Gitmo: Bush vs. SCOTUS, Geneva Convention, his Allies and the Rest of the World

Great Debates
1

It seems that Bush is going to do it the hard way:

*
The Bush administration has proposed draft legislation that largely recreates the deeply flawed military commissions that the Supreme Court struck down last month in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Human Rights Watch said today.

Worse, the administration’s proposed legislation asks Congress to authorize its discredited policy of holding people indefinitely without charge. The draft legislation would authorize detaining people picked up anywhere in the world, including U.S. citizens, and holding them indefinitely without charge if the administration unilaterally deems them to be “associated with” or “part of” al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

“The White House seems tone-deaf to the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court, Congress, and its closest European allies,” said Jennifer Daskal, advocacy director of the U.S. program at Human Rights Watch. “Instead of devising fair tribunals based on the court-martial rules, the administration wants Congress to belatedly adopt the whole Guantanamo package.”

The draft legislation would also effectively rewrite the minimum, humane-treatment standards of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, undercutting key protections for soldiers and civilians worldwide, including Americans. *

The Iraq and Gunatanamo fiascos have cost the US dear in terms of its claim to be a proponent of freedom in the real world.

This latest attempt to justify the Bush Administration’s immoral and probably illegal previous behavior can only further damage the reputation of the USA.

Is this attempt to circumvent the recent SCOTUS decisions an act of statesmanship or an act of politics?

I would hope that this is merely an internal ploy to blame the problem on the next Congress which may well be more democratic than the present one. Then Bush can say that he tried his best to sort out the detainee problem and blame the subsequent releases on his political enemies.

Or is his position legally and morally justified, and are the further risks he is taking with the reputation of the USA acceptable?

2

Politics; an attempt to create a worldwide American fascist hegemony.

Not even close. He and his friends are power mad lunatics and idiots.

3

“Circumvent” would not be an appropriate term: SCOTUS ruled these policies went beyond what Congress had authorized, so now Bush is asking Congress to authorize them. Perfectly kosher, in legal/constitutional terms. A case could be made that Congress cannot constitutionally authorize military tribunals on these terms, but it would require another SCOTUS decision to conclusively determine that.

As for “act of statesmanship” vs. “act of politics” – isn’t that a false dichotomy?

Is it a good idea? Certainly not. As you say, it’s just one more thing to turn all the world against us. But Bush wants what he wants when he wants it and he has never yet admitted a mistake.

4

Sure he has. He admitted in an interview that it maybe wasn’t all that smart to say “Bring it on!” It was in the news and everything. Is there anything you Bush-bashers won’t distort?? :stuck_out_tongue:

5

Bush admitted he was WRONG?? CITE!

:wink:

-XT

6

Shocker! Bush tries to get Congress to approve the tribunal system he originally wanted. It’s callled a negotiation. Bush knows he isn’t going to get what he wants from Congress, so why should he start with anything less than what he actually wants? Congress needs to get off its collectively lazy butt and act.

7

I think that it goes further than that. If I understand the judgement, SCOTUS also found that the US Administration is bound by Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

It would require a positive withdrawal by the Senate to overcome that objection, but Bush has not even tried to place that on the agenda.

Article 3 requires:

*In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

  1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. *

(my bolding)

The Draft Bill does not even attempt to meet these requirements.
I suspect that Bush is expecting a rebuff from Congress or a subsequent rebuff from SCOTUS.

That is why I characterize this as an attempt to “circumvent” the ruling.

8

Because it just ups the ante in the anti-USA brigade. It is being characterized in the British media as another failure by Bush to understand the basic concepts of democracy and freedom.

Let’s wait and see how its covered in the Arab and wider Moslem world.

9

Or Bush could try the cases in the already set up court martial system. But then he’d have to provide due process, which, from all indications, isn’t his strong suit. We’ve detained people for almost 5 years with nothing close to resembling due process or in accordance with international law. We’ve released another approximately 240 others without trial. I’m damn proud of my country, and we should be at the forefront of protection of human rights and due process. Instead, we’ve got Bush fighting tooth and nail, pulling any legal bullshit he can, to avoid giving the prisoners a fair trial. While Congress is certainly wasting their time too, the bulk of the blame for this fiasco lies squarely on Bush.

10

I’d say no to all three questions. I think Bush is going into a four-corners stall at this point, hoping to run out the clock and stick the next President with the mess Bush created. By pushing through something that does not provide the protections the Court has indicated, albeit obliquely, it may require, Bush is buying time for a challenge to the new process to work it’s way through the system. By the time it reaches SCOTUS, even if they reject the new process, Bush will be in the final days of his term. SCOTUS is not likely to rubber stamp whatever “Star Chamber” justice Bush cooks up, Bush knows this, yet he doesn’t want to undo the things he’s done. He’d rather leave office and stick the new guy with the fallout–whether it’s releasing the majority of the prisoners, or giving them proper trials.

11

Absolutely. But he’s not going to fix it himself, so the only alternative we really have is for Congress to do something. And I agree with Oakminister– Bush is trying to run out the clock.

12

Minority position.

The majority loves this shit. As per Paul in Saudi’s comments on where the US went wrong with Iraq; Bush’s repudiation of that tired narrative of fairness, law and restraint is the flourishing and apotheosis of American culture. A real fleur du mal.

13

“Running out the clock” works for me too.

Under any reasonable and acceptable standards of evidence, he probably can’t convict many of these people of much of anything. We may, quite reasonably, assume that all those already released are, and were, entirely innocent. Because, after all, if we had real proof someone were guilty, they most certainly would not be released, since many of them arr still there.

Of course, he may very well have released some terrorists, I’m sure he has. Its just that they weren’t committed, anti-American terrorists before they got to Gitmo. But they are now.

14

elucidator

I suspect your reasoning runs along the same lines as mine.

The original prisoners were scooped up in Afghanistan, to be fair, Americans probably saved their lives.
They were Taliban, and to my knowledge the Taliban never signed up to the Geneva Convention, and I certainly do not subscribe to the idea that non-citizens have the same rights as citizens.

Their ranks have been augmented by ‘odds and sods’ picked up in obscure places.

Where I disagree with Guano Bay is the way it appears to have been run.

People may laugh, but in my view it should have been run more on the lines of a holiday camp - torture and violent interrogation is not that good at obtaining reliable information.

  • We are really interested why you went to Afghanistan
  • What was it like living in such rough conditions
  • Has America ever done anything unpleasant to you personally
  • Could you safely return to your home (in Yemen, Saudi, Pakistan etc)
  • Have you ever considered emigrating to America
  • Would you like to learn/improve your English
  • Do you have any dependants, can we send them some of your pay cheque

The USA had the chance of getting some real intelligence, possibly building a small Foreign Legion and definitely getting a few potentially influential people wondering whether they could build a career on their newly acquired American friends contacts.

My understanding is that the majority of the inhabitants at Guano Bay were found with three incredibly brave CIA operatives - sitting in a field.

Things went downhill from then on.

Probably the ones that were obviously co-operative have departed, but the general image just stinks.