posted on May 21, 2004 09:48:59 PM new
Justice Dept. Memos Dispute POW Treaties
By CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Memos written by top Justice Department lawyers for the Pentagon in early 2002 laid out legal reasons why the United States did not have to comply with international treaties regarding the treatment of prisoners.
One key draft memo, dated Jan. 9, 2002, states that the normal laws of armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions, do not apply to al-Qaida and Taliban militia prisoners. The memo calls these groups "non-state actors" who should not be considered a party to international treaties governing war conduct.
While the memos were written before the war in Iraq, they authorized methods of interrogation for the Afghanistan conflict that some human rights organizations have said laid the legal groundwork for the violations seen months later at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and elsewhere.
Justice Department officials had no comment on the memos Friday.
The memo and others on the subject were drafted in part by John Yoo, then a senior lawyer in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and now a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley. The memos were the subject Friday of a story in The New York Times and were subsequently posted on Newsweek's Internet site.
The Jan. 9 memo, co-written by Yoo and Justice lawyer Robert J. Delahunty, was addressed to Defense Department general counsel William J. Haynes. It lays out several legal reasons why President Bush could avoid normal prisoner legal protections in Afghanistan, including an argument that it was a "failed state" or that the Taliban and al-Qaida were intertwined terror groups who should not be treated as legitimate soldiers.
"Al-Qaida is merely a violent political movement or organization and not a nation-state," the memo says.
After that memo was written, White House General Counsel Alberto Gonzalez advised Bush in a memo dated Jan. 25, 2002, that al-Qaida and the Taliban should be considered outside the coverage of the Geneva Conventions.
The Jan. 9 Justice Department memo provoked a strong reaction from the State Department, according to Newsweek. In its Jan. 11 response, State Department lawyers warned that the United States could be considered in breach of international law if Bush accepted the Justice Department position and might later find it difficult to prosecute suspected war criminals.
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on May 22, 2004 02:17:43 AM new
The most interesting thing about this selective bolding practice is that it shows in glaring detail how people only read and absorb the things that agree with their pretermined ideas.
See above - Bear has bolded all of the aspects that the Bush administration used to justify doing whaever they damn well please but seems to have completely ignored that pesky little final paragraph. You know, the one that says that their lawyers informed them that the they could very well be breaking international law and their do as they please attitude could lead to making prosecution of these people impossible.
It's got to suck to think you can create your own definition of the law only to have your own lawyers tell you that you are wrong.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 22, 2004 09:50:22 AM new
So when did the Taliban and al-Qaida sign the Genevia Treaty?
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on May 22, 2004 10:07:30 AM new
I thought "countries" signed the Geneva Treaty, not individuals or groups of individuals. Since neither al-Qaida or the Taliban in and of itself is a country, how can they sign? I could be wrong, though.
posted on May 22, 2004 10:08:56 AM new
Oh, and bear, it's Geneva, not Genivia or Genevia. Just thought I'd point that out since so many here are quick to point out the spelling mistake of others.
posted on May 22, 2004 02:54:12 PM new
No, it's not.
The Geneva Convention rules were born as a way to insure proper, humane treatment of prisoners in time of war. Period. Sort of along the lines of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The essential rules of international humanitarian law
Persons who do not or can no longer take part in the hostilities are entitled to respect for their life and for their physical and mental integrity. Such persons must in all circumstances be protected and treated with humanity, without any unfavorable distinction whatever.
It is forbidden to kill or wound an adversary who surrenders or who can no longer take part in the fighting.
The wounded and sick must be collected and cared for by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. Medical personnel and medical establishments, transports and equipment must be spared. The red cross or red crescent on a white background is the sign protecting such persons and objects and must be respected.
Captured combatants and civilians who find themselves under the authority of the adverse party are entitled to respect for their life, their dignity, their personal rights and their political, religious and other convictions. They must be protected against all acts of violence or reprisal. They are entitled to exchange news with their families and receive aid.
Everyone must enjoy basic judicial guarantees and no one may be held responsible for an act he has not committed. No one may be subjected to physical or mental torture or to cruel or degrading corporal punishment or other treatment.
Neither the parties to the conflict nor members of their armed forces have an unlimited rights to choose methods and means of warfare. It is forbidden to use weapons or methods of warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering.
The parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property. Neither the civilian population as whole nor individual civilians may be attacked. Attacks may be made solely against military objectives.
Geneva Conventions
The basic principles of Geneva conventions are reposing on the respect of the human being and are respecting its dignity.
Individuals, who do not take direct part in hostilities as well as individuals, can not take part in these actions due illness, wound, captivity or other reasons, are entitled to be respected and protected against conflicting sides' military operations' consequences without any unfavorable distinction whatever.
Additional protocols are extending action field, concerning it to any individual, involved in a military conflict. Moreover, these protocols oblige warring sides and combatants not to attack civilians and civil objects as well oblige to guarantee the providing of military operations in compliance with the generally accepted humanitarian law
Geneva conventions, accepted on August the 12th, 1949
The protection provided by the Conventions applies to the following categories of persons:
The First Convention - wounded and sick members of the armed forces in the field;
The Second Convention - wounded, sick, and shipwrecked members of the armed forces at sea as well as shipwreck victims;
The Third Convention - prisoners of the war;
The Fourth Convention - civilians in times of war.
The Additional Protocols
The ICRC, being the initiator and the guardian of international humanitarian law, is responsible for its development in order to be in step with warfare changes. The law are formed in a consecutive stages, as well providing the revision of existing documents whenever the Committee considers it as a necessary measure. Committee's legal experts organize and participate in meetings and conferences aimed at improving the protection of war victims. Banning the use of certain weapons, such as anti-personnel landmines and blinding weapons, is among the issues currently being examined.
In the 1965 ICRC decided that it was coming up to this measure. Even if the Geneva Conventions dated 1949 have not lost their importance and significance, they were incomplete in the terms of the necessity to protect the victims of modern military conflicts. For that reason ICRC began research the possibilities to fill these gaps in existing law, providing them with the additive protocols. In February, 1974, Swiss government convened a diplomatic conference in order to discuss the draft protocols. Invited were 115 countries who signed Geneva conventions or/and the member states of United Nations Organization. In this conference it took part observers representing 14 national liberation organizations as well as 35 intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations; 102 official representatives adopted 102 paragraphs of the First protocol concerning protection of the victims of international military conflicts, as well as 28 paragraphs of the Second protocol concerning the protection of the victims of local conflicts. In June the 10th, 1977, there was the official ceremony of the signing of these Protocols, but in general these activities had the ceremonial character. The two Additional Protocols of 1977 supplement the Conventions which aim to limit the use of violence and protect the civilian population by strengthening the rules governing the conduct of hostilities.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 22, 2004 03:17:37 PM new
Bear - we declared a war on Iraq. You don't then get to go in and claim that those you capture are not actually POWs. Of course if you want to throw our responsibility of humane treatment of prisoners, you sure as hell can't expect it from the enemy.
Is that a trade off you are willing to make?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
