White House: Abuse Memos Not for al - Qaida

[Khephra]

White House: Abuse Memos Not for al - Qaida
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: June 9, 2004


Filed at 6:09 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The confidential Justice Department memos criticized by Democrats as laying the legal foundation for Iraqi prisoner abuses were aimed mainly at showing that international treaties banning torture do not apply to al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners, Bush administration officials say.

The department's lawyers concluded that Taliban and al-Qaida fighters are not protected by the Geneva Conventions because they do not satisfy four main conditions of the treaty itself. Those include requirements to obey laws of war, wear insignia recognizable from a distance and operate under the command of a responsible individual.

Iraqi prisoners are protected under the treaty partly because Iraq is a participating nation in the Geneva Conventions and the United States is an occupying power, a Justice Department official wrote Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

William Moschella, assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, said in a letter released Wednesday that despite this important difference, President Bush early in the Afghanistan conflict issued orders that al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners be treated humanely and consistently with Geneva Conventions principles.

more....................

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Prisoner-Abuse.html

[Career Prole]

1. That's probably why they switched from calling them "Baathist Party

hold-outs and Saddam loyalists" to "foreign fighters and terrorists", for God's sake. Can't torture Saddam loyalists.

[FlashHarry]

2. Man, that's a badly written headline.

They're arguing precisely the opposite: that the international torture conventions didn't apply to the Taliban and al Qaeda, because they weren't recognized as being from a state. In other words, the memo in question is for al Qaeda. Duh.

[truthisfreedom]

3. gahh, it sounds like they weren't meant for al-qaeda to read.

[displacedtexan]

4. What a new-and-improved crock! The Geneva Conventions are...

extremely precise when stating that even prisoners from non-signatory nations are covered by the rules!

[Zynx]

9. Non-signatory nations yes...

But the al-Qaeda guys aren't a nation. Taliban might be. That's debatable depending on the criteria you use for "nation."

al-Qaeda frankly falls, under the Geneva Conventions, in the catagory I generally call "can be killed on the spot." Al-Qaeda is something between pirates and mercenaries in international law, and neither one of those groups have any rights whatsoever.

That's not defending what the Bushies are doing, and Iraqis are certainly combatents in the traditional sense, but the actual letter of the Geneva Conventions is surprisingly nasty regarding unlawful fighters when you understand the wording.

[Spazito]

12. They are entitled to a tribunal to determine their status and until such

time as a tribunal has been struck, they are to be accorded the status of prisoner of war.

[TahitiNut]

5. Where are Talibanistan and al-Qaidia?

This is fucking nonsense! That's like saying Democratic Party members and the VFW aren't protected because neither the Democratic Party nor the VFW are signatories.

Afghanistan is and was a signatory. Period. It makes absolutely no difference that Afgahnis or foreign nationals within Afghanistan are members of some political group or military organization. None.

This is exactly the same kind of "thinking" that Hitler's Regime applied to the Jews and Gypsies!

[katusha]

6. can they produce the order

President Bush early in the Afghanistan conflict issued orders that al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners be treated humanely and consistently with Geneva Conventions principles.

i would like to see this supposed presidential order calling for humane treatment. or is this another bluff hiding a lie.

[0rganism]

8. I'd like to see that too.

Shouldn't be too hard to publish the "issued orders", and get confirmation from the recipients that it's the same one they received.

[Nancy Waterman]

10. Excellent question

Where is that statement about humane treatment from W? I didn't know he knew the word.

[2Design]

7. so concentration camps and ovens are ok......

this is ridiculous..... this is blatant disregard for things this usa was built on....this people are awful......

[goforit]

11. Time to corral and lasso the Irresponsible malitias in

One by one they are gonna be caught.