Administration embraces Geneva Conventions protections — sort of

July 11, 2006

At first glance, this Court-imposed reversal of policy seems like a long-overdue turn in the morally-defensible direction.

The [tag]Bush[/tag] [tag]administration[/tag], in an apparent policy reversal sparked by a recent [tag]Supreme Court[/tag] ruling, said today it will extend the guarantees of humane treatment specified by the [tag]Geneva Conventions[/tag] to detainees in the war-on-terror.

In a memo released by the Pentagon this morning, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, citing the Supreme Court’s decision, ordered all Pentagon personnel to “adhere to these [tag]standards[/tag]” and to “promptly review” all policies and practices “to ensure that they comply with the standards” of the Geneva Convention’s Common Article 3.

Since 2001, the administration has argued that the Geneva Conventions would be respected as a matter of policy but that they did not apply by law. The Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, rejected that view.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said it’s “not really a [tag]reversal[/tag] of [tag]policy[/tag],” but considering the fact that the administration used to believe it could ignore Geneva protections, and is now prepared to follow them, it certainly sounds like a reversal.

It’s shameful, of course, that it took several years for the administration to abandon an indefensible policy — which, as Matthew Yglesias noted, Bush’s far-right allies have supported from the outset — but progress is progress.

The question then becomes whether this change is as encouraging as it seems.

Spencer Ackerman believes today’s announcement is little more than a shell game.

The White House is insulting your intelligence if it expects you to believe that its new policy of extending Geneva Conventions protections to all detainees in U.S. military custody is sufficient to redress the proven abuse and illegality of its war on terror. The very obvious loophole is what will happen to detainees outside of U.S. military custody — as in CIA custody, such as the so-called “black sites,” where Geneva is a sick joke. Which is a fairly apt description of this new White House attempt at damage control.

As long as Tony Snow is feeling chatty about this, maybe someone could ask him if today’s announcement covers CIA detainees in some of our not-so-secret prisons in Eastern Europe. Call it a hunch, but I’m guessing he won’t want to answer the question.

Why exactly are we not prosecuting and convicting (or releasing) these prisoners? Are they part of a plot to attack the US or not? Did they participate in illegal activities or not? Who is going to ask Bush why we are not seeking justice in these cases. Wouldn’t successful prosecution of many dozens of terrorists captured after 9/11 in the caves of Afghanastan be a campaign issue spun from pure gold? Why has it taken 5 years to sort this out?

  • Any intended action that Bush announces does comes with the automatic “signing statement mentality” waver that gives the Decider unlimited power wrapped in secrecy.

  • “Did they participate in illegal activities or not?” – MNProgressive

    Nope, some of them just want to fight and kill Crusaders in Islamic lands. Of course, we are the Crusaders and their definition of what is Islamic land can extend pretty far (Spain, for instance).

    But warfare is not in of itself a crime. Destructive and evil, but so is oppression, and sometimes you can only liberate yourself by force of arms.

    The problem is people become addicted to violence as a policy and a life style. Then you get Shamil Basayev, the Chechen terrorist who, not satisfied with liberating his own country from the Russians, started banditry against neighboring republics of the Federated Republic of Russia, and caused the Second Chechen War.

    However, other than the totally innocent detainees sold to us by their enemies, there are a group of detainees at GitMo who are combatents whom we can’t/shouldn’t let go because they would just go back to a battlefield. Sadly, you can’t take the parole of a Muslim because their religion allows them to make a false oath to an infidel.

  • I can hardly wait till January 21, 2009, when we send all these sick Republican bastards to the Hague for their war crimes trials. No wonder they all opposed to creation ofthe ICC. Given that “Republican” is a synonym for “defendant.”

  • In hangman’s terminology, one might consider “Republican” to be a synonym for “rope-stretcher”—as a play-on-words related to the act of execution-by-hanging being colloquially defined as “stretching someone on a rope.”

    Actually, I’d find it sort of funny if someone started marketing a bumber-sticker with a hangman’s noose, and the words “Bush Administration Fashion Statement” in big bold letters….

  • Soon Gonzales will find a new way to declare the Geneva Convention “quaint.”

  • Maybe the designated liar, Tony Snow, can give us something similar to, “We were for the Geneva convention before we were against it.” (not picking on Kerry, just seems appropriate) or ala Katrina
    Who could have predicted something like this would happen?

    We’ll all need hip waders to keep the spin or some other four letter word off us from now til the election.

  • It’s hard to be honest and speak one’s mind with so many sensitive toes on the path.

    Part of a comment from Lance (#3) “Nope, some of them just want to fight and kill Crusaders in Islamic lands. Of course, we are the Crusaders and their definition of what is Islamic land can extend pretty far (Spain, for instance).” triggered one of those high-risk toe-stepping ventures in my mind.

    First, I claim neutral ground — I’m not either Christian or Muslim. From that perspective, I see both traditions, on the strength of historical evidence if not on explicit doctrinal statement, to be committed to and motivated by a strong proselytising ethos. That is, there appears to be within their faiths some specific exhortation to convert others, irrespective of circumstance.

    If I’m right in that observation (please correct me if I’m wrong), then a certain disregard for and disrespect of another being’s preferences, culture, tradition and belief is implied. This has manifested itself in the past as atrocious desecrations of the sacred sites, practices and lifesyles of other non-Christian and non-Muslim traditions around the world.

    When these two iconoclastic cultures, Christian and Muslim, face each other they are like looking in a mirror. Have you ever seen a dog going mad at its own reflection? I have. — Tragic.

    • Comments are closed.