Geneva Conventions to all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody, bowing to the Supreme Court's recent rejection of policies that have imprisoned hundreds for years without trials.

The Pentagon announced yesterday that it has called on military officials to adhere to the conventions in dealing with al-Qaeda detainees. The administration also has decided that even prisoners held by the CIA in secret prisons abroad must be treated in accordance with international standards, an interpretation that would prohibit prisoners from being subjected to harsh treatment in interrogations, several U.S. officials said.

The developments underscored how the administration has been forced to retreat from its long-standing position that President Bush be given extensive leeway to determine how to interrogate and prosecute terrorism suspects captured in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Until recently, the White House and Defense Department have pursued such anti-terrorism policies with little interference from Congress and the courts, but that has begun to change.

Since 2002, the administration has contended that the Geneva Conventions would be respected as a matter of policy but that they did not apply by law to terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or in U.S. military custody elsewhere. Administration officials have voiced concern that the conventions are too vague and could expose the military to second-guessing about appropriate treatment.

Now why would anyone follow rules if there is no penalty for breaking them? our terrorist enemies have now been tols that there are no consequences for engaging in terrorism rather than civilized military conduct -- so we can expect that terrorism will continue unabated.

What really needs to happen is on-the-spot executions of terrorists -- or detention followed by hearing-less executions for those who we believe have useful intelligence.

At least until the terrorists begin to follow Geneva.

WILLisms has an interesting look at the issue of Geneva and terrorists.

Posted by: Greg at 10:11 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

1 A little historical perspective from one who should know. Ex-prosecutor at Nuremberg says Bush
is indictable for the Iraq War.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/38604/

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Wed Jul 12 03:54:52 2006 (j1Lns)

2 And my response is "Let them come and get him -- the annihilation of any force which makes such an attempt will be the first step."

The claim by the Saddamite apologist is laughable.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jul 12 13:04:05 2006 (WHiZd)

3 Of course I agree with Ohio's Robert Taft, whose defeat by Eisenhower collapsed traditional Republicanism ,when he condemned Nuremberg as
ex post facto farce. But what's good for the goose.....

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Wed Jul 12 13:22:12 2006 (j1Lns)

4 Unfortunate is right.

Posted by: Stephen Kent at Wed Jul 12 14:10:15 2006 (sjsAS)

5 Actually, I also agree with Taft's analysis.

Not that i don't think the hangings shouldn't have happened -- there simply should not have been the farce that there was clearly established international law on the matter (or that there is such a thing as clearly established international law).

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jul 12 15:30:35 2006 (Hq4dn)

6 A good fraction of the inmates at Gitmo were/ are either A.innocent and turned in for dough, or to settle personal feuds B.members of the Taliban but not Al Qaeda ,hence not terrorists by any definition. Bush/neocon arrogance ,manifested in this example by holding people ad inifinitum without charge
is among the practises growing contempt for us around the world. Otherwise sympathetic governments will excusably cooperate with us
in the so-called "WOT" less and less ,also,as a result.

Small government conservatives should note,all this will result in so many enemies a veritable behemoth police state will be needed to defend continental America from the blowback. Not that expenditures on military maintainance of the Empire isn't a violation of small government conservatism to begin with.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Thu Jul 13 03:22:27 2006 (DZbll)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
10kb generated in CPU 0.0055, elapsed 0.0131 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0096 seconds, 35 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]