In 1949 the US government signed the
Geneva Conventions as one of the undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments. Under Convention III, Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPW), Article 1, "The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances".
Okay, I'm not a lawyer with the background and experience of our Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. I am only a layperson curious about what the US government signed up for after WWII.
Follow me below the fold if you want to hear my interruption of this 'quaint' international treaty.
Now it is my understanding that AG Gonzales in his capacity of WH Counsel to the President felt that Article 3 was the 'quaint' part.
Article 3 basically says that in armed conflicts where persons taking no active part in the hostilities, i.e. prisoners of war, "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth or any other similar criteria".
The Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines war as "a state of hostility, conflict or antagonism".
In Counsel to the President Gonzales own memo of January 25, 2002 he argued that "A determination that the Taliban and its forces were, in fact, not a government, but a militant, terrorist-like group". This is what is the basis for not applying the Geneva Conventions to the terrorists.
Secretary of State Colin Powell responded that the position of applying the Geneva Convention "provides the strongest legal foundation for what we actually intend to do. It presents a positive international posture, preserves US credibility and moral authority by taking the high ground".
Article 2 of the GPW states that "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations".
Article 4 defines a prisoner of war as, "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces".
Here is my interpretation of what the Geneva Convention says regarding prisoners of war. The first article says that if you sign then you are legally obligated to abide in all circumstances. There isn't any shade of gray or other ambiguity in it.
The Bush administration and its lackeys have tried to twisted Article 3 and use it as a 'get out of our international treaty obligations'. Never once does any of the WH brain trust mention Article 1. They can't because to acknowledge it would put their 'quaint' interpretation in jeopardy.
Neither do they ever mention Article 4 because what is stated would seem to cover al Qeada combatants.
Article 2 doesn't specially call out war. Instead it uses the term 'in conflict'. After 9-11 the US indeed found itself 'in conflict' with al Qeada.
I guess this is to be expected of the likes of this administration. Any half-assed argument can and will be used as justification to do whatever this administration pleases.
All I can say is it seems pretty clear to me that we signed an international treaty in good faith and we have dishonored our country by finding a lame-ass excuse to not follow it.