Conyers:So Bush Will Respect the Geneva Conventions. Or Will He?

There was a surprising and promising development yesterday when we learned that, following the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision, the Bush Administration was ready to commit itself to respecting the Geneva Conventions regarding prisoner treatment.

But today's reporting showed two sides of the story. In what can only be described as a remarkable disconnect, the above-the-fold front page story explained: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100094.html)

The Bush administration has agreed to apply the Geneva Conventions to all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody, bowing to the Supreme Court's recent rejection of policies that have imprisoned hundreds for years without trials.

The Pentagon announced yesterday that it has called on military officials to adhere to the conventions in dealing with al-Qaeda detainees. The administration also has decided that even prisoners held by the CIA in secret prisons abroad must be treated in accordance with international standards, an interpretation that would prohibit prisoners from being subjected to harsh treatment in interrogations, several U.S. officials said.

Of course this sounds very promising and we were encouraged that the Administration was showing indications that it would obey the law and respect the decision of the Supreme Court. But in an amazing turn, actually a turn of the page, I read an entirely different story on page 2 of the Washington Post. Attorney Stephen Bradbury, the Department of Justice's lead witness provided this testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on the treatment of terrorism detainees:

In a veiled warning, Bradbury told Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) that Bush still didn't need Congress. "The court did leave open the theoretical possibility that the president could come back on his own," he said.

Moreover, when asked to clarify whether he believed the President's interpretation was proper, that the Hamdan case did not require an end to the perpetual imprisonment of Guantanamo detainees, Bradbury responded, "the President is always right." ThinkProgress.com has the video clip here. This was truly outrageous testimony, presenting a comprehensive rejection of the Supreme Court's ruling. They can't even keep their story straight from one day to the next about which llaws are worth following, which Supreme Court rulings apply to them, and whether the President needs to pay attention to Congress at all.

http://www.conyersblog.us/default.htm
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/12/president-always-right/
mods if the post has to be shortened please let me know, I wasn't sure. Thanks

When have they ever changed anything because everyone else TOLD or DEMANDED them to?

Still waiting for those energy papers and how many subpoenas have they ignored so far?

...attacks on Iran and other fronts this Sunday July 15. All this rhetoric is nothing but posturing to keep the American sheeple asleep

NOW to obey the law?

Lies and foolishness, Greed and cronyism.

Best thing to happen in this country is to get new leadership.

it takes millions like him to bring back the glory days of Fascism