A look at the recent deal struck between Republican senators and the Bush administration over interrogation of terrorists and how it fits in with the Geneva Convention.
The recent deal between the rebel Republican senators, headed by Senator John Warner, and the Bush Administration over terrorist interrogations has turned from a success for a Congress with a conscience to a success for the president. As details of the negotiations have come out in the press, it looks like Congress have yielded more to President Bush than he could have imagined at the beginning of this past week. The Republican bill features congressional oversight of CIA interrogations in places like Abu Ghraib while allowing the president to dictate American interpretations of the 1949 Geneva Convention on "less severe" interrogation methods. The rhetoric has flown about between Republicans and Democrats, but it is important to give the 1949 Geneva Convention another look and draw our own conclusions.
The 1949 Geneva Convention was an attempt by the major Western powers to deal with the atrocious treatment of war prisoners during World War II. In Part 1, Article 2 of the Convention, the protection of war prisoners and detainees is provided for with an initial definition of war. Essentially, if two or more of the signers to the Convention engage in a conflict, the protections against torture and inhumane treatment are in full force. Certainly, the coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq feature several signatories of the Convention. In addition, Article 3, Section 1 provides a list of those acts prohibited during war time. Included on this list are "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." The Bush Administration could hardly argue that stripping prisoners naked, taking degrading photos, or unleashing dogs upon helpless prisoners are acts of humane treatment.
While Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention's general provisions allow room for interpretation based on the potential threat of a particular prisoner of war, most of the provisions and the spirit of the document lean against the interrogation camps favored by the Bush Administration. The Supreme Court, the American public, and political leaders on both sides agree that maintaining the higher ground against feckless thugs is more important than what little information is received by dubious methods. If Congress passes the interrogation bill as is, the Bush Administration will need to tread lightly with their wide legal berth lest another Abu Ghraib sink a weakening mandate for the war on terror.
