It's provisions may be

July 11, 2006 8:45 PM

After resisting the concept for years, the Bush administration has now agreed that Guantanamo Bay detainees should enjoy the human rights protections afforded by the Geneva Convention. The move follows a recent US Supreme Court ruling that all terrorism suspects being held at the Cuban facility, including Australian one of the U.K's newest citizens David Hicks, should be treated in accordance with international law.
posted by Effigy2000 (22 comments total)

They're lying.
posted by IronLizard at 8:53 PM on July 11, 2006

The Bush Administration has decided to grant all detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre protections offered by the Geneva Convention.

Thanks, guys. We really appreciate your magnanimity here, allowing humans to be treated like humans. So glad you have decreed it worthwhile.

Fuck you all. Choke on a pretzel.
posted by secret about box at 8:55 PM on July 11, 2006

some good analysis.
posted by karson at 8:56 PM on July 11, 2006

Nice title. This is a bit of a dupe though.

And as I said in the last thread, if bush had managed to get another supreme court nominee in it would certainly have gone the other way. Or actually it would have been a 4-4 tie since Roberts rescued himself having already voted the other way in a lower court before being nominated
posted by delmoi at 9:07 PM on July 11, 2006

I think it's a sad statement on the state of American politics when "we've decided, after several years of thumbing our noses at it, to actually comply with the law of the land" can be received with a collective shrug of equanimity, rather than a mob wielding torches and pitchforks.
posted by chimaera at 9:07 PM on July 11, 2006

They won't do it. They'll 'interpret' the Supreme Court ruling in such a way that they comply on paper without actually having to do anything, you know, inconvenient.
posted by Malor at 9:11 PM on July 11, 2006

For the curious, the entire text of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Hopefully, Red Cross access to all the detainees will shed additional light on the non-torture conducted there.
posted by gsteff at 9:12 PM on July 11, 2006

So you can't retaliate to an attack of nuclear weapons with nukes because using them would violate the aggrement.
posted by HTuttle at 9:15 PM on July 11, 2006

Pentagon memo (w/commentary). http://www.slate.com/id/2145592/entry/0/
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 9:20 PM on July 11, 2006

HTuttlle: whoooosh.
posted by signal at 9:26 PM on July 11, 2006

HTuttle, don't be ridiculous. If a country is nuked the last thing they'll be thinking about is the geneva convention.
posted by Citizen Premier at 9:35 PM on July 11, 2006

or what signal said.
posted by Citizen Premier at 9:36 PM on July 11, 2006

HTuttle: Trooooll.
posted by Zozo at 9:38 PM on July 11, 2006

So you can't retaliate to an attack of nuclear weapons with nukes because using them would violate the aggrement.

If killing people who took no active part in the hostilities is your idea of retaliation, then no, you can't do that. But you'll be dead, so you'll have more important things to worry about, like how you ended up with all the other people whose idea of retalation is killing people who took no active part in the hostilities.
posted by scottreynen at 9:42 PM on July 11, 2006

Already posted today (from a different source).
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 9:43 PM on July 11, 2006

Are they going to be redesignated as prisoners of war rather than illegal combatants? If not, then really, when it comes down to it, this decision doesn't really matter.
posted by cellphone at 10:04 PM on July 11, 2006

I really don't like the language they're using here. No one 'grants' rights -- they're inherent. I guess I'd echo Mikey-San's sentiment, but I believe that this is at least a positive step. Though it does seem very similar to a non-apology apology.
posted by breath at 10:14 PM on July 11, 2006

Is HTuttle Harry Turtledove?

Lord, I hope not.
posted by sourwookie at 12:16 AM on July 12, 2006

A BBC article points out that this doesn't apply to people held by the CIA.
posted by chunking express at 4:45 AM on July 12, 2006

No, HTuttle is a plumber.
posted by Atreides at 4:53 AM on July 12, 2006

I echo cellphone. I don't understand how this changes anything unless they become POWs. And they didn't said they would. If they remain illegal combatants the Geneva convention still does not apply. Smoke and mirrors?
posted by keijo at 5:21 AM on July 12, 2006

And, to quote the BBC article "are to be treated in line with the minimum standards of the Geneva Conventions." Which to my mind means that their status is not changed but they will be treated as such. Oh, what mercy! What it actually means that they still can do what they want to them depending on their interpretation of "in line with the minimum standards".
posted by keijo at 5:23 AM on July 12, 2006