# Bush vs Human Rights Watch

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-vs-human-rights-watch/251292>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [June 20, 2004, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-vs-human-rights-watch/251292 "2004-06-20T08:12:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\
**Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-vs-human-rights-watch/251292/1 "2004-06-20T08:12:26Z")

</div>

This is from a Yahoo news article from June 19 which probably isn’t there anymore, so I’m not linking. The article that I am paraphrasing is by Jim Krane, an Associated Press Writer.

According to Krane, if I understand correctly, the U.S. military said that we can and will legally continue to hold thousands we have taken prisoner since we invaded Iraq until there is a “cessation of hostilities” – even after the occupation is over. Krane does not give a specific source.

Kenneth Roth, the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch said that after the occupatin is over, the U.S. will have no authority to detain Iraqis without charging them.

Will the US just bring pressure to bear on Iraqi officials? Are Iraqis going to have only a puppet government after all? Are they really going to tolerate having so many of their own imprisoned like this?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\
**Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-vs-human-rights-watch/251292/2 "2004-06-20T21:27:41Z")

</div>

Here’s the point in question, from Associated Press; it seems to be buried in an AP article about the recent attack on an Al-Zarqawi hideout:

> [@](#):
>
> [**FALLUJAH RAID: U.S. attacks Al-Zarqawi hideout, kills 16**](http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=39486)  
> Meanwhile, New York-based Human Rights Watch said in a statement it would be unlawful for the United States to hold detainees, including Saddam Hussein, after the June 30 power transfer without charging them with crimes.
> 
> The U.S. military has said it will continue to hold thousands of prisoners detained since it invaded Iraq last year and that it could do so legally until a “cessation of hostilities.”
> 
> “The Bush Administration can’t have its cake and it too. If the occupation is over, so is the U.S. authority to detain Iraqis without criminal charges,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch.

Sounds like one for the lawyers, though given how this Administration has been digging for loopholes and bending international law to suit its ends, I wouldn’t give good odds of Bush being in the right.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\
**Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-vs-human-rights-watch/251292/3 "2004-06-20T21:40:16Z")

</div>

> [@rjung](#):
>
> Sounds like one for the lawyers, though given how this Administration has been digging for loopholes and bending international law to suit its ends, I wouldn’t give good odds of Bush being in the right.

Loopholes? The Administration sends a F-16 over to bomb holds in international law when it needs to. They have completely disregarded every international organization as their leisure. Nothing says, to me, that they’ll care.

Bush, much like his buddy Saddam, will sit in defiance of international law until the day they drag him screaming out of his spider hole in Crawford, golf clubs clutched lovingly in hand.