Geneva applies
The Pentagon pledged to respect the rights of “war on terror” suspects, as the US Senate began looking into new ways to prosecute detainees at its Guantanamo Bay detention center.
In a memo, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England instructed US military leadership “to promptly review all relevant directives, regulations, policies, practices and procedures under your purview to ensure that they comply with the standards of Common Article Three” of the Geneva Conventions.
“You will ensure that all DoD (Department of Defense) personnel adhere to these standards,” said the memo, dated July 7 and made public Tuesday.
The Pentagon announcement appeared to be a reversal of the George W. Bush administration’s long-held stance that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to Taliban, al-Qaeda and other combatants targeted in the US-led “war on terror.”
The unexpected shift, as well as Tuesday’s Senate hearings, were prompted by a Supreme Court ruling late last month rejecting the Bush administration’s plans to impanel special military tribunals to try the terror suspects.
The high court ruled that such panels were a violation of international and domestic law.
The court ruled on international law?
July 12th, 2006 at 12:15 am
Well, given that the Geneva Conventions were entered into by Chester Arther, and ratified by the US Senate, as per the constitution, and given that all of the conventions except for two 1977 protocols have subsequently been ratified by the US, it’s safe to say that that particular international law is binding on us.
Specifically, the high court ruled that the panels would be in violation of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (a treaty legally entered into by the US, and thus legally binding) and the UCMJ, a law passed by Congress, and thus legally binding. Therefore, your international and domestic laws.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:15 am
D’oh, stupid typos.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:22 am
Kinda interesting, was fairly certain that the Geneva Conventions required reprocicity, but go figure.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:08 am
The law of unintended consequences:
Why put the guys at the sharp end in jeopardy if we’re going to treat these barbarians like solders and not be able to screw any intel out of them?
Take fewer prisoners, have safer troopies, and smaller detainee populations.
Problem solved.
July 12th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
All Article 3 says is that you have to have a “competent tribunal” to declare a captured enemy to be a ‘unlawful combatant.’
As far as I can tell, the whole point of contention is what exactly constitutes said ‘competent tribunal’ and under what rules they conduct their business.
Given the definitions later in the 4th Geneva Convention (either Article 4 or 5, I can’t recall), it’s pretty obvious that the BGs in Gitmo fail to meet the definition of a lawful combatant in that they (a) don’t wear identifiable uniforms; and (b) don’t act IAW the laws of war (ie, they deliberately attack civilians, hide behind same, and use things like hospitals and mosques to conduct combat operations.)