US vows to comply with Geneva Conventions

[destruction]

You anti-human rights right wingnuts can call the pentagon traitors now.

US vows to comply with Geneva Conventions

by Charlotte Raab2 hours, 5 minutes ago

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 US administration, meanwhile, insisted that it all along has respected the human rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

"It is not really a reversal of policy. Humane treatment has always been the standard, and that is something they followed at Guantanamo," said White House spokesman Tony Snow.

Daniel Dell'Orto, principal deputy general counsel at the Department of Defense, affirmed the same in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday on prosecuting foreign-born suspects held in the "war on terror."

"We believe the treatment that all detainees are receiving meets or exceeds the standards of Article Three of the Geneva Conventions," said Dell'Orto, testifying at the first in a series of planned hearings on prosecuting Guantanamo inmates.

Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions prohibits "inhumane treatment" of prisoners and requires certain basic legal rights at trial -- rules that would apparently apply to the Guantanamo inmates and anyone else in US military custody.

The clause also specifies that captured soldiers "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."

Bush had insisted after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that as commander-in-chief he possessed "inherent authority" to hold "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo and use special military tribunals to determine their fate.

Snow said humane treatment has always been practiced at Guantanamo and all other US military facilities.

"The instruction manuals that are used by the Department of Defense all comply with humane treatment, which is obviously the overarching requirement of Common Article Three," said the spokesman.

The June 29 Supreme Court ruling on the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case faulted the administration for establishing the tribunals without congressional authorization. Snow said Tuesday that would soon be resolved.

"We're going to work with members of Congress to make sure that the detainees are treated in a manner that's consistent with their human rights, and also that they're brought to justice," Snow said.

Justice Department acting assistant attorney general Steve Bradbury told the Senate panel that the high court ruling -- seen by some as a stunning setback for the Bush administration -- was actually an opportunity.

"The decision in Hamdan gives the political branches an opportunity to work as one to establish the legitimate authority of the US to rely on military commissions to bring the terrorists to justice," Bradbury said.

Dell'Orto said at the same hearing that it is important "to avoid the absurd result of adopting protections for terrorists that American citizens do not receive in civilian courts."

Snow agreed that the challenge lay in balancing the rights of the inmates against the security concerns of Americans.

"We're going to do this in a way that's consistent with national security, so as to avoid giving out national security information and putting American lives at risk," Snow added.

"Those are objectives that are shared by the House and Senate, and the Supreme Court has pretty much said it's over to you guys to figure out how to get this done."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060711/wl_afp/usattacksguantanamo_060711184922&printer=1;_ylt=AjVVfawMfKwEqjAwv3pUa8OROrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

[destruction]

Here you go pro-murder/torture losers. Let me educate you.

Q&A: Geneva rules and the 'war on terror'

The British Defence Secretary John Reid has called for a re-examination of the rules of war. In particular he asked whether the Geneva Conventions on humanitarian law are adequate in an age of international terrorism.

What are the Geneva Conventions?

The Geneva Conventions are a group of international treaties designed to protect the sick or wounded, prisoners of war and civilians. They had their origin in the 19th Century, when a Swiss businessman Henri Dunant witnessed the slaughter at the Battle of Solferino in 1859 in Northern Italy, part of the struggle for Italian unification.

Mr Dunant helped treat the wounded in a church. He subsequently founded the International Committee of the Red Cross and in 1864 the first convention for the protection of wounded soldiers was signed by 12 states.

What do the conventions say?

There are four conventions, which were signed in 1949, with two additional protocols in 1977.

The First Convention was a follow-up to the 1864 agreement and protects sick and wounded soldiers.

The Second Convention extends protection to those fighting at sea.

The Third Convention covers prisoners of war and says they must be protected from harm and not prosecuted for lawful actions on the battlefield.

The Fourth Convention was new in 1949 and, drawing on the experience of civilian suffering in World War II, stated that civilians must not be deliberately targeted.

What is the issue raised by Mr Reid?

This concerns the Third Convention, covering prisoners of war. He argued that it needed re-examination because international terrorists are not listed as being eligible for prisoner of war status and, therefore, fall into a grey area. The convention's Article 3 says that combatants have to be identified and under proper command if they are to claim POW status. Mr Reid did not propose any specific changes but hinted that the convention should be extended to cover this gap in some way, perhaps by legalising the long-term detention of al-Qaeda-type prisoners.

How could the conventions be extended to al-Qaeda if it attacks civilians?

This would be a problem as the conventions outlaw any attack directed solely or mainly at civilians, which is what al-Qaeda specialises in. And to gain POW status, combatants have to follow the conventions. One idea would be that an international terrorist ignoring such rules of war might be liable to detention without having the full protection of POW status.

Do the Geneva Conventions cover the Guantanamo Bay prisoners?

Some argue that they should, but the US says that they do not, on the grounds that the prisoners are "unlawful combatants" and are not in the categories listed for protection by the Third Convention. The US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales once called the Geneva Conventions "quaint". However, the US also says that the prisoners are treated in accordance with the "principles" of the Third Convention and other humanitarian law.

By denying them formal POW status, the US is free to interrogate them, something prohibited by the Third Convention, which requires POWs to give only their name, rank, age and number.

Does the Third Convention not require that a prisoner's status be determined?

Yes. It lays down that a tribunal has to determine if someone is a combatant and whether he or she falls into a protected category. The US has introduced tribunals at Guantanamo Bay to determine a prisoner's "combatant status" and some have been released or sent back to their home countries as a result. But as the US does not accept the application of the Geneva Conventions at the camp, those found to be "combatants" are still held as before.

So what legal status do the Guantanamo Bay prisoners have?

The British Appeal Court said in 2003 that they were in a "legal black hole". They are not formal POWs and are on territory controlled but not owned by the US, so their access to US courts was at first denied. Their position was improved somewhat in 2004 when the US Supreme Court ruled they were allowed to petition the US courts under the ancient law of habeas corpus, according to which detention has to be justified. The extent to which they can do this is currently under challenge by the US Government.

Do the Conventions prohibit torture and ill treatment?

Yes, and so does the separate UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Degrading or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment from 1985. The United States says it does not torture prisoners and a recent US law made clear that cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment is not permitted by any US personnel anywhere. However, US interrogation methods permit some procedures that the US says fall short of such treatment.

The US-based human rights organisation Human Rights Watch says the ability of prisoners to get redress is limited by a new law and that information acquitted through "coercion" might still be used against them.

Mr Reid called Guantanamo Bay an "anomaly". What does he mean?

He means that the camp falls outside normal international law. However, he is less clear about how to end this anomaly. There are two ways to get rid of an anomaly. The first is to remove the anomaly itself. This would mean closing the camp and either charging or releasing the prisoners or restricting their movements to some degree.

The other way is to remove the situation under which something becomes an anomaly. If international law were changed to allow for detention of al-Qaeda suspects, the "anomaly" would disappear. Mr Reid hinted that this was what he meant.

What about the two other issues - self-defence and humanitarian intervention?

Mr Reid argued that the principle of self-defence should be extended. At the moment self defence is allowed if a country is attacked or if an attack is imminent. Mr Reid thinks that the word "imminent" should be redefined to include, for example, the threat from preparations for international terrorism.

As for humanitarian intervention, the UN has looked at this and came up with the concept of a "responsibility to protect." If a government fails, as in Rwanda for example, then other countries have the right to intervene. Mr Reid appears to want this made more active.

What are the chances of getting changes agreed?

Very low at the moment. Many governments and human rights organisations say that no changes are needed and that terrorist suspects should be charged, freed or have restrictions placed on them in some other way. And there is suspicion of the US and UK governments following the invasion of Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4879942.stm

[poccnr]

Not to get into a forum that has many changes, but as an isaeli constituent once said to me, " you have only begun to fight.... try fighting since christ"