U.S. affirms Geneva protections

Published 9:00 pm Tuesday, July 11, 2006

WASHINGTON – The Bush administration, bowing to court edict and political pressure, announced Tuesday that it will guarantee the basic protections of the Geneva Conventions to captives in the war on terrorism, and asked senators to restore the military tribunals now in limbo after a Supreme Court ruling.

But the biggest effect of Pentagon’s acceptance of the recent Supreme Court ruling that requires it to abide by the Geneva standards probably won’t be at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison camp or in U.S. courtrooms but on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, military lawyers and other experts said Tuesday.

The administration disclosed Tuesday it had ordered a review of military detention practices to make sure they comply with Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

Article 3 prohibits “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment,” as well as torture and “cruel treatment.” It requires sentences to be passed by a “regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”

The administration has refused to grant Geneva status to the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere, saying they were not from a recognized nation, were not captured in uniform and did not observe traditional rules of war.

White House spokesman Tony Snow insisted that all U.S. detainees have been treated humanely all along. “It is not really a reversal of policy,” Snow said Tuesday.

Experts said the justices’ ruling removes much of the ambiguity about what sort of protections detained Iraqis, Afghans and foreign fighters enjoy and what rules apply to the actions of U.S. troops.

“It’s a significant change in my view because the troops on the ground in Iraq have never been sure it was a requirement” to observe the Geneva rules, said Gary Solis, a former Marine Corps infantry commander who is an expert on the law of war. “It sets the philosophic tone for our soldiers and Marines.”

For years, these experts said, U.S. military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan were operating under guidelines that were not clear.

This murkiness has been cited by some critics of the administration’s operations in Iraq as contributing to a culture of abuse that led to inhumane treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at other sites.

As a result, some lawyers with expertise in military affairs said they believe military leaders would be reassured by a clarification of prisoners’ rights in part because it is a reversion to U.S. military tradition. “I think commanders in the field will see it positively – they see the value of complying with the law of war,” said Col. David Wallace, a West Point law professor. “It’s not seen as an impediment to mission performance.”

“I think it will be welcomed,” agreed Tom Malinowski, the Washington director for Human Rights Watch. “It provides greater clarity and returns the military to a standard every soldier, sailor and Marine trains on.”