The administration’s decision that all detainees
By on Jul 11th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
The administration’s decision that all detainees
are protected under the Geneva Conventions is “not really a reversal of policy†White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said today. (Actually, it is.)
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
It depends on your definition of “not really”.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:43 pmTony Snow left Fox/Saudi News to become the press liason of “The Ministry Of Truth”.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:44 pmRight, it’s not a reversal of policy.
It’s more like a court order.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:48 pmThis administration is abetting the terrorists if it follows the law of the US and treats them like human beings in our captivity.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:57 pmWH: We intended to take this path to justice all the time, but had to wait for the Supreme Court decision to insure that our continued efforts to be an open, honest and just administration were on track. We will now show you that random and unfounded detention and torture of anyone we want is justified. BTW, oil prices will drop to $1.01 a gallon sometine soon, just as we intented all along.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:58 pmnot so much a reversal as it is just following the law
July 11th, 2006 at 1:59 pmthey change their tune after SCOTUS ruled against them. But for 5 years they have been breaking the treaty, US law and commiting what is considered War Crimes, using tortue ,etc
July 11th, 2006 at 2:03 pmThey need to round up and charge / put on trial, whoever ordered these actions ( Bush all the way down) and those that broke the law following unlawfull oders.
they changed the type of bullets, typed of bombs, the types of torture. and this admin has the audacity to talk about the brutallity of the iraq people in retaliation. f. cowards. lets talk about the brutallity of the american government on the iraq folks. you beat a dog chained up once you let the dog loose it will come after you. same analogy with the iraqi people. let’s not get it twisted folks.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:07 pmflip de flop
July 11th, 2006 at 2:08 pmThe administration’s decision that all detainees are protected under the Geneva Conventions is “not really a reversal of policyâ€
Well, isn’t. It’s using existing laws that were willfully ignored.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:12 pmIf it weren’t a reversal, why would they make such an announcement. Do they think we’re really that stupid?
July 11th, 2006 at 2:12 pmUp is Down,
July 11th, 2006 at 2:17 pmDown is Up
They need to round up and charge / put on trial, whoever ordered these actions ( Bush all the way down) and those that broke the law following unlawfull oders.
I second the motion. We are after all not talking about breaking parking regulations, people have been killed.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:17 pmMy peeps,
This is a serious question? What does it take to bring charges against, let’s say Bush for example, at The Hague? What is the process? How is the process started? How would bringing charges against Bush be different from bring charges against Rummy? Would it be easier from a legal point of view to bring charges against Rummy? I would like to know more about how The Hague works. Thank you.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:21 pmIt’s not a reversal so much as it is a 180 degree change in direction.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:21 pmblack = white,
July 11th, 2006 at 2:22 pmup = down
And the black mark grows….
July 11th, 2006 at 2:23 pmis it retroactive to include the gitmo prisoners that are already in custody?
July 11th, 2006 at 2:26 pmA reversal from the disgrace of war crimes has no meaning until Bush himself is prosecuted.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:31 pm14 —-This is a serious question? What does it take to bring charges against, let’s say Bush for example, at The Hague? What is the process? How is the process started? How would bringing charges against Bush be different from bring charges against Rummy? — dixie blood
First, the current congress that has been covering up and blocking investigations has to impeach Bush.Then he can be charged and tried. Bush as long as he is the sitting, unimpeached president cannot be arrested and put on trial.
Rummy does not have the same protections the president does. They could arrest him today if a warrant was sworn out on him.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:32 pmI would like to know more about how The Hague works. Thank you.
This is problematic. The US has not signed up to the international criminal court, exactly so that they can do as they please without repercussions. The US has also negotiated bilateral exemptions with various countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_criminal_court#U.S._objections
Insisting that the US be exempt from trials for war crimes is the most outrageous double standard of our time, worse than this, it provides cover for war criminals to continue doing what they do with impunity.
Finally, unless you are serving in the military, or the government, you have nothing to fear from the ICC. The US refuses to sign up to the ICC for the same reasons Somalian war lords despise any kind of governance. They want to continue to do as they please, even if it’s a war crime.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:35 pmhere yah go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_criminal_court#How_cases_reach_the_ICC
July 11th, 2006 at 2:41 pmAnd, even if the USA had signed the ICC treaty, it would do what has being doing routinely with the UN resolutions that doesn’t like: simply ignore them and walk away. Who could call the USA into the carpet, if the USA GOP doesn’t want to be held accountable?
Simply it’s shameful, and ever claiming the moral high ground of the USA is upseting, at least.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:50 pmgreat…i have to be lucille ball in order to post on the site now….
thanks, think progress; i appreciate it–ban the norwegian, not me!
July 11th, 2006 at 2:52 pmThe neo-nuts try to create their own reallity. Tony Snow’s statement today is just another example.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:53 pmThe “administration” hasn’t changed policy, the Pentagon has. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here. While it is great that the DoD will have to comply with Geneva, until the “administration” as a whole is on board, specifically the CIA, this decision is pretty meaningless.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:04 pmdixie,
just to clarify:
bill clinton did sign on to the icc, but, the bush crime family essentially unsigned the treaty when he came into office.
there is much to the story, dixie, and if you are interested, i can link to some .pfs that will explain it. also, if you want to read a good book on the subject, i would suggest ‘war on terror‘ the standard text on the subject of the usa and the icc was written pre-9/11, and so i would suggest the first book mentioned or this one, both written post-9/11 and post-bush war-crimes.
i hope this is helpful,
the banned james risser
July 11th, 2006 at 3:22 pm#20, #21, #27, Thank you very much. I have alot of reading to do.
#20, Just a quick follow-up if you please. When Bush is out of office, is he as susceptible then at The Hague as Rummy is today?
July 11th, 2006 at 3:38 pm#20, #21, #27,
Thanks for the links and help.
#20, Would Bush be as susceptible as Rummy is today once Bush is out of office? Thanks.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:41 pmLol. Of course it wasn’t a change in position. They always KNEW that the detainees were under the genova conventions, they just chose to ignore it. NOw that they have been shut down by the courts they have no choice but to publicly say what they always knew.
Make no mistake, they are still going to ilelgally detain and torture and strip the rights from anyone they feel the need to terrorize…they are just going to try and hide it better. typicaly problem solving for the Bush admin.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:58 pm#20, Would Bush be as susceptible as Rummy is today once Bush is out of office? Thanks.
Comment by dixie blood
Once Bush is out of office, either impeached or after the next president is sworn in, he no longer has legal protection umbrella of the Ofice of President. He can get busted for his coke habit or drunk driving just like the rest of us. At least in theory.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:15 pmdixie,
there is hope. there is a war crimes statute in us law that does apply to all americans…
with any luck, an enlightened progressive such as russ feingold, might have his justice department investigate.
i have personally asked him to do so, and i suggest anyone against the war-crimes of the bush crime family do likewise.
the banned james risser
July 11th, 2006 at 4:35 pm“The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on” … the day will come when the soon-to-be-ex-King George will regret the casual hubris that sent so many thousands to their demise. He hides behind the stars and stripes today. Tomorrow the stripes may run the other way.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:50 pmNot a change in direction or policy? What is in Snow’s bloodstream that allows him to say this??? He can’t expect anyone (except ReichWingNuts) to believe him, does he?
All US military detainees, including those at Guantanamo Bay, are to be treated in line with the minimum standards of the Geneva Conventions.
The White House announced the shift in policy almost two weeks after the US Supreme Court ruled that the conventions applied to detainees.
President Bush had long fought the idea that US detainees were prisoners of war entitled to Geneva Convention rights…
[from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5169600.stm ]
July 11th, 2006 at 5:20 pmFLIP-FLOP!
July 11th, 2006 at 6:28 pmWhat it is going to take for one of the gutless spineless coward media types to stand up and say “Who the F@%( do you think you’re kidding, this was your position before and this is the change now”? Yeah…some liberal media.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:13 pm