New York Times Editorial - Guantánamo and the law
New York Times Editorial - Guantánamo and the law
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: July 12, 2006
We were pleased to see the U.S. Defense Department finally recognize the power of the Supreme Court over prisoners of the military and order the armed forces to follow the Geneva Conventions requirement of decent treatment for all prisoners, even terrorism suspects. It was a real step forward for an administration that tossed aside the Geneva rules years ago and then tried to place itself beyond the reach of the courts.
However, the Pentagon memo released Tuesday claimed, falsely, that its prisoner policies already generally complied with the Geneva Conventions - the sole exception being the military commissions created by President George W. Bush and struck down by the high court. That disingenuousness may have simply been an attempt to save face. If so, it was distressing but ultimately not all that significant. What really matters is that Congress brings the military prisons back under the rule of law, and create military tribunals for terrorism suspects that will meet the requirements of the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.
The other thing that really matters is that the White House actually agrees to obey the law this time.
On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held the first of three hearings scheduled this week on this issue, and the early results were mixed. Most of the senators, including key Republicans, said they were committed to drafting legislation that did more than merely rubber- stamp the way Bush decided to set up Guantánamo Bay.
The government's witnesses, including top lawyers from the Justice and Defense Departments, seemed most interested in arguing that the military commissions were legal. They argued for what would be the worst possible outcome: that Congress just approve what Bush did and enact exceptions to the Geneva Conventions.
But Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift of the Navy, who represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the prisoner whose case was before the Supreme Court, provided damning evidence about how utterly flawed those commissions were - from military prosecutors. He quoted one, Captain John Carr of the Air Force (since promoted to major), who condemned "a halfhearted and disorganized effort by a skeleton group of relatively inexperienced attorneys to prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged."
The administration has professed its allegiance to the humane treatment of prisoners and to the rule of law before. But repairing the constitutional balance of powers and America's profoundly damaged global image demand more than lip service.
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: July 12, 2006
We were pleased to see the U.S. Defense Department finally recognize the power of the Supreme Court over prisoners of the military and order the armed forces to follow the Geneva Conventions requirement of decent treatment for all prisoners, even terrorism suspects. It was a real step forward for an administration that tossed aside the Geneva rules years ago and then tried to place itself beyond the reach of the courts.
However, the Pentagon memo released Tuesday claimed, falsely, that its prisoner policies already generally complied with the Geneva Conventions - the sole exception being the military commissions created by President George W. Bush and struck down by the high court. That disingenuousness may have simply been an attempt to save face. If so, it was distressing but ultimately not all that significant. What really matters is that Congress brings the military prisons back under the rule of law, and create military tribunals for terrorism suspects that will meet the requirements of the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.
The other thing that really matters is that the White House actually agrees to obey the law this time.
On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held the first of three hearings scheduled this week on this issue, and the early results were mixed. Most of the senators, including key Republicans, said they were committed to drafting legislation that did more than merely rubber- stamp the way Bush decided to set up Guantánamo Bay.
The government's witnesses, including top lawyers from the Justice and Defense Departments, seemed most interested in arguing that the military commissions were legal. They argued for what would be the worst possible outcome: that Congress just approve what Bush did and enact exceptions to the Geneva Conventions.
But Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift of the Navy, who represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the prisoner whose case was before the Supreme Court, provided damning evidence about how utterly flawed those commissions were - from military prosecutors. He quoted one, Captain John Carr of the Air Force (since promoted to major), who condemned "a halfhearted and disorganized effort by a skeleton group of relatively inexperienced attorneys to prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged."
The administration has professed its allegiance to the humane treatment of prisoners and to the rule of law before. But repairing the constitutional balance of powers and America's profoundly damaged global image demand more than lip service.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 9:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home