PDA

View Full Version : Geneva Convention? What Geneva Convention? (cont'd)


skunk
Oct 24, 2004, 09:42 AM
http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=2471411
Iraq Detainees: CIA reportedly secretly removes detainees from Iraq

WASHINGTON The CIA has reportedly moved as many as a dozen prisoners out of Iraq in the last six months, which could violate international treaties.
The Washington Post reports the Justice Department drafted a memo in March authorizing the CIA to take prisoners out of Iraq for interrogations. According to the paper the memo states Iraqis can be taken out of the country for a "brief but not indefinite period."

The transfers could violate the Geneva Conventions, which don't allow "individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory."

The Post also says the government made the moves without telling the International Red Cross, congressional oversight committees, the Defense Department or CIA investigators.
and:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57363-2004Oct23.html
Memo Lets CIA Take Detainees Out of Iraq

Practice Is Called Serious Breach of Geneva Conventions

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 24, 2004

At the request of the CIA, the Justice Department drafted a confidential memo that authorizes the agency to transfer detainees out of Iraq for interrogation -- a practice that international legal specialists say contravenes the Geneva Conventions.

One intelligence official familiar with the operation said the CIA has used the March draft memo as legal support for secretly transporting as many as a dozen detainees out of Iraq in the last six months. The agency has concealed the detainees from the International Committee of the Red Cross and other authorities, the official said.

The draft opinion, written by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and dated March 19, 2004, refers to both Iraqi citizens and foreigners in Iraq, who the memo says are protected by the treaty. It permits the CIA to take Iraqis out of the country to be interrogated for a "brief but not indefinite period." It also says the CIA can permanently remove persons deemed to be "illegal aliens" under "local immigration law."

Some specialists in international law say the opinion amounts to a reinterpretation of one of the most basic rights of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which protects civilians during wartime and occupation, including insurgents who were not part of Iraq's military.

The treaty prohibits the "[i]ndividual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory . . . regardless of their motive."

The 1949 treaty notes that a violation of this particular provision constitutes a "grave breach" of the accord, and thus a "war crime" under U.S. federal law, according to a footnote in the Justice Department draft. "For these reasons," the footnote reads, "we recommend that any contemplated relocations of 'protected persons' from Iraq to facilitate interrogation be carefully evaluated for compliance with Article 49 on a case by case basis." It says that even persons removed from Iraq retain the treaty's protections, which would include humane treatment and access to international monitors.

During the war in Afghanistan, the administration ruled that al Qaeda fighters were not considered "protected persons" under the convention. Many of them were transferred out of the country to the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere for interrogations. By contrast, the U.S. government deems former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party and military, as well as insurgents and other civilians in Iraq, to be protected by the Geneva Conventions.

International law experts contacted for this article described the legal reasoning contained in the Justice Department memo as unconventional and disturbing.

"The overall thrust of the Convention is to keep from moving people out of the country and out of the protection of the Convention," said former senior military attorney Scott Silliman, executive director of Duke University's Center on Law, Ethics and National Security. "The memorandum seeks to create a legal regime justifying conduct that the international community clearly considers in violation of international law and the Convention." Silliman reviewed the document at The Post's request.

The CIA, Justice Department and the author of the draft opinion, Jack L. Goldsmith, former director of the Office of Legal Counsel, declined to comment for this article.

CIA officials have not disclosed the identities or locations of its Iraq detainees to congressional oversight committees, the Defense Department or CIA investigators who are reviewing detention policy, according to two informed U.S. government officials and a confidential e-mail on the subject shown to The Washington Post.

White House officials disputed the notion that Goldsmith's interpretation of the treaty was unusual, although they did not explain why. "The Geneva Conventions are applicable to the conflict in Iraq, and our policy is to comply with the Geneva Conventions," White House spokesman Sean McCormick said.

The Office of Legal Counsel also wrote the Aug. 1, 2002, memo on torture that advised the CIA and White House that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad "may be justified," and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" conducted in the war on terrorism. President Bush's aides repudiated that memo once it became public this June.

The Office of Legal Counsel writes legal opinions considered binding on federal agencies and departments. The March 19 document obtained by The Post is stamped "draft" and was not finalized, said one U.S. official involved in the legal deliberations. However, the memo was sent to the general counsels at the National Security Council, the CIA and the departments of State and Defense.....(more)
Still at it, I see...

Blue Velvet
Oct 24, 2004, 09:50 AM
Perhaps they moved them somewhere or to somebody who will do their dirty work for them... I've heard Egypt is very nice at this time of the year.

skunk
Oct 24, 2004, 09:54 AM
I'm sure it's for their own good. It must be hell having all those IRC observers staring at you all the time.

Blue Velvet
Oct 24, 2004, 09:58 AM
I'm sure it's for their own good. It must be hell having all those IRC observers staring at you all the time.

*chuckle*

well, it's all those evil-doers should expect, anyway... :rolleyes:

zimv20
Oct 24, 2004, 11:24 AM
May 6, 2002 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1970312.stm)


The US has vehemently opposed the setting up of the ICC, fearing its soldiers and diplomats could be brought before the court which will hear cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
soldiers and diplomats, my ass. this was to protect bush, cheney and rumsfeld.

skunk
Oct 24, 2004, 11:25 AM
Rumsfeld probably sees himself as a diplomat.

pseudobrit
Oct 24, 2004, 01:47 PM
Rumsfeld probably sees himself as a diplomat.

And Bush clearly sees himself as a soldier.

IJ Reilly
Oct 24, 2004, 02:20 PM
And Bush clearly sees himself as a soldier.

A very smart soldier -- one who stays as far away from the battle as possible.

3rdpath
Oct 24, 2004, 02:48 PM
A very smart soldier -- one who stays as far away from the battle as possible.

twice!

skunk
Oct 25, 2004, 02:30 AM
Where does that leave Lon Cheney? He's clearly neither. What's his excuse?

solvs
Oct 25, 2004, 05:06 AM
Vietnam? Other priorities. Desert Storm? War profiteering. WOT? Somewhere in the middle. Hey, we went to Iraq under sketchy circumstances... why not piss all over the Geneva Convention while you're at it? See if anyone is looking.

mactastic
Oct 25, 2004, 09:43 PM
Sorry we pissed on the Geneva Convention... it was laying right next to the Constitution when that got pissed on. :rolleyes:

Sayhey
Oct 25, 2004, 10:05 PM
Where does that leave Lon Cheney? He's clearly neither. What's his excuse?

Lycanthropy.

Sayhey
Oct 25, 2004, 10:08 PM
From the New York Times (http://nytimes.com/2004/10/26/politics/26detain.html?hp&ex=1098763200&en=aec28bb5d2df0aa4&ei=5094&partner=homepage).

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 - A new legal opinion by the Bush administration has concluded for the first time that some non-Iraqi prisoners captured by American forces in Iraq are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, administration officials said Monday.

The opinion, reached in recent months, establishes an important exception to public assertions by the Bush administration since March 2003 that the Geneva Conventions applied comprehensively to prisoners taken in the conflict in Iraq, the officials said. They said the opinion would essentially allow the military and the C.I.A. to treat at least a small number of non-Iraqi prisoners captured in Iraq in the same way as members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban captured in Afghanistan, Pakistan or elsewhere, for whom the United States has maintained that the Geneva Conventions do not apply.

zimv20
Oct 25, 2004, 10:18 PM
jesus, these guys just do what they want. criminey.

Sayhey
Oct 26, 2004, 01:08 AM
jesus, these guys just do what they want. criminey.

Exactly. Public opinion, the Law, the Courts, objections of military commanders - none of it makes any difference to these folks. We need them out and a week from tomorrow we take a giant step in doing just that.

pseudobrit
Oct 26, 2004, 02:02 AM
Exactly. Public opinion, the Law, the Courts, objections of military commanders - none of it makes any difference to these folks. We need them out and a week from tomorrow we take a giant step in doing just that.

Or we're throw it all down the ****ing well.

skunk
Oct 26, 2004, 06:53 AM
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

solvs
Oct 27, 2004, 12:21 AM
And this is all while their running for re-election. Imagine them when they have nothing more to lose. If Bush is re-elected, look for an overwhelming majority of people to vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is in 2008. No matter who it is.

Of course by then, most people will still hate us for invading Poland. ;) (there are several layers to that joke... think about it)