Colin Powel attacks bush anti-terror policies

[e-brake]

NEWSWATCH 50 || WWTI Watertown - Powell extends support to GOP dissenters on terror tactics

WASHINGTON (AP) - Colin Powell is stepping in to oppose his old boss on plans for interrogating terror suspects.

The former secretary of state has endorsed efforts by rebellious GOP senators who insist that President Bush's proposal for questioning terror suspects should comply with the Geneva Conventions.

Powell writes to Senator John McCain that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis" of the U.S. fight against terrorism. The one-time Joint Chiefs chair also says departing from the international standard would "put our own troops at risk."

Powell's letter was made public as President Bush visited Capitol Hill to ask Republicans to back his strategies for handling terror suspects and employing warrantless eavesdropping.

McCain and Senators John Warner and Lindsey Graham oppose Bush's plan.

[Dionysos]

Which btw, the Senate panel approved the bill against Dubya's wishes.

Senate panel defies Bush on terror - Yahoo! News

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

GW has asserted that the administration's policy IS to comply with Geneva.

The problem has been that critics wish to extend POW status to non-lawful combatants who were intentionally given minimal protections under Geneva. There is a difference. Lawful combatants are soldiers with uniforms etc etc. Non-lawful combatants are those who wear no uniform, have no identifiable central command etc etc etc.. everything that the insurgents in Irqa and Taliban fighters are... Carry on drama ass

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

Which btw, the Senate panel approved the bill against Dubya's wishes.

Senate panel defies Bush on terror - Yahoo! News

Interesting issue. Opens a separation of powers problem. If GW is engaging in his Art II duties Congress cannot dictate to him how to do it... policy wise. The Congressional check on executive war power is the power of the purse not legislation.

The problem here as with pretty much every issue including the status of detainees is that "war on terror" cannot be reconciled in many people's minds as a real war. It is siomething between war and not war and as such real war rules don't apply... something less does. Trouble is... we don't know what they are.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

GW has asserted that the administration's policy IS to comply with Geneva.

Only after the Supreme Court ruled he HAS TO. Otherwise they would have been 'illegal combatants' or whatever they were calling them until the dawn of time.

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

Only after the Supreme Court ruled he HAS TO.

No, the administration said it would comply since day 1. The court disagreed with the administration with what is compliant.

The court's recent ruling over-ruled the lower courts ruling... authored by Chief Justice Roberts whjen on the Apellate Court. I forget the exact split but it was close - Roberts of couirse had to recuse himself. Anyway, its not a clear cut case by any argument. The court ruled in a way that took a more generous view towards detainees.

Its my opinion that it did so because of the comment I made earlier. Many people don't see this "war on terror" as a real war and therefore we should be a bit nicer to the bad guys than we would be if it was WWII and we caught a couple Germans in New York plotting to blow shit up... I believe they were caught, put before a military tribunal, convicted and executed. There is a case on the books with essentially those facts. The court said we can't deal today they way we dealt then.

Now, I'm not unsympathetic to the notion that this is not "war" in the sense that Geneva contemplated. But neither are the people we are fighting the type that Geneva sought to protect... they are the type they specificly chose not to protect.

But times change. We need clearly defined rules for this kind of quasi-war. The right needs to quit treating this as WWII (it isn't) and the left needs to stop treating the detainees as if they are common criminals entitled to constitutional protections (they aren't and they aren't).

What is going on is frankly, good for democracy. The three branches are fighting out the details of an important issue (the rules that apply in this quasi-war). Opponents of GW call that subverting the constitution but those comments are hollow political drek taken seriously only by people ruled by passion rather than their brains.


Headlines like "Senate Panel defies Bush" look to passion not brains.


As I understand it... the issue is the article thart addesses humiliation and dignity. The problem is that it is so vague as to be meaningless. Some say legisl;atibng top clarify it makes us look like we are abandoning Geneva. To those people... fuck you. Our government's job is protecting America not protecting American PR. Define it... make it clear. Give us definitions, rules etc and make them understood and then failure to comply can be dealth with without running to so vagure and over broad bullshit.


so there

Originally Posted by Dionysos

Otherwise they would have been 'illegal combatants' or whatever they were calling them until the dawn of time.

Geneva offers little to no protection for unlawful combatants because they were deemed to be criminals of war.... there are saboteurs of WWII. Spies blowing up bridges etc etc... they look in most ways like the guys in Gitmo except that the guys in Gitmo have even less claim to legitimacy than the Germans in WWII caught in New york. Now the alternative is to capture them, quickly define their staus and then punish them... death is not off the books and is much easier to hand down in combat related cases. A speedy system is probably not something any prisoner would appreciate... Lastly, war is an Article II issue - as far as how it is prosecuted - and that is an executive power.... see above in re: quasi and defining new rules.

[Darren Afrika-ka-ka]

aaaah, the turning of the old guard..the last days of Bush

[e-brake]

I got LOL's this weekend as Tony Snow said that "Mr. Powell was misquoted" followed by Colin Powell saying no I wasnt.

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

But doesnt the SCOTUS define and interpret even International Treaties for the executive once those treaties are made?

Sure, but before they rule on an issue the treaty is still in effect and is given the application that the partty acting under it believes to be correct. Man... lets try again... until the court rules on an issue one doesn't know what the court rules on an issue. So one uses what they believe to be permissible application.

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

Also, the though the administration has indeed always stated that they would follow the GC, their disdain for the treaty is more than apparent, as are their efforts to circumvent it.

Foreign prisons right? Clinton policy not one invented by GW - just used in greater frequency because of the obvious different issues to be dealt with. And, ended.

That these issues traveled up the courts (and VERY quickly) is a demonstration of him working within the sysetm of checks and balances. Now, if GW said, "OH yeah SCOTUS. Fuck you. I'm going to do it the way you said is impermissible at law anyway" then the GW is skirting the law crowd would have a stronger point. But he has not done that. I've got minimal affection for GW but I do believe he has pushed the envelope as far as he believed he legally could. I think that's is exactly what his Art II duties require him to do. The court in places agreed with him and in others didn't. Where it didn't he has changed policy to conform.

Lastly, the overwhelming majority of people held by the US qualify for only the most minimal of GC protections. Take a look at the definitions and distinctuions for lawful vs unlawful combatant. Those distinctions exist intentionally. SCOTUS blurred that line and created more protections for non-lawful combatants.... now, see my comments to Jonny... I'm not unsympathetic to that but there needs to be a substantial overhaul of policy and definitions to classify our current "war" as something between war as commonly understood and police activity - - because currently many, imo, see it as one or the other and frankly, each branch is through policy carving out a new class - - we need to just come right out and say it and do it rather than go at it piecemeal.


here's article 4 which contains the requirements to have POW status - those who do not meet these requirements are "unlawful"

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

bolded the part that, afaik, comes the closest to permitting the bulk of the detainees to be considered POWs... there are a number of criteria where the bulk are going to fall woefully short

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. .

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by xian

GW has asserted that the administration's policy IS to comply with Geneva.

The problem has been that critics wish to extend POW status to non-lawful combatants who were intentionally given minimal protections under Geneva. There is a difference. Lawful combatants are soldiers with uniforms etc etc. Non-lawful combatants are those who wear no uniform, have no identifiable central command etc etc etc.. everything that the insurgents in Irqa and Taliban fighters are... Carry on drama ass

I don't give a toss what they wear, tbh, afaik nowhere in the geneva convention does it say that soldiers HAVE to wear a uniform, infact if it did I'm sure you (and I) would be the first to object to it as it would hinder our ability to conduct covert operations.

These people are fighting a war, that makes them combatants, whether they are lawful or not has no bearing.

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by Krash

I don't give a toss what they wear, tbh, afaik nowhere in the geneva convention does it say that soldiers HAVE to wear a uniform, infact if it did I'm sure you (and I) would be the first to object to it as it would hinder our ability to conduct covert operations.

But your troops and ours do wear uniforms T. No debating that.

Originally Posted by Krash

These people are fighting a war, that makes them combatants, whether they are lawful or not has no bearing.

Except that Geneva did contemplate the insurgents and made provisions for when fighters of that kind fall under Geneva's protection. See the part I put in bold type. These fighters will have a very hard time arguing that they are prisoners of war and afforded the full protections of Geneva.



Again, I understand where you're coming from - I don't entirely agree but neither do I entirely disagree (go figure that huh? ) We need a new classification to set up the rules for the current type of engagement - it needs to be clear and it needs to address these issues that fall between what we've traditionally thought of as war and what we think of as criminal...

[Krash]

Originally Posted by xian

But your troops and ours do wear uniforms T. No debating that.

Only some of them mate. And that's excluding the under-cover intelligence agents we put at risk every time we classify another "agent" or "insurgent" as "illegal combatant". Sure, the risk is negligible, but why make it worse?

I agree that we need new and more specific classifications... providing such classifications don't leave room for ANYONE to, carte blanche, decide that person x can be treated beyond "the law". Torture is ineffective, it's sinking to their level on the most basic level and it does our cause absolutely no good whatsoever.

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by Krash

Only some of them mate. And that's excluding the under-cover intelligence agents we put at risk every time we classify another "agent" or "insurgent" as "illegal combatant". Sure, the risk is negligible, but why make it worse?

You are referring to spies who are not covered by Geneva - they haven't ever been. That's one of the big risks of the business (unless your last name is Philby)

Originally Posted by Krash

I agree that we need new and more specific classifications... providing such classifications don't leave room for ANYONE to, carte blanche, decide that person x can be treated beyond "the law".

Without any doubt whatsoever. It offers protection to both sides (parties) of the equation.

Originally Posted by Krash

Torture is ineffective, it's sinking to their level on the most basic level and it does our cause absolutely no good whatsoever.

fundamental principle of American jurisprudence is that the coerced confession is inherently unreliable (it is the basis for our Miranda warnings)... however, we're not talking about criminal matters. We are talking about those of national security. This is no advocacy of torture. It is to say that what is and what is not torture needs to be very clearly defined for reasons you gave above. There are times when highly coercive methods may be not only called for but effective. The trouble will be defining which methods are permissible and which are not... and when

[Krash]

Originally Posted by xian

You are referring to spies who are not covered by Geneva - they haven't ever been. That's one of the big risks of the business (unless your last name is Philby)

I'm also referring to special forces soldiers that wear no uniform in order to "blend in". Who carry non-native weaponry and impersonate their enemy. Those ARE covered by Geneva.

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by Krash

I'm also referring to special forces soldiers that wear no uniform in order to "blend in". Who carry non-native weaponry and impersonate their enemy. Those ARE covered by Geneva.

ok - they still fit under a number of criteria that detainees wouldn't