Good News, Bad News

The good news is that the Bush administration is slowing eschewing 19th century methods of war.

A new Army manual bans torture and degrading treatment of prisoners, for the first time specifically mentioning forced nakedness, hooding and other procedures that have become infamous during the five-year-old war on terror.

Delayed more than a year amid criticism of the Defense Department's treatment of prisoners, the new Army Field Manual was being released Wednesday, revising one from 1992.

It also explicitly bans beating prisoners, sexually humiliating them, threatening them with dogs, depriving them of food or water, performing mock executions, shocking them with electricity, burning them, causing other pain and a technique called "water boarding" that simulates drowning, said Lt. Gen. John Kimmons, Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence .

The bad news is some prisoners don’t fall under the provisions of this manual.

President Bush on Wednesday acknowledged the existence of previously secret CIA prisons around the world and said 14 high-value terrorism suspects — including the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks — have been transferred from the system to Guantanamo Bay for trials.

He said the "small number" of detainees that have been kept in CIA custody include people responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 in Yemen and the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in addition to the 2001 attacks.

…The president said the 14 key terrorist leaders, including Mohammed, Binalshibh, and Zubaydah, that have been transferred to the U.S. military-run prison at Guantanamo Bay would be afforded legal some protections consistent with the Geneva conventions.

That’s some assurance, isn’t it.

Comments

[Brian]

By the way, where did your intial comment go?

[Brian]

Here is part of 3rd Convention/Article 4 which outlines who is entitled to POW protections (I've left out the parts about neutral countries and medical personnel):

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

I think we can safely say that (most, if not all) of the Gitmo detainees do not qualify.

Here is an excerpt of the First Convention/Article 3 which details the protections afforded to those who qualify for them (of course the Third Convention defines protectees further):

Art. 3. 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 judgement 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.

In my (admittedly cursory) reading of the Conventios I did not come across proscribd means of execution. I have always understood that a firing squad was the general method. I suppose that a private could summarily execute a guerrilla, but he would probably be better off taking his prisoner to a superior.

For what it is worth, it is not merely my interpretation that unlawful combatants may be executed. I have seen no serious interpretation of the GC that says otherwise. The idea is to protect civilians by discouraging UC's from hiding among acting as though they are civilians. Are you saying that people like Khalid Sheik Mohammed are deserving of the protections of the GC even though they clearly do not qualify?

[Bob]

I'm jsut trying to understand where it says captors can immediately execute them. Does that mean the Army private that captures him? His superiors? Rumsfeld? I'm just trying to avoid reading the entire GC. Point me to section you interpret to mean we can immediately execute them.

[Brian]

GC protections are meant for properly identified combatants only (the standards are different for different types of fighters - essentially, one must wear a symbol that can be identified at a distance.) An enemy combatant who does meet this standard and is captured is subject to immediate execution at the discretion of his captors. They may try him if they wish or they simply take him prisoner.

The Red Cross may interpret the GC any way it would like. I don't think that anyone is obligated to care.

[Brian]

As I understand the Geneva Convention, most (if not all) of these aholes are subject to immediate execution upon capture and are not deserving of the protections afforded to POW's under the GC. They are fortunate to remain alive.

Let me further say that under certain cicumstances, torture should be available as a means to extract information from prisoners. I quibble with the definition of torture in the above quote. Humiliation is not torture; it is humiliation. Use it if it works.