Yoo's states that the Geneva conventions only apply under a set of very narrow circumstances: war between signatory recognized states, wearing uniforms, following the "rules of war". This is a flat out lie, easily shown by almost a century of legal findings *by the US government*. Did NLF wear uniforms in Vietnam? (was even N. Vietnam a recognized state?) Did the Nazis follow the "rules of war"? Why did we insist the Soviets were obliged by the Geneva Conventions when THEY fought the Taliban's precursor? The list goes on and on.
Perhaps it is just best to remind ordinary Americans of one litmus test. In Hollywood's WWII films it was always the Nazis who said the Geneva Conventions didn't apply; the good guys always stuck up for them. Maybe that should be the point of nostalgia after D-Day and before we get to the commemorations next May of the end of WWII.
Paul
At 06:32 AM 6/11/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>http://www.latimes.com
>COMMENTARY
>With 'All Necessary and Appropriate Force'
>In interrogations, U.S. actions align with treaties and Congress' wishes.
>By John C. Yoo
>
>John C. Yoo, a law professor at UC Berkeley and a visiting scholar at the
>American Enterprise
>Institute, worked from 2001 to 2003 at the Justice Department, where he
>analyzed the Geneva
>Convention's a
>
>June 11, 2004
>
>Official Washington has been struck by a paroxysm of leaking. It involves
>classified memos analyzing
>how the Geneva Convention, the 1994 Torture Convention and a federal law
>banning torture apply to
>captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Critics suggest that the Bush
>administration sought to
>undermine or evade these laws. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) claimed
>this week that the analyses
>appeared "to be an effort to redefine torture and narrow prohibitions
>against it."
>
>This is mistaken. As a matter of policy, our nation has established a
>standard of treatment for
>captured terrorists. In February 2002, President Bush declared that the
>detainees held at Guantanamo
>Bay, Cuba, would be treated "humanely and, to the extent appropriate and
>consistent with military
>necessity, consistent with the principles" of the Geneva Convention.
>Detainees receive shelter,
>food, clothing, healthcare and the right to worship.
>
>This policy is more generous than required. The Geneva Convention does not
>apply to the war on
>terrorism. It applies only to conflicts between its signatory nations. Al
>Qaeda is not a nation; it
>has not signed the convention; it shows no desire to obey the rules. Its
>very purpose - inflicting
>civilian casualties through surprise attack - violates the core principle
>of laws of war to spare
>innocent civilians and limit fighting to armed forces. Although the
>convention applies to the
>Afghanistan conflict, the Taliban militia lost its right to
>prisoner-of-war status because it did
>not wear uniforms, did not operate under responsible commanders and
>systematically violated the laws
>of war.
>
>It is true that the definition of torture in the memos is narrow, but that
>follows the choice of
>Congress. When the Senate approved the international Torture Convention,
>it defined torture as an
>act "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or
>suffering." It defined
>mental pain or suffering as "prolonged mental harm" caused by threats of
>physical harm or death to a
>detainee or a third person, the administration of mind-altering drugs or
>other procedures
>"calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality." Congress
>adopted that narrow
>definition in the 1994 law against torture committed abroad, but it
>refused to implement another
>prohibition in the convention - against "cruel, inhuman or degrading
>treatment or punishment" -
>because it was thought to be vague and undefined.
>
>Physical and mental abuse is clearly illegal. But would limiting a
>captured terrorist to six hours'
>sleep, isolating him, interrogating him for several hours or requiring him
>to do physical labor
>constitute "severe physical or mental pain or suffering"? Federal law
>commands that Al Qaeda and
>Taliban operatives not be tortured, and the president has ordered that
>they be treated humanely, but
>the U.S. is not required to treat captured terrorists as if they were
>guests at a hotel or suspects
>held at an American police station.
>
>Finally, critics allege that the administration wants to evade these laws
>by relying on the
>president's commander-in-chief power. But the 1994 statute isn't being
>evaded, because the
>president's policy is to treat the detainees humanely. Besides, that
>statute does not explicitly
>regulate the president or the military. General criminal laws are usually
>not interpreted to apply
>to either, because otherwise they could interfere with the president's
>constitutional responsibility
>to manage wartime operations. If laws against murder or property
>destruction applied to the military
>in wartime, for instance, it could not engage in the violence that is a
>necessary part of war.
>
>But suppose Congress did specifically intend to restrict the president's
>authority to interrogate
>captured terrorists. As commander in chief, the president still bears the
>responsibility to wage
>war. To this day, presidents from both political parties have refused to
>acknowledge the legality of
>the War Powers Resolution, which requires congressional approval for
>hostilities of more than 60
>days. (President Clinton ignored it during Kosovo.) And in the war on
>terrorism, Congress has
>authorized the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force."
>
>By exploring the boundaries of what is lawful, the administration's
>analyses identified how a
>decision maker could act in an extraordinary situation. For example,
>suppose that the United States
>captures a high-level Al Qaeda leader who knows the location of a nuclear
>weapon in an American
>city. Congress should not prevent the president from taking necessary
>measures to elicit its
>location, just as it should not prohibit him from making other strategic
>or tactical choices in war.
>In hearings this week, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) recognized that
>"very few people in this
>room or in America . would say that torture should never, ever be used,
>particularly if thousands of
>lives are at stake."
>
>Ultimately, the administration's policy is consistent with the law. If the
>American people disagree
>with that policy, they have options: Congress can change the law, or the
>electorate can change the
>administration.