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
10:37 PM PDT, June 4, 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 culminates 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.

. . .

That provision — known as a "common" article because it is part of each of the four Geneva pacts approved in 1949 — bans torture and cruel treatment. Unlike other Geneva provisions, Article 3 covers all detainees — whether they are held as unlawful combatants or traditional prisoners of war. The protections for detainees in Article 3 go beyond the McCain amendment by specifically prohibiting humiliation, treatment that falls short of cruelty or torture.

The move to restore U.S. adherence to Article 3 was opposed by officials from Vice President Dick Cheney's office and by the Pentagon's intelligence arm, government sources said. David S. Addington, Cheney's chief of staff, and Stephen A. Cambone, Defense undersecretary for intelligence, said it would restrict the United States' ability to question detainees.

The Pentagon tried to satisfy some of the military lawyers' concerns by including some protections of Article 3 in the new policy, most notably a ban on inhumane treatment, but refused to embrace the actual Geneva standard in the directive it planned to issue. The military lawyers, known as judge advocates general, or JAGs, have concluded that they will have to wait for a new administration before mounting another push to link Pentagon policy to the standards of Geneva.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-torture5jun05,0,7975161.story?coll=la-home-headlines

*holes

I weep for my country's dark days...

Hekate

Of using Anal Sodomy in their "BAG OF TRICKS"

Remember Anal Sodomy with a pipe or a Broom Handle is just a "Simple Frat Prank" or "humiliation"


Like this

we need compulsory service for all, this volunteer shit is just letting the worst motherfuckers get in and control everything.

Rumsfeld has NO concept of old-guard codes of honor, and no interest in hearing about them.

Hekate

What are our chances this monster will even leave in 2008? After all, he wasn't exactly elected. Not elected, why should he have to leave?

Do you think this kind of information will make it into American school books? Will teachers ask questions about this on tests?

What are the chances this will be included in any of Lynne Cheney's upcoming history books the Republicans will be forcing upon future school children?

that another Administration will dare to be different? You're fighting a war, remember...

October 5, 2006, a day of mass mobilization

http://www.worldcantwait.org/index.html

Drive out the Bush regime

to them the "key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment"".

Our soldiers should understand the implications of this decision.

I mean, "we're" the first ones to tell the UN we want sanctions on just about anybody who doesn't do things the way "we" want them to. Can't someone be bold enough to say - "If you do not live up to the rules of the Geneva Convention, we'll _____________" (fill in the blanks).

They did it blatantly and arrogantly when Abu Gonzalez "rendered it quaint" and was then rewarded with a promotion even after the horrifying results were shown to the world in photographs.

For America, the Geneva Convention is as meaningless as any other law or treaty Bushco chooses to ignore.

And under our own laws (Article VI, for example), we are still obliged to honor the treaty. There has just been nobody with both the ability and desire to hold Bush to account for ignoring it, either in the UN or in Congress.

However, it seems to me that removing references to the treaty responsibilities from the Army manual will speak strongly to the intent of the Bush administration in a potential future war crimes trial. It will be very difficult for them to claim they 'thought' they were obeying their treaty obligations, but were just interpreting it differently, if they've gotten rid of personnel training on treaty requirements.

"The JAGs came to the conclusion that this was the best they can get," said one participant familiar with the Defense Department debate who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the protracted controversy. "But it was a massive mistake to have withdrawn from Geneva. By backing away, you weaken the proposition that this is the baseline provision that is binding to all nations."

Derek P. Jinks, an assistant professor at the University of Texas School of Law and the author of a forthcoming book on Geneva called "The Rules of War," said the decision to remove the Geneva reference from the directive showed the administration still intended to push the envelope on interrogation.

"We are walking the line on the prohibition on cruel treatment," Jinks said. "But are we really in search of the boundary between the cruel and the acceptable?"

The military has long applied Article 3 to conflicts — including civil wars — using it as a minimum standard of conduct, even during peacekeeping operations. The old version of the U.S. directive on detainees says the military will "comply with the principles, spirit and intent" of the Geneva Convention.


Single page
CONTINUED
1 2 next >>

He has "preemptive" down: acts based on what he thinks might happen. Now he's working on acts based on what he thinks he would have done if he'd always been king.

When I heard this on the radio last night, it occurred to me too that this could be considered an admission of culpability for the war crimes bush previously claimed he "wouldn't tolerate." It's one thing to say that one's definition of torture just doesn't happen to include waterboarding or "anything short of death." But it's another to simply exclude any reference to it at all.

Treaties carry the full weight of law according to what used to pass for our constitution. But bush thinks (and torture boy, a member in good standing of the ABA, fully agrees) that he is above the law with his "signing statements" and his unilateral defiance of treaties that don't fit his (or his cronies') agenda.

As someone else pointed out, what can other nations do about this? There's a lot they could do if they wanted to, like sanctions, freezing of assets, landing rights, etc. But, for some reason still unknown to me, there's no country on earth that will stand up to this cabal. It's frightening.

which makes violations of Geneva punishable by imprisonment/death. WTF are these people thinking???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996

...so if they think Kissinger gets hounded by his past, they ain't seen nothing yet.

If you're only going to enforce some of the rules, why bother enforcing any of the rules? It's apparent that they do not bother with them to begin with, so why all the glitz and glamor?

......The military lawyers, known as judge advocates general, or JAGs, have concluded that they will have to wait for a new administration before mounting another push to link Pentagon policy to the standards of Geneva.

et al should be in court along with the 'bad apples".

...The Pentagon worries that if Article 3 were incorporated in the directive, detainees could use it to argue in U.S. courts that such techniques violate their personal dignity.

"Who is to say what is humiliating for Sheikh Abdullah or Sheikh Muhammad?" the second official asked. "If you punch the buttons of a Muslim male, are you at odds with the Geneva Convention?"

Military officials also worry that following Article 3 could force them to end the practice of segregating prisoners. The military says that there is nothing inhumane about putting detainees in solitary confinement, and that it allows inmates to be questioned without coordinating their stories with others.

Human rights groups have their doubts, saying that isolating people for months at a time leads to mental breakdowns.

OMFG. These people are insane!



http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.geneva05jun05,0,7799053.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

Now enemies can torture captured US soldiers without feelings of moral inferiority.

Correct me if I'm wrong: but according to the Constitution, isn't the Senate supposed to be the only one that can declare parts of international treaties null-and-void?

There's no other way to describe this bunch.

This is also unconstitutional, as treaties have the force of constitutional law. It's impeachabe.

Just don't expect any of the wimpy incumbents to bother to notice.

Period.

This is a NEW detaineee policy??? So Gitmo interrogations have never involved humiliating and degrading treatment??? We can just "DROP" a treaty that we've made a commitment to??? I may explode...

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

Why on earth would they want to omit such language? Are we so cruel as a people that we cannot help wanting to humiliate and degrade our detainees? Does it say something about our society as a whole or is this simply a way out of being held responsible for what would be considered torture by the average person?

Who knew we were such a simple-minded nation?

Just think the Pentagon has just opened a Pandora's box. If any females are captured in future wars
they can now count on being degraded and humiliated by their captors, and all just because Rumsfeld wants to torture insurgents, and the JCS back him up 100%.

"What evil lurks in the hearts of men?"

'Females' covers dogs, cats, trees, hose ends, etc.

'Women' is exclusive to humans.

I did specify "female members of the military", or did you just choose to not understand plain english.

Whether you like the word or not, that's how women are referred to in the military, you have males and FEMALES!!!!!

Can you just "drop" a portion of a treaty that you've agreed to abide by in its entirety?

Man. One of these days, the rest of the world is going to decide that we've given up on diplomacy and we're not worth the hassle. We're really screwed at that point.

Our 'word' as a nation isn't worth a bucket of warm spit anymore. Not when we keep unilaterally ignoring the portions of ratified treaties we don't find convenient. Why would anyone even bother to sign a treaty with us at this point?

You got it....

"Our 'word' as a nation isn't worth a bucket of warm spit anymore."

They'd boycott American-made stuff, if there was still any
American-made stuff to boycott.

We are really screwed. Now.

get a say in this? :nuke: :nuke:

WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

"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 Conventions. But in 2002 President Bush suspended portions of the Geneva Conventions for captured al-Qaida 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.

Among the directives being rewritten after Bush's 2002 order is one governing U.S. detention operations. Military lawyers and other defense officials wanted the redrawn version of the directive to again embrace Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

That provision - known as a "common" article because it is part of each of the four Geneva pacts approved in 1949 - bans torture and cruel treatment. Unlike other Geneva provisions, Article 3 covers all detainees - whether they are unlawful combatants or traditional prisoners of war. The protections for detainees in Article 3 go beyond the McCain amendment by prohibiting humiliation.

However, the move to restore U.S. adherence to Article 3 was opposed by officials from Vice President Dick Cheney's office and by the Pentagon's intelligence arm, government sources said. David Addington, Cheney's chief of staff, and Stephen Cambone, the defense undersecretary for intelligence, argued that it would restrict the United States' ability to question detainees."

Cheney, Addington and Cambone. Surprise, surprise.

These people need to be put away, and NOW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996

I am ashamed of my country.

return my call with an answer to this..i was a kerry delegate for state of fla..so i am hoping i get a return call...about this...

this just does not seem right to me!!

fly

It was the military community that was against what was being done at Gitmo, etc.

You worry about "blowback" by the other side.

Some of us in the military community are concerned about this, but in this conflict the "enemy" does not follow any rules so it hard for alot of troops to care. There has to be a level of trust that the leaders above you will led you correctly. If troops are allowed to question every lawful and I state lawful order choas would happen. Murder of women and child is not a lawful order and those responsible knew better. They will face justice. The military is full of caring men and women, don't judge us all because a few are horrible wrong. Most are just worried about coming back alive and with all of there buddies.

What a novel concept. :rofl: I think you meant according to the Administration's toilet paper...

War crime tribunals are in order.

conventions. We are a signatory so the conventions have the force of U.S. law. Am I missing something?

This is a war crime. Or will be. Or already is.

Impeachment is too good for them.

The reason they're pushing the envelope on this is because they want to roll back ALL the humane protections for ALL prisoners, whether they're terrorists, enemy combatants or noncombatants, and even domestic prisoners like illegal aliens and ultimately the prisoners in our state and federal penitentiaries and local jails.

It's about the Long Range Plan of removing all civil protections and liberties from law and from people's expectations so that we can scoot on down to Fascist Dictatorship/Military Police State.

This article is playing into don Rumsfeld and Dictator Cheney's hands by giving so much press to their positions and rationales, and giving so little play to the legitimate outrage of humane ordinary citizens and soldiers.

See my post @ http://liberaleliteflotron.blogspot.com/2006/06/violating-humane-treatment_114952409629072730.html

nt

of the fascistic Bush administration. Don't ever forget that Bush declared his job would be easier if he was dictator; he meant it.

Don't you just feel so proud to be an American?

:sarcasm:

Today it gets shuffled behind the latest version of Capitol Dome Freedom Fries. :eyes:

'Humiliating and degrading treatment', gosh what could that be? A broomstick up the bum? Maybe group rape? Notice that if you sanctify humiliation and degradation, you open the door to wholesale violence and malfeasance.

I'm sure Rummy is giddy. :puke:

The spin is that that what they really mean by "hummiliate" is things like "questioning thier manhood," basically telling the detainee that a "real man" would admit what he did. Yeah, right. :eyes:

the logic was breathtaking. We can't say "you aren't a man" because that might embarrass him, so we need to be able to do everything. Sort of like the jump from marriage between 2 consensual adults leads to me marrying my dog, or you your car.

We have to IMPEACH the rogues NOW because they are committing crimes IN OUR NAME.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

There is no dissent allowed in this Administration! So why is the State Department opposing the ommission of the Geneva protections?

She better be careful or else her husband- I mean the President- will give her the same fate as Colin Powell.

:cry: