portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

human & civil rights | imperialism & war | prisons & prisoners

Bush & Co. Declared Geneva Convention Obsolete and Quaint

"As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," White House counsel Alberto Gonzales wrote to Bush on Jan 25, 2002. Gonzales concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."
NEWSWEEK: Detention, Interrogation That Opened Door to Methods Used at Abu Ghraib
Sunday May 16, 10:49 am ET
Bush Had Decided That Geneva Conventions Did Not Apply to Taliban, Al Qaeda By Jan. 2002, According to Memo

NEW YORK, May 16 -- While it is unlikely that President George W. Bush or senior officials ever knew of the specific techniques used at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, a Newsweek investigation shows that, as a means of preempting a repeat of 9/11, Bush, along with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods, report National Security Correspondent John Barry, Senior Editor Michael Hirsh and Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff in the May 24 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday May 17). And while there is no telling where the scandal will bottom out, Newsweek has learned that U.S. soldiers and CIA operatives could be accused of war crimes. Among the possible charges: homicide involving deaths during interrogations.

By Jan. 25, 2002, according to a memo obtained by Newsweek, it was clear that President George W. Bush had already decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply at all, either to the Taliban or Al Qaeda. In the memo, written to Bush by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, Gonzales laid out startlingly broad arguments that anticipated any objections to the conduct of U.S. soldiers or CIA interrogators in the future. "As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Gonzales wrote to Bush. Gonzales concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

In the months after Sept. 11, a small band of conservative lawyers within the Bush administration staked out a forward-leaning legal position in which the rules of war, international treaties and even the Geneva Conventions did not apply. These positions were laid out in secret legal opinions drafted by lawyers from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, and then endorsed by Department of Defense and ultimately Gonzales, according to copies of the opinions and other internal legal memos obtained by Newsweek. The Bush administration's emerging approach was that America's enemies in this war were "unlawful" combatants without rights.

One Justice Department memo, written for the CIA late in the fall of 2001, put an extremely narrow interpretation on the international anti-torture convention, allowing the agency to use a whole range of techniques-including sleep deprivation, the use of phobias and the deployment of "stress factors" -- in interrogating Qaeda suspects. The only clear prohibition was "causing severe physical or mental pain" -- a subjective judgment that allowed for "a whole range of things in between," says one former administration official familiar with the opinion.

On Dec. 28, 2001, the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel weighed in with another opinion, arguing that U.S. courts had no jurisdiction to review the treatment of foreign prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The appeal of Gitmo from the start was that, in the view of administration lawyers, the base existed in a legal twilight zone -- or "the legal equivalent of outer space," as one former administration lawyer described it. And on Jan. 9, 2002, John Yoo of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel coauthored a sweeping 42-page memo concluding that neither the Geneva Conventions nor any of the laws of war applied to the conflict in Afghanistan.

When State Department lawyers first saw the Yoo memo, "we were horrified," said one. Two days after the Yoo memo circulated, the State Department's chief legal adviser, William Howard Taft IV, fired a memo to Yoo calling his analysis "seriously flawed." Similarly, when Powell read the Gonzales memo, he "hit the roof," says a State source. Desperately seeking to change Bush's mind, Powell fired off his own blistering response the next day, Jan. 26, and sought an immediate meeting with the president. The proposed anti-Geneva Convention declaration, he warned, "will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice" and have "a high cost in terms of negative international reaction."

Powell won a partial victory: On Feb. 7, 2002, the White House announced that the United States would indeed apply the Geneva Conventions to the Afghan war -- but that Taliban and Qaeda detainees would still not be afforded prisoner-of-war status. The White House's halfway retreat was, in the eyes of State Department lawyers, a "hollow" victory for Powell that did not fundamentally change the administration's position. It also set the stage for the new interrogation procedures ungoverned by international law.

With the legal groundwork laid, Bush signed a secret order granting new powers to the CIA. According to knowledgeable sources, the president's directive authorized the CIA to set up a series of secret detention facilities outside the United States, and to question those held in them with unprecedented harshness. Washington then negotiated novel "status of forces agreements" with foreign governments for the secret sites. These agreements gave immunity not merely to U.S. government personnel but also to private contractors. (Asked about the directive last week, a senior administration official said, "We cannot comment on purported intelligence activities.")

The administration also began "rendering" -- or delivering terror suspects to foreign governments for interrogation. At a classified briefing for senators not long after 9/11, CIA Director George Tenet was asked whether Washington was going to get governments known for their brutality to turn over Qaeda suspects to the United States. Congressional sources tell Newsweek that Tenet suggested it might be better sometimes for such suspects to remain in the hands of foreign authorities, who might be able to use more aggressive interrogation methods. By 2004, the United States was running a covert charter airline moving CIA prisoners from one secret facility to another, sources say. It was judged impolitic (and too traceable) to use the U.S. Air Force.
the right wing wet dream... 16.May.2004 15:21

this thing here

... where something like 9-11 somehow majically allows them to restrict liberties and tailor rights, to take off their gloves (and their masks) and become the fascist, authoritarian, uniform wearing, abusive monsters that they are at heart, who just love to march around with total impugnity, destroying the world in order to "save" it.

this logic, the essence of which is this, "9-11 magically allows us to be as abusive and as depraved as our enemies, thereby eliminating any moral authority we can rightly call our own, and thereby allowing us to become no better than our enemies", is nothing but an abject failure out of hand, and plainly reveals what makes many on the right tick. if we can say that 9-11 gave our leaders a moral blank check, then the all that has happened since has shown that the leaders have failed us, in that they could not resist the temptation to write "become what we hate" in the little blank box on the check.

to become no better than the "monsters" you claim to be fighting, to stoop to their level, to lose any and all moral authority, and to be legitimately branded as total hypocrits, is the net gain of this sick, failed logic. and what is particularly tragic here is that it was a conscious policy decision, with it's own set of "legal" "arguments", made by leaders who are supposedly smarter and more enlightened than the rest of us...

Well said 16.May.2004 18:50

Me

Excellent, this thing here, but the question now becomes how can America restore itself to decency (if in fact the rulers of America have EVER been decent) without a full-blown Stalinesque purge of these brutal thugs? Can we rid ourselves of this infestation without resorting to their methods to do it? Clearly elections alone don't suffice. Even when government appears to swing completely to the "left" there's still plenty of fascist momentum, and the nazi ideologues (who most recently call themselves "neo-cons") just hole up in their think tanks writing the scripts for the next go at world domination.