I'd hoped to avoid political chit-chat while on vacation, but this was too important to pass up, since the argument has been raging on the BB for weeks..

White House Says Terror Detainees Hold Basic Rights
Concedesrotections of Geneva Convention Apply by law

By MARK MAZZETTI and KATE ZERNIKE

WASHINGTON, July 11 — The White House conceded on Tuesday for the first time that terror suspects held by the United States had a right under international law to basic human and legal protections under the Geneva Conventions.

The statement reverses a position the White House had held since shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, and it represents a victory for those within the administration who argued that the United States’ refusal to extend Geneva protections to Qaeda prisoners was harming the country’s standing abroad.

It said the White House would withdraw a part of an executive order issued by President Bush in 2002 saying that terror suspects were not covered by the Geneva Conventions.

The White House said the change was in keeping with the Supreme Court decision two weeks ago that struck down the military tribunals Mr. Bush established.

A Defense Department memorandum made public earlier Tuesday concluded that the court decision also meant that terror suspects in military custody had legal rights under the Geneva Convention.

The new White House interpretation is likely to have sweeping implications, because it appears to apply to all Qaeda and Taliban terror suspects now in the custody of the Central Intelligence Agency or other American intelligence organizations around the world.

From the outset, Mr. Bush declared that the battle against Al Qaeda would be a war like no other, but his administration has been forced to back away from its most forceful efforts to deny rights to terror suspects. [

Mr. Bush’s order of Feb. 7, 2002, issued shortly after American-led forces toppled the Taliban government in Afghanistan, specifically said that critical aspects of the Geneva Conventions do “not apply to either Al Qaeda or Taliban detainees.”

In response to a question, the White House issued a statement late Tuesday, saying: “As a result of the Supreme Court decision, that portion of the order no longer applies. The Supreme Court has clarified what the law is, and the executive branch will comply.”

The Pentagon memorandum, dated July 7, offered an unexpectedly conciliatory interpretation of the justices’ ruling 12 days ago that struck down White House rules for military tribunals that would have granted detainees the barest of rights. Until late Tuesday, the White House and the C.I.A. had been silent on whether detainees in the custody of intelligence agencies must also be granted those rights.

The memorandum, written by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England, summarized the Supreme Court findings and reminded officials to “ensure that all D.o.D. personnel adhere to these standards.”

The Pentagon currently holds approximately 1,000 Qaeda and Taliban detainees at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and at bases in Afghanistan. An estimated three dozen additional terror suspects, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is considered the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, are believed to be held by the C.I.A. at secret sites around the world.

Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A. spokeswoman, declined to comment on questions posed before the White House issued its statement.

Despite the new statements by the White House and the Pentagon, administration lawyers appearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday urged Congress to approve military commissions similar to those that the court said the president did not have authority to set up on his own. The lawyers played down the Pentagon announcement as representing not a policy shift but simply an announcement of the Supreme Court decision.

“We would ask this body to render its approval for the system as currently configured,” said Daniel J. Dell’Orto, the Pentagon’s principal deputy general counsel. “It would be a very expeditious way to move these trials forward.”

But the tribunal approach ran up against fierce resistance among Republicans as well as Democrats. Some lawmakers argued that the best way to set up a system to bring detainees to trial would be to start with the existing code of military justice, which grants wider rights to detainees, and adjust it to reflect the demands of prosecuting terrorists.

“If you fight that approach, it’s going to be long hot summer,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a former military lawyer who is expected to play a leading role in the debate over bringing detainees to trial.

The new Bush administration statement addresses questions surrounding a key provision of the 1949 Geneva Conventions known as Common Article 3, which prohibits cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners and requires that detainees receive “all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” Mr. Bush’s 2002 order came after a fierce debate about the rules for what the administration was calling a “different kind of war.”

In the new memorandum, Mr. England asserted that “the Supreme Court has determined that Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 applies as a matter of law to the conflict with Al Qaeda.”

Hey Neal why do you think that the White House conceded on this issue?

This demonstrates the real importance of the three branches of our government operating independantly of one another. There has been far too little of this in the past six yeats and it has cost us. It was the right thing for the White House to follow the law. All I can think is that Bush is getting better advice from his new chief of staff.

What's right is right.

Bear in mind here, BTW, that I never advocated the release of these prisoners.

As I've said on many occasions, as little confidence as I have in our government to make correct decisions, I still have enough to believe that if they say someone is a "suspected terrorist" I will give the government the benefit of the doubt - go ahead and arrest the guy or capture the guy or whatever.

But just saying it isn't good enough.

After imprisoning someone because they are a suspected terrorist, it's up to the government to prove it.

I also find it interesting that it now turns out that most of the detainees at Guantanamo are not considered to be terrorists or threats to the U.S.

I'm greatly disappointed by the White House on this issue.

What about the basic human rights to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that so many people lost on 9/11 during a terrorist attack on our country on OUR own soil? Who's protecting their rights?

If you want to compare two things situations which really have nothing to do with one another, I guess you could say that it was successive presidential administrations that failed to protect their rights by not heeding warnings about what may have been preventable terrorist attacks against the United States.

But really, one thing has to do with the other.

Because 2000+ people were killed by terrorists on 9/11, that now means that the government can accuse anyone they wish of being a terrorist, and all of those accused now have no rights?

The people killed on 9/11 were not suspected criminals who need to have their rights protected, as all of us do.

By that logic, we might as well deny all accused of crimes in which there are victims their rights.

Someone is accused of burglary?

The accused burglar should be denied his rights. After all, who was protecting the rights of the person whose home was burgled.

An accused rapist?

Let's deny him his rights, because "Who was protecting the rights of the rape victim"?

A suspected mugger?

No rights for him either. Who was protecting the rights of his victim?

Why?

What is the problem with these people getting a fair trial?

Besides, didn't you notice where the government admitted that most of those being held are not terrorists and do not pose a threat to the U.S. after all?

Excellent. Let's just keep them there, secretly rotting, dying a little bit every day. Guantanamo is small potatoes. Hopefully the secret CIA prisons will evade any public or legal scrutiny.

I can't think of anything more ironic than a terrorist all dressed up with no place to blow himself up.

Twice now you've been the cheering section for this little nugget of "information," yet this isn't mentioned anywhere in the article.

ExGi - The victim is irrelevant. Our society no longer cares about the rights of those who are terrorized and victimized by the scum of society, but rather, choose to defend those who have defiled and ignored law and order in the name of civil liberties, fair trials, and some sort of perverted warping of right and wrong.

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"
Double-J