U.S. and European officials have been at war over the wording of the
Geneva Convention ever since American forces invaded Afghanistan in late 2001 and began rounding up terrorist suspects and Taliban fighters.
Maybe it's time for a new Geneva Convention for the age of terrorism.
At an international conference on terrorism in Italy last month, European officials heatedly denounced Bush administration detention and interrogation practices, arguing, as one put it, that the United States had to "come home" to the rules of land warfare agreed upon by most of the world's governments in 1949.
The conference attendees - for the most part human rights lawyers and scholars, recent government counterterrorism officials, and national security journalists - were nearly unanimous that that the Bush administration's secret CIA prisons and "enhanced interrogation techniques" were in violation of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war.
But there was far less agreement on how to deal with captured civilian fighters in today's undeclared, seemingly interminable, so-called war on terrorism, such as al Qaeda operatives or the Taliban.
Disagreements were so sharp by the third and final evening of the conference that it occurred to me that only another Geneva Convention could iron out the problems. The international community - not to mention the United States -- needed to update the internationally agreed-upon rules of war for the capture of soldiers fighting in units without uniforms or insignia.
Its legal scholars, until recently headed by
Neal Katyal, now the Obama administration's
Principal Deputy Solicitor General, have been quietly working on a plan to push for just such a new international agreement for terrorism and stateless armies.
"It's more of an idea than a full fledged program," said
Matthew Gerke, a fellow at the center who worked for three and a half years in the Pentagon and in Iraq on rule of law issues.
The Geneva Conventions generally apply only to international conflicts between signatory states -- the Taliban and al Qaeda not being among them, it hardly needs saying.
The only part of it that applies to conflicts like the war against al Qaeda is
Common Article 3, which "is very, very vague," Gerke said in a brief telephone interview Wednesday.
And it requires only that trials and sentences be carried out "by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" - whatever that means.
"We need another Geneva Convention, or at least an authoritative interpretation of our responsibilities under Common Article 3," Gerke said.
In 1977 the Carter administration negotiated and signed two
additional protocols to Geneva that fleshed out the requirements for the humane treatment of detainees, including those who were not captured in an international conflict state sponsored, i.e., rebel groups in civil wars.
But even that did not foresee the capture, detention and prosecution - if any -- of transnational, armed groups in mufti like al Qaeda.
In any event, the Senate refused to ratify the agreement after it submitted by the Reagan administration - as it has ever since.
The administration of George W. Bush had no interest in reviving it, and the Obama administration has not yet taken it up.
That would be followed by an international campaign for a comprehensive new set of rules under Geneva.
The squabbling and animosity between the United States and the rest of the democratic world on handling terrorism has got to end, Gerke said.
"Let's stop throwing stones at each other."
![[RSS]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
![[ARCHIVES]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/archives_icon.png){kind=icon}
Comments
I found it intersting that the attendees "for the most part human rights lawyers and scholars, recent government counterterrorism officials, and national security journalists" are now labeled as "European Officials." That's a bit misleading don't you think? If not, then when do we start referring to members of Code Pink or listeners to Air America's Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz as "American Officials."
Quite frankly, this wouldn't have been an issue had the Americans not thought about the Law of War and the rules governing treatment of enemy combatants (uniformed or otherwise) and if you remember, CIA officer Johnny "Mike'' Spann was killed in a prison riot at Mazar-e-Sharif in northern Afghanistan in a situation where had he and his fellow operatives wiped out most of those that were detained he'd still be alive today. I'm not suggesting murder on the battlefield but you get my point.
Matt Gerke goes on to say that the squabbling and animosity between the United States and the rest of the democratic world on handling terrorism has got to end. Oh really Matt. How many countries are now fighting today's undeclared, seemingly interminable, so-called war on terrorism, such as al Qaeda operatives or the Taliban as the author put's it? I think that the countries that are bearing the brunt of the war such as the US, UK and Canada should decide on how to deal with those that are captured on the battlefield and I have to point out that getting a ticket to Gitmo is far better treatment than what many of our soldiers who have been murdered and their bodies desecrated at the hands of their captors have received.
If there were to be a new Geneva Agreement that was pushed by that mythical American figure with International stature (I can only assume that he means B Hussein Obama), do you really think our troops would be treated well by their Muslim captors or continue being recipients of a beheading?
Let's face it, this might be an issue that deserves to be discussed at some point and laid to rest but you gave validity to those that don't have a dog in this fight. "Italian officials"........ that's laughable.
Posted by: osocampana
| June 8, 2009 11:42 AM
I think you misread my piece. I did not lump together all the attendees as European officials. By the way, Italian and other European prosecutors do not deserve your scorn. They have won scores of convictions of al Qaeda operatives and other terrorists, far more than U.S. authorities.
Posted by: Jeff Stein
| June 8, 2009 3:42 PM
Post A Comment