From the Financial Times:
The White House confirmed on Tuesday that the Pentagon had decided, in a major policy shift, that all detainees held in US military custody around the world are entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions.
The FT learned that Gordon England, deputy defence secretary, sent a memo to senior defence officials and military officers last Friday, telling them that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions - which prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners and requires certain basic legal rights at trial - would apply to all detainees held in US military custody. The memo was made public on Tuesday.
This reverses the policy outlined by President George W. Bush in 2002 when he decided members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban did not qualify for Geneva protections because the war on terrorism had ushered in a "new paradigm...[that] requires new thinking in the law of war".
Clearly, Bush must hate America and be on the side of the terrorists. Right, STACLU?
- Log in to post comments
I believe the operative phrase here is "in military custody." The CIA will continue to operate the rendition network and black sites.
Yet another indication of a President with a CEO mindset.
Like other CEO's I've encountered, President Bush appears to believe he has unlimited power in the administration of the executive branch.
However, when the USSC has clearly found that the executive power does not trump the federal constitution in this case, the policy is changed.
There are no reasons given for the change in policy, and no excuses for the past excesses will be issued. If pressed, our President will no doubt claim that he felt all along that the Geneva Conventions should apply to all prisoners.
This type of behavior appears common among CEOs who follow their own policies until brought to heel by the board of directors, and then claim that they agreed with the board all along. No reasons for a corporate policy change are provided to employees, and no excuses are ever tendered.
I'll say one thing though, the rank and file in a company where this happens often feels betrayed and loses trust in their CEO. I don't know if this will happen to President Bush, but regardless of what our media gurus believe, I think that the American public do have memories longer than a month.
If, of course, this policy change becomes widely known.
Cheers,
-Flex
Check for a signing statement!
In response to the overwhelming publicity the signing statements received, The Bush administration has used his executive privilege to make all signing statements available on a need to know basis. Being that the only ones who need to know are in the executive branch, one can assume that everything thing he does now has some form of a signing statement.
Yep.
In observing that "...the rank and file in a company where this happens often feels betrayed and loses trust in their CEO," Flex has a good point. However, from what I've gleaned from assorted reports most of the active duty US military officer corps, understanding the imortance of the UCMJ and Geneva Convention, disagreed with Bush from the start. This about face, while welcome by them, will only cement their conviction that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their sycophants are incompetent. I'm glad we have a thoroughly professional officer corps who believe in and accept the primacy of civilian leadership, but there are times like this when I sometimes almost wish otherwise.
But the enlisted personnel, especially those below E-5 (Sergeant) will be completely confiused.
Let's hope some of the damage done can be repaired. When the most powerful country in the world says the Geneva conventions doesn't apply to them, then the legitimacy of laws of war is seriously in trouble.
I'm sorry but I think you're all mistaken. The White House has not changed any policy on Guantanamo detanees. Today's New York Times:
Hmm,
I hadn't seen this, posted by SteveV, 'A top Pentagon lawyer also insisted, in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, that the memo "doesn't indicate a shift in policy.'
But compare it with my comment, 'If pressed, our President will no doubt claim that he felt all along that the Geneva Conventions should apply to all prisoners.' from earlier in the day.
Heh.
And just a comment to Keanus, I'm sorry for being a little unclear. When I wrote 'rank and file' I was refering to the typical drones in a corporate enviroment. The ones I work with and often am myself. I have a great respect for the general level of professionalism in our military forces, possibly generated by my own service in the late 1980's. I ran into a few nuts during my enlistment, but for the most part they were harmless drunks not skinheads. Of course those were the days when the military could pick and choose their volunteers.
This even included the E-5's and below. ;)
Ex-Sgt. Flex
Of course those were the days when the military could pick and choose their volunteers.
That makes me think about a paradox: on one hand, people complain that since the US military cannot "pick and chooose", nuts are being accepted in the army. On the other hand, often the same people complain that the army is advertising itself among youngsters.
I don't ike the dishonesty the army's advertisement uses.
Or the way recruiters are pushed to make quota with no regard for honesty, truth, or even the law...
... or any number of similar things.
The simple fact of advertisements towards 'youngsters', however, I don't object to. ("Be all that you can be", for instance. That's fine.)
So. That's my stance on it.
As for the Orwellian shift ... I'm not worried about the public's memory, I'm worried about the overall awareness of the state of affairs prior to the change TO remember it.