The Runaround on Geneva

Just a quick review of Condoleezza Rice’s statements yesterday on the Bush administration’s position regarding the Geneva Convention:

1.) President Bush determined that al Qaeda detainees should not be protected by the Geneva Convention: “We did not want to afford to people who did not — shouldn’t enjoy certain protections those protections. And the Geneva Conventions should not apply to terrorists like al Qaeda. They can’t or you will stretch the meaning of the Geneva Convention.”

2.) But President Bush determined that all detainees should be treated consistently with our “international obligations”: “the president has been very clear that he expects everyone to live up to our international obligations and to American law.”

3.) Then, President Bush determined that our “international obligations” are consistent with “the principles” of the Geneva Convention: “I believe that the president, as a policy matter, decided that in order to protect American interests but also in order to live up to our obligations internationally…that the right policy call was to treat the detainees, even al Qaeda detainees, consistent with our obligations or consistent with the principles of Geneva.”

So, to recount, the Bush administration treats all prisoners — even al Qaeda detainees it does not consider protected by the Geneva Convention — consistent with our “international obligations” and those obligations are “consistent with the principles of Geneva.” It all sounds reassuring, but is basically meaningless. The Geneva Convention is a contract — it doesn’t consist of “principles,” it consists of laws. By pronouncing those laws “quaint,” the Bush administration has opened up a legal (and moral) “black hole” whereby virtually anything can be construed as “consistent” with “our obligations.”

The ambiguity of the situation was evidenced yesterday by Rice’s inability answer one specific question about detainee treatment: Did methods such as forced nudity and water boarding constitute torture?

If the new secretary of state can’t answer that question, you can imagine the position those less versed in the complexities of the Bush administration legal code are in.