Geneva Convention Protections For Detainees

The AP has the story in a move that I disagree with the administration over:

The Bush administration, bowing to court edict and political pressure, guaranteed the basic protections of the Geneva Conventions to captives in the war on terrorism and asked lawmakers Tuesday to restore the military tribunals now in limbo.

As senators took up the prickly question of how suspected terrorists should be treated and tried, the administration disclosed it had ordered a review of military detention practices to make sure they comply with Geneva standards.

The administration has refused to grant Geneva status to the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere, saying they were not from a recognized nation, were not captured in uniform and did not observe traditional rules of war.

Instead, the people apprehended in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other zones in the war on terrorism have been classified as "unlawful combatants." The Supreme Court last month invalidated the tribunals handling these cases, ruling they defied international law and had not been authorized by Congress.

The administration sought remedies on both fronts Tuesday, revisiting its prisoner guarantees and appealing to senators to revive the tribunals with legislation. Some critics have suggested the detainees should be tried by military courts-martial instead, an idea opposed by President Bush.

The Senate is unlikely to act until the fall, setting up a pitched debate over the issue at the height of the campaign for control of Congress.

A memo from Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England to all branches of the armed forces, released Tuesday, instructed them to ensure that all Defense Department policies, practices and directives comply with Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions governing the humane treatment of prisoners.

The practical effect on interrogation techniques, detention conditions and trial procedures was unclear.

Officials at the White House and Pentagon did not say how, if at all, the treatment of terror detainees would be different under the Geneva Conventions. The government has long insisted that its treatment of these captives has been in compliance with the Geneva treaties all along, even though it has refused to apply them as a matter of law.

I disagree with the administration's move in this direction for the sole reason that these people are, by definition under the convention itself, illegal combatants on the field of battle. Article Four of the Third Geneva Convention is pretty clear. It basically states, as Wikipedia explains:

In principle to be entitled to prisoner of war status the captured service member must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war, e.g. be part of a chain of command, wear a uniform and bear arms openly. Thus, franc-tireurs, terrorists and spies may be excluded. In practice these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, may not wear a uniform or carry arms openly, yet are typically granted POW status if captured. However, guerrillas or any other combatant may not be granted the status if they try to use both the civilian and the military status. Thus, the importance of uniforms — or as in the guerrilla case, a badge — to keep this important rule of warfare.

So what, pray tell, precisely was their uniform? Can anyone define that? According to our troops in the theater of war, these people are dressed in common civilian garb, except for the head scarf which obscures much of their face. The scarf can be ditched easily, and the terrorist can blend in with the civilian populace. The terrorists are using precisely the tactics the Convention's provisions forbids.

The Bush Administration, in an effort to push forward the idea of tribunals was willing to compromise this point. What is truly interesting is the attitude that those involved have when it comes to the treatment of our prisoners. Specifically, if any treatment given to them now would be altered. These people are given far more leeway, in terms of rights--granted and otherwise--in this war than we ever have in any previous war.

These people are given Korans, prayer rugs, religiously-acceptable meals, shown which direction Mecca is, and they and their articles are handled with the greatest care. We are literally, in my humble opinion, walking on eggshells when dealing with these prisoners, and it is quite often due to the uproar raised by outsiders that have next-to-no-clue as to what occurs with them. These critics believe we are literally torturing these people in the worst sense of the word. They believe these people deserve even MORE rights.

And those are fool's notions. Our enemy would gladly sever their heads as easily and quickly as they would mine. They cannot, under any circumstances, believe in their heart of hearts that they can negotiate with these animals. And any such negotiations would result in a limited--as in terms of time--uneasy peace, at best. That is called being a dhimmi, and it is simply a level of subjugation just slightly above being a slave.

TY very much, but I prefer to die on my feet than live on my knees. Welcome to the American spirit.

I think that this is a mistake in this war. I personally think the president should simply push Congress to create the tribunals; a power they do have under Article I, Section 8. These people do not need to gain more freedom within their confinement, and I believe that they will. The Geneva Conventions do give far more "wiggle-room" when it comes to the definition of these detainees.

Marcie