FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

When a Prisoner of War Isn’t a Prisoner of War

A politician is one that would circumvent God.

Shakespeare, Hamlet

Herewith a bright spot on the political front. Some things would be the same had George Bush been elected (he was) and the Democrats had captured the Senate and the House. (They didn’t.) One of the things that would be the same is the use of memoranda to sanction what an administration sensitive to human rights would deplore. (This one isn’t.)

One recent example of the use of memoranda to sanction conduct that might otherwise be censured was one written by attorney, now federal judge, Jay Bybee for Alberto Gonzales, counsel to Mr. Bush and soon to be attorney general. In it Mr. Bybee said that cruel, inhuman or degrading acts do not necessarily constitute torture. It is, said he, a question of the intent of the perpetrator. He said a coercive procedure cannot be considered torture unless it causes pain equivalent to that accompanying “serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death.” His memorandum proved enormously useful in analyzing what went on at Abu Ghraib prison which, without the benefit of Mr. Bybee’s analysis, might have seemed like torture. Indeed, the victims of that conduct, being unsophisticated and unable to read the memorandum (since it was written in English) may still believe they were being tortured. Now another memorandum has surfaced that makes it appear that, contrary to what we’ve been told, the Geneva Convention does not necessarily apply to everyone captured in Iraq.

According to a report in the Washington Post, in October 2003 the CIA asked the Justice Department to draft a memorandum dealing with “protected persons” in Iraq and specifically on the status of Abdul Rahman Rashul who had been taken to Afghanistan for interrogation. (The CIA had taken Rashul out of Iraq for interrogation and wanted to do the same with other prisoners so that they could be interrogated in countries not squeamish about torture. Why the torture being used at Abu Ghraib, which seemed quite cruel to those unsophisticated in the practice, was not sufficient to get the kind of information the CIA thought it needed is unclear.)

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention protects civilians during wartime and occupation and prohibits “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory . . . regardless of their motive.” Recognizing the importance of this provision, the author of the requested memorandum concluded that everyone in Iraq, including both Iraqi citizens and foreigners, was a protected person under the convention. Rashul was promptly returned to Iraq.

Unhappy with that ruling, the CIA and Mr. Gonzales asked for a more complete (and they undoubtedly hoped, more favorable) opinion on protected persons. A March 2004 memorandum gave it to them. It said prisoners could be taken out of the country for interrogation for a “brief but not indefinite period” and said that persons who are “illegal aliens” under “local immigration law” can be permanently removed. Some experts in international law called the memo’s conclusions a reinterpretation of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention. Indeed, in a footnote the memorandum observes that a violation of the provision banning removal of people is considered a “grave breach” of the accord and therefore a “war crime” under U.S. federal law. Although the memorandum gave the CIA what it wanted, its contents were apparently not shared with Mr. Rumsfeld. In a speech two months after the memorandum was written, Mr. Rumsfeld said that in the administration’s view “everyone in Iraq who was a military person” as well as “the civilians or criminal elements” captured by the Americans would be “treated subject to the Geneva Conventions.”

He did not explain the discrepancy between his perception and the conclusion of the memorandum nor did he explain why, as he disclosed in a press conference on June 17, 2004, he honored a request made by CIA director George Tenet that Rashul not be given a prisoner number and instead be hidden from International Red Cross officials. As a result of granting Mr. Tenet’s request, (an action that seemed to contradict what Mr. Rumsfeld said in May), Rashul was lost in the prison system for seven months.

Commenting on the 2004 memorandum Michael Byers, an international law expert at the University of British Columbia, said the memorandum was “extraordinarily disturbing.” He said: “What they are doing is interpreting an exception into an all-encompassing right, in one of the most fundamental treaties in history.” The Geneva Convention “is as close as you get to protecting human rights in times of chaos. There’s no ambiguity here.”

Someone forgot to tell that to the administration and the people who elected George Bush. Not that they’d care.

CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI is a Boulder, Colorado lawyer. His column appears weekly in the Daily Camera. He can be reached at: brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu

 

More articles by:
September 18, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Britain: the Anti-Semitism Debate
Tamara Pearson
Why Mexico’s Next President is No Friend of Migrants
Richard Moser
Both the Commune and Revolution
Nick Pemberton
Serena 15, Tennis Love
Binoy Kampmark
Inconvenient Realities: Climate Change and the South Pacific
Martin Billheimer
La Grand’Route: Waiting for the Bus
John Kendall Hawkins
Seymour Hersh: a Life of Adversarial Democracy at Work
Faisal Khan
Is Israel a Democracy?
John Feffer
The GOP Wants Trumpism…Without Trump
Kim Ives
The Roots of Haiti’s Movement for PetroCaribe Transparency
Dave Lindorff
We Already Have a Fake Billionaire President; Why Would We want a Real One Running in 2020?
Gerry Brown
Is China Springing Debt Traps or Throwing a Lifeline to Countries in Distress?
Pete Tucker
The Washington Post Really Wants to Stop Ben Jealous
Dean Baker
Getting It Wrong Again: Consumer Spending and the Great Recession
September 17, 2018
Melvin Goodman
What is to be Done?
Rob Urie
American Fascism
Patrick Cockburn
The Adults in the White House Trying to Save the US From Trump Are Just as Dangerous as He Is
Jeffrey St. Clair - Alexander Cockburn
The Long Fall of Bob Woodward: From Nixon’s Nemesis to Cheney’s Savoir
Mairead Maguire
Demonization of Russia in a New Cold War Era
Dean Baker
The Bank Bailout of 2008 was Unnecessary
Wim Laven
Hurricane Trump, Season 2
Yves Engler
Smearing Dimitri Lascaris
Ron Jacobs
From ROTC to Revolution and Beyond
Clark T. Scott
The Cannibals of Horsepower
Binoy Kampmark
A Traditional Right: Jimmie Åkesson and the Sweden Democrats
Laura Flanders
History Markers
Weekend Edition
September 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Carl Boggs
Obama’s Imperial Presidency
Joshua Frank
From CO2 to Methane, Trump’s Hurricane of Destruction
Jeffrey St. Clair
Maria’s Missing Dead
Andrew Levine
A Bulwark Against the Idiocy of Conservatives Like Brett Kavanaugh
T.J. Coles
Neil deGrasse Tyson: A Celebrity Salesman for the Military-Industrial-Complex
Jeff Ballinger
Nike and Colin Kaepernick: Fronting the Bigots’ Team
David Rosen
Why Stop at Roe? How “Settled Law” Can be Overturned
Gary Olson
Pope Francis and the Battle Over Cultural Terrain
Nick Pemberton
Donald The Victim: A Product of Post-9/11 America
Ramzy Baroud
The Veiled Danger of the ‘Dead’ Oslo Accords
Kevin Martin
U.S. Support for the Bombing of Yemen to Continue
Robert Fisk
A Murder in Aleppo
Robert Hunziker
The Elite World Order in Jitters
Ben Dangl
After 9/11: The Staggering Economic and Human Cost of the War on Terror
Charles Pierson
Invade The Hague! Bolton vs. the ICC
Robert Fantina
Trump and Palestine
Daniel Warner
Hubris on and Off the Court
John Kendall Hawkins
Boning Up on Eternal Recurrence, Kubrick-style: “2001,” Revisited
Haydar Khan
Set Theory of the Left
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail