U.S. to Follow Geneva Treaty for Detainees !!

[tricky]

WASHINGTON, July 11 — In a sweeping change of policy, the Pentagon has decided that it will treat all detainees in compliance with the minimum standards spelled out in the Geneva conventions, a senior defense official said today.
The new policy comes on the heels of a Supreme Court ruling last month invalidating a system of military tribunals the Pentagon had created to try suspected terrorists, and just before Congress takes up the question of a replacement system in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today.
As part of its decision, the court found that a key provision of the Geneva conventions, known as Common Article 3, did apply to terror suspects, contradicting the position taken by the Bush administration.
The Pentagon memo allowing detainees the protections of Article 3 was first reported today by The Financial Times.
In 2002, President Bush declared that members of Al Qaeda and other terror suspects seized during the invasion of Afghanistan were “illegal combatants,’’ and so were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva conventions, which among other things set forth rules for the treatment of prisoners of war.
The main thrust of the recent Supreme Court ruling, in a case known as Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, was that the administration had exceeded its authority by creating a system of tribunals without the approval of Congress. But the court also declared that the suspects fell under Article 3, which applies to all “armed combatants,’’ and that detainees were able to assert their rights under Article 3 in federal court.
President Bush last week said that he “would comply’’ with the court’s ruling, but he has given no details of how he would do so.
Since the court’s ruling, Republicans have appeared divided over whether to simply seek Congressional approval for a slightly modified tribunal system or to adopt a version of traditional courts-martial instead. The Pentagon memo reported today may simply reflect a decision that any new system that did not afford detainees the protections of Article 3 would not survive challenge in court.
Article 3 guarantees detainees a minimum level of rights expected in a civilized country. But what that includes and what procedures should govern their trials is expected to be the subject of lively Congressional debates all summer, beginning with today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.
Unlike four years ago, when the Bush administration formulated its plans for military commissions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the debate now seems certain to include the views of the military’s most senior uniformed lawyers, whose objections were brushed aside earlier.
John D. Hutson, a retired rear admiral who was the top uniformed lawyer in the Navy until 2000, is one of a number of retired senior military lawyers who have filed briefs challenging the administration’s legal approach.
“We’re at a crossroads now,” Admiral Hutson said. “We can finally get on the right side of the law and have a system that will pass Supreme Court and international scrutiny.”
He and some other current and former senior military lawyers are scheduled to testify this week before one of the three Congressional committees looking into the matter. He said he plans to urge Congress to avoid trying to get around last month’s Supreme Court ruling.
Beginning shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the military lawyers warned that the administration’s plan for military commissions put the United States on the wrong side of the law and breached international standards. Most important, they warned, the plan could endanger members of the American military who might someday be captured by an enemy and treated the way detainees at Guantánamo have been.
But the lawyers’ sense of vindication at the Supreme Court’s 5-to-3 decision is tempered by growing anxiety over what may happen next. Several military lawyers, most of them retired, have said they are troubled by the possibility that Congress may restore the kind of system they have long argued against.
Donald J. Guter, Admiral Hutson’s successor, who has also since retired, said it would be a mistake for Congress to try to undo the Supreme Court ruling. Admiral Guter was one of several senior military judge advocates general, known as JAG’s, whose advice against forming the military commissions went pointedly unheeded.

continued...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/wo...gewanted=print

[elNastioBananaHando]

Thats weird but interesting. I just read an interesting article you guys should checkout called The End Of The Bush Revolution. The Article points to a shift in Foreign Policy that pushes towards the opposite direction. I think The Adminstration has finally come to terms with the fact the old way of thinking wasn't really helping. Iraq really didn't go as planned. Key players have been removed and fresh ideas are coming in. There might be hope after all! Then again I have been know to be too idealistic!