Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
On 2 Apr, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:51:09AM -0400, judd@wadsworth.org wrote:
>>
>> No, actually the executive order was written to obfuscate the
>> issue. It was pretty widely reported in the press that this order,
>> and the memos that it references were specifically written to provide
>> immunity to prosecution under the US War Crimes Act, after some
>> members of the administration, particularly in the CIA, expressed
>> worry that they may be so prosecuted. I'm surprised that you seem to
>> be unaware of this.
>>
> I'm quite aware of what the media reported. However, I have yet to
> presented with a convincing argument of why I should ever believe
> anything reported by the news media.
> ...
My mistake; I inferred from your response to Arnt that you truly
weren't aware of which order he was referring to. However, in your
last post, you stated:
> ... As a matter of policy, the United States
> Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the
> extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a
> manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.
>
> So, it is the stated policy of the US gonvernment, that even though
> the Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees are *not legally entitled* to
> protection under the GCs, they still be *accorded the protection*! It
> seems like the "GCs don't apply" quote was taken out of context quite
> badly.
Since some of the al-Qaeda and taliban prisoner's were in fact denied
their GC protections, by being tortured, mistreated, etc., it's pretty
obvious that the "QCs don't apply" provision was the operational part
of this order, and not "taken out of context quite badly". It's more
reasonable to conclude that the other language was included as
whitewash.
-Chris
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Christopher Judd, Ph. D. judd@wadsworth.org |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: