Pentagon revises Guantanamo detainee policy

rick_reno

Moderator
They're covered under the Geneva convention now. I feel sorry for Tony Snow, he had to come out and say this isn't a "reversal of policy".

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration, called to account by Congress in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling blocking military tribunals, said Tuesday all detainees at Guantanamo Bay and in U.S. military custody everywhere are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the policy, outlined in a new Defense Department memo, reflects the recent 5-3 Supreme Court decision blocking military tribunals set up by President Bush. That decision struck down the tribunals because they did not obey international law and had not been authorized by Congress.

The policy, described in a memo by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, appears to reverse the administration’s earlier insistence that the detainees are not prisoners of war and thus subject to the Geneva protections.

The memo instructs recipients to ensure that all Defense Department policies, practices and directives comply with Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions governing the humane treatment of prisoners.

“You will ensure that all DOD personnel adhere to these standards,” England wrote.

The memo was first reported by the Financial Times, a British newspaper, and was later distributed to reporters at the Pentagon.

Word of the Bush administration’s new stance came as the Senate Judiciary Committee opened hearings Tuesday on the politically charged issue of how detainees should be treated.

“We’re not going to give the Department of Defense a blank check,” Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the committee chairman, told the hearing.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the committee’s top Democrat, said “kangaroo court procedures” must be changed and any military commissions “should not be set up as a sham. They should be consistent with a high standard of American justice, worth protecting.”

An election season issue
The Senate is expected to take up legislation addressing the legal rights of suspected terrorists after the August recess — timing that would push the issue squarely into the election season.

Guantanamo has been a flash point for both U.S. and international debate over the treatment of detainees without trial and over allegations of torture, denied by U.S. officials. Even U.S. allies in the war on terrorism have criticized the facility and process.

The camp came under worldwide condemnation after it opened more than four years ago, when pictures showed prisoners kneeling, shackled and being herded into wire cages. It intensified with reports of heavy-handed interrogations, hunger strikes and suicides.

White House: Not reversal
Snow insisted that all U.S. detainees have been treated humanely. Still, he said, “We want to get it right.”

“It’s not really a reversal of policy,” Snow asserted, calling the Supreme Court decision “complex.”

Steven Bradbury, acting assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, told the Senate hearing that the Bush administration would abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling that a provision of the Geneva Conventions applies.

But he acknowledged that the provision — which requires humane treatment of captured combatants and requires trials with judicial guarantees “recognized as indispensable by civilized people” — is ambiguous and would be hard to interpret.

“The application of common Article 3 will create a degree of uncertainty for those who fight to defend us from terrorist attack,” Bradbury said.

Snow said efforts to spell out more clearly the rights of detainees does not change the president’s determination to work with Congress to enable the administration to proceed with the military tribunals, or commissions. The goal is “to find a way to properly do this in a way consistent with national security,” Snow said.

Working with Congress
Snow said that the instruction manuals used by the Department of Defense already comply with the humane-treatment provisions of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. They are currently being updated to reflect legislation passed by Congress and sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to more expressly rule out torture.

“The administration intends to work with Congress,” Snow said.

“We want to fulfill the mandates of justice, making sure we find a way properly to try people who have been plucked off the battlefields who are not combatants in the traditional sense,” he said.

“The Supreme Court pretty much said it’s over to you guys (the administration and Congress) to figure out how to do this,” Snow added. “And that is where this is headed.”

Under questioning from the Senate committee, Daniel Dell’Orto, principal deputy general counsel at the Pentagon, said he believes the current treatment of detainees — as well as the existing tribunal process — already complies with Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

“The memo that went out, it doesn’t indicate a shift in policy,” he said. “It just announces the decision of the court.”

“The military commission set up does provide a right to counsel, a trained military defense counsel and the right to private counsel of the detainee’s choice,” Dell’Orto said. “We see no reason to change that in legislation.”
 
Quite a bit of difference from the policies they started with. Much like the 2002 speech where he labeld the "Axis of Evil" nations and declared that we would not let events overtake us. North Korea fires a missle and they are singing "give diplomacy a chance". Of course this isnt a reversal either. :rolleyes:
 
change in policy?

"They're covered under the Geneva convention now."
Yeah sure. But the way torture is defined by our government makes virtually nothing off-limits.

As to Korea, well, they don't have oil, we already have a big military presence there and you-know-who isn't concerned about Kim.
 
Gawd, I hope when I get tortured some girl rubs her titties on me. :rolleyes:

I'd say we needed some policy change on detainees, but classifying them all as legal combatants makes a mockery of the Geneva Conventions and military personel in general.
 
But the way torture is defined by our government makes virtually nothing off-limits.
Care to explain that? Do you mean that the gov't does NOT classify as torture things that should be so that they can still be legally abused?

Just trying to clarify your statement...
 
I'd say we needed some policy change on detainees, but classifying them all as legal combatants makes a mockery of the Geneva Conventions and military personel in general.

"legal combatants"... what exactly does that mean? Is there a definition that makes sense, that doesn't discriminate against common people, of whatever culture, taking matters into their own hands?...

The majority of prisoners at Gitmo were rounded up, after having taking no hostile action against the US,.... but just suspected of having "sympathies" with the enemy...
 
"legal combatants"... what exactly does that mean? Is there a definition that makes sense, that doesn't discriminate against common people, of whatever culture, taking matters into their own hands?...
Have you heard about that Geneva Convention thing?

The majority of prisoners at Gitmo were rounded up, after having taking no hostile action against the US,.... but just suspected of having "sympathies" with the enemy...
O RLY? Where might you have found that documented?
 
Have you heard about that Geneva Convention thing?

uhh yeah, that's why I posted the question... it seems the supreme court has got a different definition than the administration...

O RLY? Where might you have found that documented?

The Feds have admitted it, in their own records... expand your horizons beyond Fox "news", you might hear of it...
 
uhh yeah, that's why I posted the question... it seems the supreme court has got a different definition than the administration...
Apparently, the SC also has a different definition than the Geneva Convention.

The Feds have admitted it, in their own records... expand your horizons beyond Fox "news", you might hear of it...
Oh, OK. Just post the records in question up that tally the combatant and nonhostile detainees and we'll start there.
 
The US military's rules are codified in FM 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare. It is based primarily on the Geneva and Hague Conventions. There have been several of each, 10 Hague and 4 Geneva, with several additional 'Protocols' to the Geneva, I believe.

AFAIK, 'lawful combatant' isn't actually defined. What is normally taken as that definition is persons eligible to be treated as Prisoners of War. Geneva Convention III, 1949:
ARTICLE 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
The conditions under A. (2) are what prevent insurgents and or terrorists from being legally POWs, usually. Nonetheless, the US generally treats them in accord with the Conventions, though we are not required to do so. The issue is not whether or not they should be treated humanely, (they should) but whether or not they have to be accorded all the rights of POWs. They don't.
 
The worst of the worst" was the Bush Administration's description of the type of combatant who ends up at Gitmo. But a Seton Hall University study culled from the government's own data found that only 8% of the camp's prisoners were actually fighters for al-Qaeda. More than half were not determined to have committed any hostile act against Americans or their allies. Even Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the detainee at the center of the Supreme Court case, was Osama bin Laden's chauffeur and bodyguard--hardly the criminal mastermind that requires a country to create a maximum security prison. To its credit, the government has been trying to repatriate the less dangerous detainees as well as those who probably should never have been there.

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1209954,00.html

this is all the research I have time for tonight, but I can look into it more tomorrow if neccessary...
 
Were the Justices reading the same copy of the convention that I read? No uniforms, not of a recognized nation and they did not obey the Laws of Warfare. Now tell me again why we have to follow the rules and they don't?
 
Ahh. Torture. Torture torture torture. It's a great way to win their "hearts and minds".:rolleyes: Torture worked really well in Salem, and the Inquisition.:rolleyes: It has no place in civilization. If you feel otherwise, watch someone be tortured.
As to Korea, well, they don't have oil, we already have a big military presence there...
Sure we do:rolleyes:
 
Good stuff, though I missed the part about our criteria for rounding up the nonhostile detainees.

In military operations mistakes are made. It is not right, but there it is.

Ahh. Torture. Torture torture torture. It's a great way to win their "hearts and minds". Torture worked really well in Salem, and the Inquisition. It has no place in civilization. If you feel otherwise, watch someone be tortured.

I bet the US soldiers that were captured, castrated, shot or beheaded would have settled for underwear on their heads.

The apologistic non-sense that people spew these days make me sick.:barf: They were part of a network that commited the worst attack on US soil in almost 200 years! It has not even been 5 years and people forget that day. If you can't remember, relive it here: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80340

I have to sign off before I say something I will regret.
 
Too late.

I am so offended that you associate our nations military with tourture that I could fight(and I am general a very peaceable person). The VAST majority of our fighting men and women are decent, honorable people. "Tourture" is a HUGE exception to the rule. For the people we are fighting it is the RULE! They catch one of our guys, no Bible for them to read, no clothing, no three meals a day, only tourture, real brutal tourture to which death is a welcome respite. So don't talk to me about "tourture" with your rolled eyes and academic attitude.

I just sent off a good friend to Iraq(the third one this month), so don't give me your apologistic pile of B.S. Sure some of our folks did wrong according to the rules. But our ENEMY has never even HEARD of rules! They urinate on the rules along with the bodies of AMERICAN SERVICEMEN THAT THEY HAVE TOURTURED TO DEATH!
 
RH,
Why don't you tell us how you really feel? :eek:

I know it upsets you, but we are a nation of laws. Even when our enemies are not. Think of how much more intimidating we'd be if we treated all our enemies this way. It would clearly be advantageous to do so because most civilized nations don't want to get into it with a barbaric superpower.
We don't because we agreed not to. It doesn't matter that our enemy has no rules. We do, and their violations are not justification for our violations.

All this stuff is of secondary importance. Here's the most important part: If we do not very publicly change the policies that brought this about, we torpedo our own ability to win the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the war on terror.
I'm pretty sure most of us have friends and family over there. We worry about them, send them care packages, and hope and pray for their safe return. If they are to be maimed or killed, wouldn't you rather have it happen in the course of a war we're trying to win?
This war is about hearts and minds. If we are to be successful, we have to convince the average guy on the street that his best interests lie with us. Snatching them off the street without just cause, making them disappear into a network of secret prisons without due process, and torturing them tends to make them have a dim view of us.
This helps the BGs more than it helps us.
I want to win this war and I don't care if that means I've got to kiss Osama's butt in times square to do it.
 
First, I call BS on all this torture. When we get some substatiated accounts, I'll have a problem with it. Titties on my head, scary dogs, uncomfy rooms.:rolleyes:

Second, we are a nation of laws, laws preserving and protecting the rights of our Citizens, not foreign nationals and not illegal enemy combatants. These people do not enjoy the same protections in our society. Do they deserve protection? Sure, but not the same protections as our citizens and not the same protections as legal combatants.
 
Martigan,
I would even go so far as to say that our enemies don't "deserve" anything beyond defeat.
But still, this behavior runs counter to our war effort. On that basis alone, we should steer as far from it as possible. Even if your claim of 'shenanigans' is true, this only helps our efforts.
 
In military operations mistakes are made. It is not right, but there it is.
True. Mistakes happen all the time. Soldiers don't make very good police. It's not what we're trained to do. It's not our mindset.

I bet the US soldiers that were captured, castrated, shot or beheaded would have settled for underwear on their heads.
I understand how you feel. I've lost several friends in the last couple years though none were tortured that I know of. One of them took an IED and was in intensive care for months. And sometimes I feel like we should just wipe them all off the face of the planet. But alot of these "insurgents" are just kids. Kids who've fallen into the wrong crowd and see us as an occupying force. But regardless of what they do to us we have to be better than them. That's the reason we're over there. If were not more civilized than them, why are we over there at all? We're supposed to be bringing that region democracy, humanity, civilization. Not to replace their means of barbarism with our own.
 
Back
Top