| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/20 |
| 2005/10/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39996 Activity:low |
10/6 "Forty-six Republicans joined 43 Democrats and one independent in
voting to define and limit interrogation techniques that U.S. troops
may use against terrorism suspects ..."
http://csua.org/u/dn2 (Wash Post)
\- anybody know the list of senators voting against defining the
limits? i see powell spoke up too.
\_ http://csua.org/u/dn4 [senate.gov]
\_ how about just abide by Geneva Convention and allow International
Redcross inspect the suspects? we don't need new law here.
\_ Then why is the White House opposing it?
\_ because White House want to use 'all means necessary'
to extract information from those so called 'terrorist.'
\_ ^want^needs^
\_ want, not need. everyone can say they 'need' the
information. And if you put things to perspective,
Nazi Germany was a much more real threat to US
security then than so-called terrorist to US today.
\_ You misunderstand. I'm saying that the CinC
must have the option of using any and all
means, including torture, first strike, &c,
that he deems are necessary to defend the
republic.
\_ All government bodies object to restraint on their power.
\_ The geneva convention doesn't apply to non-state actors
who refuse to abide by its rules. It also doesn't apply
to the type of conflict we are involved in.
NOTE: There may be other reasons to avoid torture (ie. it
is not effective).
\_ The Geneva Convention very explicitly applies to anyone
whose status is unknown. -tom
\_ Tom is correct on this, the anon parrot quoting White House
talking points is wrong. -ausman
\_ The fun part is that nearly everyone detained by the military
in Iraq is by definition an "unlawful combatant." Heck, if
the military were able to operate legally within the US,
it would be the same unless they they are wearing some form
of ID signifying them as members of an opposition armed force.
\_ Such form of ID would be called a uniform, as required by
the Geneva Convention in order for someone to be covered.
\_ Once again, you are wrong.
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons,
having committed a belligerent act and having
fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to
any of the categories enumerated in Article 4,
such persons shall enjoy the protection of the
present Convention until such time as their
status has been determined by a competent
tribunal." (Geneva Convention Article 5). -tom
\_ It is you who are wrong. Given that you
agree that Covention 3 governs, start w/
Part 1 Art 2 cl 1 states that the Convention
Part 1 Art 2 cl 1 which states that the
Convention
"shall apply to all cases of declared war
or of any other armed conflight which may
arise between to or more of the High Contr-
acting Parties"
Clearly this provision does not apply to
terrorist who are not "High Contracting
Parties." Unless you can show me where
AQ, &c. signed on to the convention.
Perhaps you wish to look to Part 1 Art 2
cl 3:
"although one of the Powers in the conflict
may not be a party to the present Convention,
the Powers who are parties thereto shall
remain bound by it in there mutual relations."
Clearly this provision does not apply to terrorist
who are not "High Contracting Parties." Perhaps
you wish to look to Part 1 Art 2 cl 3:
"although one of the Powers in the conflict may
not be a party to the present Convention, the
Powers who are parties thereto shall remain
bound by it in there mutual relations."
This contemplates organized state action, not
decentralized terrorist action. But even
assuming that Con 3 applies b/c of this clause,
and that we can therefore look to Art 4, A, we
find that
(1) does not apply b/c terrorist aren't part
of the armed forces of a Party in conflict
b/c they aren't part of the armed forces
of any country.
disorganized terrorist action. But even assuming
that Con 3 applies b/c of this clause, and that
we can therefore look to Art 4, A, we find that
(1) does not apply b/c terrorist aren't part of
the armed forces of a Party in conflict b/c
they aren't part of any armed forces.
(2) does not apply b/c at least requirment (b)
is not met
(3) does not apply b/c they are not members of
the regular armed forces
(4) does not apply b/c they do not accompany
armed force in any manner of speaking
(5) does not apply b/c the Party in conflict
has no crews, masters, pilots, &c.
(6) does not apply b/c they do not respect
the laws and customs of war
Having dispensed w/ that, lets us look to B,
Having dispensed w/ that, let us look to B,
where we find that this provison doesn't apply
either.
There are two major problems w/ the solace
you find in Art 5, first there should be some
doubt of which there is none (see above).
Second, the protection only lasts until a
competent tribunal - such as a US military
tribunal - makes a determination re Art 4
status. Once the tribunal makes a determin-
ation that the person does not fall w/in
Art 4, the protection afforded by the conv-
ention ends.
NOTE: This does not imply that I believe
that torture should be used, only
that there is no legal barrier to
its use against non-citizen non-
state enemy combatants.
that my understanding is that
there is no legal barrier to its
use against non-citizen enemy
its use against non-citizen enemy
combatants not formally associated
with any state and not held w/in
the jurisdiction of a US dist ct
(if the person is w/in the jx of
a US dist ct habeas and 8th amend.
relief may be available - hamdi
does not answer that question re
non-citizens).
\_ So someone who is a Pakistani
or Iraqi citizen, who is
detained...
with any state.
(it is an open question whether
habeas relief is available in
such a case).
a US dist ct habeas relief maybe
available - hamdi does not answer
that question re non-citizens).
\_ So someone who is a Pakistani or Iraqi
citizen, who is detained
\_ Ok, so I have a stupid question.
Is the Geneva Convention legally
binding under U.S. law anyway?
I.e. supposing that it could be
shown that, say, Rumsfeld was
directly responsible for an order
that was in clear violation, is
there any actual legal way to
convict him of some crime?
I would guess that for people in
uniform this would be covered in
the UCMJ, but what about civilians?
\_ The Covention is not self
executing (it cannot be
executing (ie cannot be
enforced directly in US
cts). Part 6, Art 129
executing. Part 6, Art 129
states that
"[t]he High Contracting Parties
undertake to enact any legi-
slation necessary to provide
penal sanctions for persons
committing, or ordering to
be committed"
breaches of of the Convention.
In order for Rummy to be puni-
shed, he would have to be con-
victed under any applicable
fed law executed to enforce
the Convention. This is assu-
ming that Bush would not use
his pardon pwr under US Const
Art 2 Sec 2 cl 1.
victed under the applicable
fed law. This is assuming that
Bush didn't use his pardon pwr
under Art 2 Sec 2 cl 1.
under US Const Art 2 Sec 2 cl
1.
The preferable method to deal
with something like this would
be to impeach him pursuant to
US Const Art 2 Sec 4 ("civil
officer") b/c the Pres. pardon
pwr does not apply to impeach-
ment ("except in cases of
impeachment").
ment.
One completely useless alt. is
to pursue an action in the ICJ.
\_ "to enact any legislation
necessary..." Right, but
does such legislation exist
\_ "to enact any legislation necessary..."
Right, but does such legislation exist
on the U.S. lawbooks?
\_ I believe (but am not
100% certain) that fed
laws re torture, &c.
exist that cover these
violations - note that
new laws specific to
the Convention may not
be needed if adequate
legislation already
exists.
either. Perhaps you find solace in Art 5 cl 2
"should any doubt arise as to whether persons
having committed a belligerent act and having
fallen into the hands of the enemy belong to
any of the categories enumerated in Art 4,
such persons shall enjoy the protections of
the present Convention"
Note that this is conditioned on the status of
such persons being "determined by a competent
tribunal." Even if you can prove that there is
some doubt, there is no reason to 2d guess the
determination of a US military tribunal re
whether someone falls w/in Art 4.
with any state.
\_ Ok, so I have a stupid question. Is the
Geneva Convention legally binding under
U.S. law anyway? I.e. supposing that
it could be shown that, say, Rumsfeld was
directly responsible for an order that
was in clear violation, is there any actual
legal way to convict him of some crime?
I would guess that for people in uniform
this would be covered in the UCMJ, but
what about civilians?
In order for Rummy to be pun-
ished, he would have to be
convicted under the applicable
fed law.
Art 2 Sec 4 ("civil officer")
b/c the Pres. pardon pwr does
not apply to impeachment.
ment.
violations.
\_ did they regulate that interrogators should only ask suspects
nicely, using words like 'Please' and 'thank you', and house them
only in 5-star hotel equivalent living conditions?
\_ No, but they did declare the squallor of your apartment a
violation of the Geneva Convention. |
| 5/20 |
|
| csua.org/u/dn2 -> www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/05/AR2005100502062.html Manage Your Newsletters Senate Supports Interrogation Limits 90-9 Vote on the Treatment of Detainees Is a Bipartisan Rebuff of the WhiteHouse By Charles Babington and Shailagh Murray Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, October 6, 2005; Page A01 The Senate defied the White House yesterday and voted to set new limits o n interrogating detainees in Iraq and elsewhere, underscoring Congress's growing concerns about reports of abuse of suspected terrorists and oth ers in military custody. Forty-six Republicans joined 43 Democrats and one independent in voting t o define and limit interrogation techniques that US troops may use aga inst terrorism suspects, the latest sign that alarm over treatment of pr isoners in the Middle East and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is widespread in both parties. The White House had fought to prevent the restrictions, w ith Vice President Cheney visiting key Republicans in July and a spokesm an yesterday repeating President Bush's threat to veto the larger bill t hat the language is now attached to -- a $440 billion military spending measure. Request for Photos Show the world your perspective on life in Ir aq. We want to give you the opportunity to show firsthand what it is like to live and work in Iraq. More Stories Senate GOP leaders had managed to fend off the detainee language this sum mer, saying Congress should not constrain the executive branch's options . McCain said military officers have implored Congress for guidelines, adding that he mourns "what we lose when by official policy or by official negligence we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget . that which is our greatest strength: that we are different and better than our enemies." The vote came hours after Senate Democratic leaders blasted Republicans f or canceling a classified briefing on anti-terrorism matters by the dire ctor of national intelligence, John D Negroponte. Senate Democrats also sent Bush a letter demanding more information about how he intends to s ucceed in Iraq. The president, who defended his Iraq policies at a news conference Tuesda y, plans to deliver "a significant speech on the war on terrorism" today , spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. He said Bush will "talk in u nprecedented detail about the nature of the enemy we face" and "about ou r comprehensive strategy for defeating" that enemy. The Senate's 90 to 9 vote suggested a new boldness among Republicans to c hallenge the White House on war policy. The amendment by McCain, one of Bush's most significant backers at the outset of the Iraq war, would est ablish uniform standards for the interrogation of people detained by US . military personnel, prohibiting "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatmen t while they are in US custody. They said new detainee standards are needed to clear up confusion among US troops that may have led to the mistreatment alleged at the Navy's Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba and to the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib pr ison in Iraq. The military came under condemnation throughout the world two years ago u pon the release of photos showing US troops humiliating and terrifying inmates at Abu Ghraib. Some low-ranking soldiers have been sentenced to prison for the abuse, but many lawmakers and others said they continue to worry about tactics that border on torture in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay. In his closing speech, McCain said terrorists "hold in contempt" internat ional conventions "such as the Geneva Conventions and the treaty on tort ure." "But we're better than them, and we are the stron ger for our faith." In its statement on the veto threat, the White House said the measure wou ld "restrict the president's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bringing terrorists to justice." But as new allegations of abuse surface, the chorus of McCain supporters is broadening. McCain read a letter on the Senate floor from former secr etary of state Colin L Powell, who endorsed the amendment and said it w ould help address "the terrible public diplomacy crisis created by Abu G hraib." Powell joins a growing group of retired generals and admirals wh o blame prison abuse on "ambiguous instructions," as the officers wrote in a recent letter. They urged restricting interrogation methods to thos e outlined in the US Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation, the parameters that McCain's measure would establish. "Over 17 months, he struggled to get answ ers from his chain of command to a basic question: What standards apply to the treatment of enemy detainees?" Despite his victory last night, McCain has two major obstacles remaining: House GOP leaders object to attaching it to a spending bill, and Bush c ould veto it. However, senior GOP Senate aides said they believe the dif ferences could be bridged, either by tweaking the measure or by changing the field manual. The Maryland and Virginia senators voted for the McCain amendment. Earlier in the day, tension over Iraq triggered an unusually testy exchan ge between the chamber's top Republican and top Democrat. Frist said the invitation was a partisan ploy and unnecessary becaus e of periodic briefings to Congress conducted by Negroponte and other ad ministration officials. Reid replied that canceling Negroponte's planne d appearance was another example of the administration and its congressi onal allies refusing to provide information about progress and challenge s in the Iraq war and the broader battle against terrorism. Reid and at least 39 other Democratic senators sent a letter to Bush sayi ng it was unclear whether "your administration has a strategy for succes s that will preserve our fundamental national security interests and per mit us to bring our troops home." The letter called on Bush "to provide direct answers" to several questions, including the number of adequately trained Iraqi security forces that will be needed to allow US troops to begin withdrawing. "It's time the president tell us how he plans on getting us out of the hole he's dug us so deeply into," Biden said. |
| csua.org/u/dn4 -> www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00249 US Senate Roll Call Votes 109^th Congress - 1^st Session as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the directi on of the Secretary of the Senate Vote Summary Question: On the Amendment (McCain Amdt. HR 2863 (Department of Defens e Appropriations Act, 2006 ) Statement of Purpose: Relating to persons under the detention, custody, o r control of the United States Government. |