Double Standards? - Newsweek, re: torture, Geneva Convention, etc.

[Wonk]

Double Standards?
A Justice Department memo proposes that the United States hold others accountable for international laws on detainees—but that Washington did not have to follow them itself

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff
Investigative Correspondent
Newsweek
Updated: 3:34 p.m. ET May 21, 2004

May 21 - In a crucial memo written four months after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, Justice Department lawyers advised that President George W. Bush and the U.S. military did not have to comply with any international laws in the handling of detainees in the war on terrorism. It was that conclusion, say some critics, that laid the groundwork for aggressive interrogation techniques that led to the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

(snip)

But the Jan. 9, 2002 memo, written by Justice lawyers John Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty, went far beyond that conclusion, explicitly arguing that no international laws—including the normally observed laws of war—applied to the United States at all because they did not have any status under federal law.

(snip)

At the same time, and even more striking, according to critics, the memo explicitly proposed a de facto double standard in the war on terror in which the United States would hold others accountable for international laws it said it was not itself obligated to follow.

After concluding that the laws of war did not apply to the conduct of the U.S. military, the memo argued that President Bush could still put Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters on trial as war criminals for violating those same laws. While acknowledging that this may seem “at first glance, counter-intuitive,” the memo states this is a product of the president’s constitutional authority “to prosecute the war effectively.”

MORE...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5032094/site/newsweek/




Also, check out Bill Moyers' NOW tonight (or whenever it airs near you)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1643403

David Brancaccio talks to Scott Horton, President of the International League for Human Rights. Horton will discuss the legal basis for the global war on terror and the U.S. government classified memo that puts forth what NEWSWEEK described as "a legal framework to justify a secret system of detention and interrogation that sidesteps the historical safeguards of the Geneva Convention."

[Kellanved]

1. yes

That debate is pretty old in Europe. Of course any politician talking about it is instantly branded "Anti-American". Not that many important politicians did...

:shrug:


Bottom line: Bush and his administration is morally bankrupt, the US needs to join the ICC as an equal member now - any bonus granted for peacekeeping is used up.

[teryang]

2. Justice's position on this is essentially fascist

...and repudiates years of practice, custom and doctrine by the US Armed Forces.

The Armed Forces position has always been that whatever the technical loopholes that a particular situation may offer, the practice by the United States Armed Forces would be to comply with Conventions and other rules of land warfare WHETHER THE OTHER SIDE WAS TECHNICALLY BOUND OR IN COMPLIANCE OR NOT. The theory was that it was the US practice which established international precedent in custom and usage and that the practice of complying with the Conventions needed to be extended wherever possible.

The purpose was two-fold. One, it established a standard to which parties, non-parties and enemy combatants would be expected to abide by and for which they would be held accountable under international law, whether they were signatories or not and regardless of formal status.

Second, the appropriate treatment of prisoners, irrespective of status, established a quid pro quo or reciprocity in fact which was to the benefit of all civilized nations.

The Justice department's novel policy adopted by Rumsfeld and the intelligence agencies, violates these tenets, with the dubious ideological assumption that there wouldn't be any consequences because we are the only superpower and we make our own rules. If this is the case, one wonders why they now deny their policy of intentionally violating the Conventions, why they tried to conceal and cover up their human rights violations, and why they tried to avoid jurisdiction of international courts from the outset.