"Roberts: Geneva language could render U.S. troops vulnerable to prosecution" by Congressional Briefing / LJWorld.com

Blogs home Staff blogs Congressional Briefing

Roberts: Geneva language could render U.S. troops vulnerable to prosecution

Pat Roberts[(Reuters) White House sends mixed signals on detainee trials:][1] The Bush administration is sending Congress conflicting signals on how to try foreign terrorism suspects despite earlier calls for Congress to ratify the current system struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, senators said on Thursday. ... Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts said Congress must clarify Geneva Convention language barring inhumane treatment of prisoners that the Supreme Court said applied to U.S.-held detainees. Interrogators who got information leading to last month's killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, "could conceivably be held accountable" for war crimes under current language, the Kansas Republican said.Todd Tiahrt[(Common Dreams commentary) New Bill Would Put Government in Hands of Bush Cronies:][2] A new bill introduced in Congress would allow Bush administration cronies to recommend sweeping changes in the federal government - including the elimination of entire programs - and force those changes through Congress, according to the watchdog group OMB Watch. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) introduced H.R. 5766, the "Government Efficiency Act," the long-awaited sunset commission bill produced after months of negotiations led by House Majority Leader John Boehner. OMB Watch's director of regulatory policy, Robert Shull, issued this statement: "This bill is undemocratic. The bill would create unelected, unaccountable sunset commissions and give them the power to decide important questions that Congress should be answering - questions about the structure and function of the entire federal government. How to contact As always, you can find information to contact members of the Kansas congressional delegation [here.][3] [1]: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N13172539.htm [2]: http://www.yahoo.com/ [3]: http://ljworld.com/extra/where_to_write.html#fed

By Joel Mathis

July 14, 2006

Congressional Briefing

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

14 July 2006
at 10:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

'”Interrogators … could conceivably be held accountable” for war crimes under current language.'

What a canard!

The only means that “interrogators” are going “to be held accountable” would be if they violated the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice as written by Congress and as interpreted by the Dept. of Defense.

FM 34-52, Chapter 9 regarding Intelligence Interrogation in Low Intensity Conflicts explains what the rules are and why. Like any other part of the UCMJ there are penalties attached to violation of it. Every member of the armed forces has a duty to refuse any order that they believe validly to be in conflict with it.

Roberts suggests that failure of adherence to the Geneva Conventions - specifically following the “article 3” minimum standards on the treatment of prisoners carries liability to servicemen. That is false. The Geneva Conventions requires each nation to enact legislation to carry out their duties under the Convention and actively pursue violators under their laws. “Their law” - as in the required U.S. statute as a signatory - under Geneva IS the UCMJ, which does comply expressly with art. 3. In short, the only one who can be held responsible for Geneva violations internationally is the nation (specifically its military and political leadership), not the servicemen themselves (who are liable only domestically if they failed to refuse an illegal order).

Readers may recall the recent contretemps in the Congress with regard to torture - sometimes known as the “McCain Detainee Amendment”. It is an example of a Geneva signatory enacting statutory standards in compliance with the Convention. It was signed by the President into law. It clarifies further FM 34-52. (Readers may recall that while it passed the Senate with an overwhelming majority - 90 to 9 - our Senator Roberts was among the wicked nine.)

No, no. “Interrogators” need not worry about anything beyond whether they have violated the UCMJ - and even then prime liability lays on the heads of those in command.

Still, if I were, say, a certain military minister presently in the government of the U.S., I wouldn't be planning any vacations abroad after retirement. That's where Roberts' concerns are and why he wants to use U.S. servicemen/women as a “human shield” to protect any leader who may have given orders contrary to law.