Dishonor

[Lanya]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501881.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

War Crimes and the White House
The Dishonor in a Tortured New 'Interpretation' of the Geneva Conventions

By P.X. Kelley and Robert F. Turner
Thursday, July 26, 2007; Page A21

One of us was appointed commandant of the Marine Corps by President Ronald Reagan; the other served as a lawyer in the Reagan White House and has vigorously defended the constitutionality of warrantless National Security Agency wiretaps, presidential signing statements and many other controversial aspects of the war on terrorism. But we cannot in good conscience defend a decision that we believe has compromised our national honor and that may well promote the commission of war crimes by Americans and place at risk the welfare of captured American military forces for generations to come.

The Supreme Court held in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld last summer that all detainees captured in the war on terrorism are protected by Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which prescribes minimum standards of treatment for all persons who are no longer taking an active part in an armed conflict not of an international character. It provides that "in all circumstances" detainees are to be "treated humanely."
   
This is not just about avoiding "torture." The article expressly prohibits "at any time and in any place whatsoever" any acts of "violence to life and person" or "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment."

Last Friday, the White House issued an executive order attempting to "interpret" Common Article 3 with respect to a controversial CIA interrogation program. The order declares that the CIA program "fully complies with the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3," provided that its interrogation techniques do not violate existing federal statutes (prohibiting such things as torture, mutilation or maiming) and do not constitute "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency."

In other words, as long as the intent of the abuse is to gather intelligence or to prevent future attacks, and the abuse is not "done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual" -- even if that is an inevitable consequence -- the president has given the CIA carte blanche to engage in "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse."

It is firmly established in international law that treaties are to be interpreted in "good faith" in accordance with the ordinary meaning of their words and in light of their purpose. It is clear to us that the language in the executive order cannot even arguably be reconciled with America's clear duty under Common Article 3 to treat all detainees humanely and to avoid any acts of violence against their person.

In April of 1793, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson wrote to President George Washington that nations were to interpret treaty obligations for themselves but that "the tribunal of our consciences remains, and that also of the opinion of the world." He added that "as we respect these, we must see that in judging ourselves we have honestly done the part of impartial and rigorous judges."

To date in the war on terrorism, including the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and all U.S. military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq, America's losses total about 2 percent of the forces we lost in World War II and less than 7 percent of those killed in Vietnam. Yet we did not find it necessary to compromise our honor or abandon our commitment to the rule of law to defeat Nazi Germany or imperial Japan, or to resist communist aggression in Indochina. On the contrary, in Vietnam -- where we both proudly served twice -- America voluntarily extended the protections of the full Geneva Convention on prisoners of war to Viet Cong guerrillas who, like al-Qaeda, did not even arguably qualify for such protections.

The Geneva Conventions provide important protections to our own military forces when we send them into harm's way. Our troops deserve those protections, and we betray their interests when we gratuitously "interpret" key provisions of the conventions in a manner likely to undermine their effectiveness. Policymakers should also keep in mind that violations of Common Article 3 are "war crimes" for which everyone involved -- potentially up to and including the president of the United States -- may be tried in any of the other 193 countries that are parties to the conventions.

In a letter to President James Madison in March 1809, Jefferson observed: "It has a great effect on the opinion of our people and the world to have the moral right on our side." Our leaders must never lose sight of that wisdom.

Retired Gen. P.X. Kelley served as commandant of the Marine Corps from 1983 to 1987. Robert F. Turner is co-founder of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law and a former chair of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Law and National Security.

[Michael Tee]

<<In a letter to President James Madison in March 1809, Jefferson observed: "It has a great effect on the opinion of our people and the world to have the moral right on our side." Our leaders must never lose sight of that wisdom.>>

Jefferson was a very wise and moral man.  It's really painful to see the contrast between Jefferson and the current office-holder.  What a disgrace to the office.  I don't even blame Bush any more.  He is what he is, and he obviously never should have been allowed within a hundred miles of the Oval Office, but I believe he may actually be trying to do the best that he can.   At least it's possible that he is.  I blame the system, the process.  It's totally debased.  It's FUBAR.

[BT]

So two people interpret an executive order and apply meaning to it that may not even exist.

And then they call Bush dishonorable.

How about the EO says what it means and means what it says.

[Christians4LessGvt]

[Lanya]

Democrats like Condoleezza Rice?   State Department legal adviser John Bellinger?  Colin Powell?
The press spokesperson for the President Dana Perino?   

REUTERS/U.S.

By Steve Holland Jun 22, 2007, 21:05 GMT

WASHINGTON - After insisting for years the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay was vital to national security, U.S. officials are now trying to shut it down but are having trouble coming up with a plan to do it.

The new push to reach a resolution to the detention center at the U.S. military base in Cuba comes largely in response to international criticism that Guantanamo Bay has become an indelible stain on America's human rights image.

'We fully and acutely recognize that Guantanamo has become a lightning rod for criticism around the world, and this is something of deep concern to this administration and to Secretary (of State Condoleezza) Rice in particular,' State Department legal adviser John Bellinger said in congressional testimony this week.

White House spokeswoman Dano Perino told reporters on Friday, 'A lot of very smart people are working on that issue, trying to figure out a way that we could close Guantanamo in a way that makes sure that those who are there are held securely and that they are treated humanely.'

President George W. Bush's detainee policy -- as well as his broad assertions of executive power in the war on terrorism -- has been facing stiff challenges in U.S. courts and by Democrats who control the U.S. Congress.

Bush would like to clear up the Guantanamo issue and what to do about the 375 suspected al Qaeda and Taliban followers held there before leaving office in January 2009 and remove it as an issue for his successor, amid a host of opinions from presidential candidates on what to do about it.

Democrats generally want to close it, while Republicans would keep the facility. Former Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney told a presidential debate last month he would double the size of it.

Pressure to do something soon is intense. Colin Powell, who was secretary of state during Bush's first term, told NBC's 'Meet the Press' this month he would close it, 'not tomorrow, but this afternoon.'

Closing the facility is easier said than done. Administration officials have been discussing it for months but have yet to come up with a suitable arrangement.

DETAINEES' RIGHTS

The problem is some foreign governments do not want to take their foreign nationals being held at the prison.

'I would submit to you that the countries who have complained more vehemently about the human rights record, alleged abuses of human rights at Guantanamo Bay, are the very ones who refuse to take any prisoners themselves,' Perino said.

Bringing them to the United States to stand trial raises the questions of what rights the suspects would have and whether they would be able to seek political asylum once they served prison time in order to avoid being sent back home.

Plus, administration officials worry Americans would not want suspected terrorists sent to their towns and cities no matter what type of security guarantees are offered.

Human rights groups and many Democrats have demanded the United States bring the detainees to U.S. soil to stand trial in U.S. courts. Perino said she was not aware of any plans to bring Guantanamo detainees to the United States.

'I cannot believe that the American federal prison system cannot try 380 people,' said Rep. Alcee Hastings, a Florida Democrat.

Human Rights Watch said the continued detention of hundreds of men without charge undermined U.S. efforts to end terrorism.

'Guantanamo has hurt the United States far more than it has hurt its enemies,' said Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch. 'Its closure would help restore the moral authority America needs to effectively fight terrorism and promote the rule of law.'

(c) Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

[Universe Prince]

So two people interpret an executive order and apply meaning to it that may not even exist.

And then they call Bush dishonorable.

How about the EO says what it means and means what it says.

What makes you so certain that the EO does not mean what P.X. Kelley and Robert F. Turner explained? Your appeal for "says what it means and means what it says" is nice, but that doesn't prove them wrong. Near as I can tell, they are not applying meaning to the EO that does not exist. They are merely explaining the meaning that is there. In other words, they explained that it means what it says and says what it means.

And I feel I should add, I don't see where they called Bush dishonorable. The only place the word 'dishonor' appears is in the subheadline, where it is definately not applied to the President, and the authors of the article may not have even written that. If we're going to be sticklers for "says what it means and means what it says" then perhaps we should stick to that as well.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Democrats like Condoleezza Rice?   State Department legal adviser John Bellinger?  Colin Powell?
The press spokesperson for the President Dana Perino

democrats? who used the term democrats?

[Christians4LessGvt]

since you used the name perino

"I would submit to you that the countries who have complained more vehemently about the human rights record, alleged abuses of human rights at Guantanamo Bay, are the very ones who refuse to take any prisoners themselves,' Perino said."

[Lanya]

Democrats like Condoleezza Rice?   State Department legal adviser John Bellinger?  Colin Powell?
The press spokesperson for the President Dana Perino

democrats? who used the term democrats?

----------------------------------
My mistake.  Liberals like Condoleezza Rice, John Bellinger, Colin Powell, and Dana Perino.