Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Newsday: Army Manual to Skip Geneva Detainee Rule

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:16 AM
Original message
Newsday: Army Manual to Skip Geneva Detainee Rule
Edited on Mon Jun-05-06 10:17 AM by Totally Committed
Army Manual to Skip Geneva Detainee Rule
The Pentagon's move to omit a ban on prisoner humiliation from the basic guide to soldier conduct faces strong State Dept. opposition.

By Julian E. Barnes
Times Staff Writer

June 5, 2006

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment," according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards. The decision could culminate a lengthy debate within the Defense Department but will not become final until the Pentagon makes new guidelines public, a step that has been delayed. However, the State Department fiercely opposes the military's decision to exclude Geneva Convention protections and has been pushing for the Pentagon and White House to reconsider, the Defense Department officials acknowledged.

For more than a year, the Pentagon has been redrawing its policies on detainees, and intends to issue a new Army Field Manual on interrogation, which, along with accompanying directives, represents core instructions to U.S. soldiers worldwide. The process has been beset by debate and controversy, and the decision to omit Geneva protections from a principal directive comes at a time of growing worldwide criticism of U.S. detention practices and the conduct of American forces in Iraq. The directive on interrogation, a senior defense official said, is being rewritten to create safeguards so that all detainees are treated humanely but can still be questioned effectively.

President Bush's critics and supporters have debated whether it is possible to prove a direct link between administration declarations that it will not be bound by Geneva and events such as the abuses at Abu Ghraib or the killings of Iraqi civilians last year in Haditha, allegedly by Marines. But the exclusion of the Geneva provisions may make it more difficult for the administration to portray such incidents as aberrations. And it undercuts contentions that U.S. forces follow the strictest, most broadly accepted standards when fighting wars. "The rest of the world is completely convinced that we are busy torturing people," said Oona A. Hathaway, an expert in international law at Yale Law School. "Whether that is true or not, the fact we keep refusing to provide these protections in our formal directives puts a lot of fuel on the fire."

>snip<

For decades, it had been the official policy of the U.S. military to follow the minimum standards for treating all detainees as laid out in the Geneva Convention. But, in 2002, Bush suspended portions of the Geneva Convention for captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Bush's order superseded military policy at the time, touching off a wide debate over U.S. obligations under the Geneva accord, a debate that intensified after reports of detainee abuses at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Entire Article:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-torture5jun05,0,3599200.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines&track=rss


TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. this is a blatant disregard for our troops ...
does the phrase "do unto others" ring a bell???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Absolutely....
This administration thinks the Golden Rule is: "Do unto others, then lie, obfiscate, re-frame, and deny."

It's not going to cut it any longer. Wait until the first group of U.S. soldiers is captured and tortured, just to get back at us for what we have allowed to be done to others.

And, this will affect our soldiers, and will have been done to them because of this directive being issued by our own government. It is beyond represhensible.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. The first time an American soldier is captured and tortured and
we see naked American soldiers paraded in public...then and only then will the thick headed Rethug Admin. change their policy...due to public pressure and outrage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
2. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. True, but the idea no more is expected from America is degrading.
America used to make a show of having honor. Now everyone wants to be Dirty Harry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. I so agree...
America and "honor" used to be at least somewhat synonymous in this regard. Now, it won't be, and it will be our soldiers who suffer for it.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. No, it's kind of like expecting everyone to obey gun laws
even the people who make the laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
5. Did Geneva ever have the word "detainee" in any of its
rules?

Detainee always sounded like a Bushco, Orwellian construction to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. No.
If they did, DOD would have called them "restrictees". And so on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. Geneva recognizes soldiers and civilians, in the 3rd & 4th conventions
One for each.

The US made up the term "enemy combattants" and decided NEITHER applied.

It's like deciding that a person is neither male or female therefore they can't go to either bathroom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Exactly!
What a great way to put it! (Can I use this in other places if I credit you?)

Outstanding analogy.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Absolutely, it's just a briefer version of much longer rants
A couple of years ago when this came up I actually bothered to read both conventions. (Not absolutely 100% mind you, but I located the specific sections dealing with humane detention, treatment of civilian populations, etc.) It's eye-popping what's actually there. As far as the US is concerned, the convention on civilians (now I don't recall if that was #3 or #4... it's in the titles though, easily googled or wiki'd I'm sure) is treated like it simply does not exist and that the US never signed up to it. Not that I find this surprising or shocking. But you'd be amazed at the yawning gap between the US' legal obligations and how "enemy combattants" are treated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Thanks...
I wish the American public cared as much about this stuff as they do about the Brangelina baby or blondes that go missing in the Carribean... but nothing shocks me about what this government does in our name while the MSM keeps us way to uninformed.

And, as I said, it will be our own troops that suffer while the Bushies sit in their comfy, plush, safe WH offices.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
7. This time they'll blame it on the printer
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC