Opinion
The New York Times | Recognizing the Power of the Courts, Finally
Also see below:
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions [
The Rule of Law: Recognizing the Power of the Courts, Finally
The New York Times | Editorial
Wednesday 12 July 2006
We were pleased to see the Defense Department finally recognize the power of the Supreme Court over prisoners of the military and order the armed forces to follow the Geneva Conventions requirement of decent treatment for all prisoners, even terrorism suspects. It was a real step forward for an administration that tossed aside the Geneva rules years ago and then tried to place itself beyond the reach of the courts.
However, the Pentagon memo released yesterday claimed, falsely, that its prisoner policies already generally complied with the Geneva Conventions - the sole exception being the military commissions created by President Bush and struck down by the high court. That disingenuousness may have simply been an attempt to save face. If so, it was distressing but ultimately not all that significant. What really matters is that Congress bring the military prisons back under the rule of law, and create military tribunals for terrorism suspects that will meet the requirements of the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.
The other thing that really matters is that the White House actually agrees to obey the law this time.
Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held the first of three hearings scheduled this week on this issue, and the early results were mixed. Most of the senators, including key Republicans, said they were committed to drafting legislation that did more than merely rubber-stamp the way Mr. Bush decided to set up Guantánamo Bay.
The government's witnesses, including top lawyers from the Justice and Defense Departments, seemed most interested in arguing that the military commissions were legal. They argued for what would be the worst possible outcome: that Congress just approve what Mr. Bush did and enact exceptions to the Geneva Conventions.
But Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift of the Navy, who represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the prisoner whose case was before the Supreme Court, provided damning evidence about how utterly flawed those commissions were - from military prosecutors. He quoted one, Capt. John Carr of the Air Force (since promoted to major), who condemned "a halfhearted and disorganized effort by a skeleton group of relatively inexperienced attorneys to prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged."
The administration has professed its allegiance to the humane treatment of prisoners and to the rule of law before. But repairing the constitutional balance of powers and America's profoundly damaged global image demand more than lip service.
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions
The Associated Press
Wednesday 12 July 2006
Here is the text of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which the Bush administration acknowledged on Tuesday applies to terror war detainees held by the United States:
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.


Comments
This is a moderated forum. It may take a little while for comments to go live.