KavkazCenter - Terrorist in the White House?

Terrorist in the White House?

Ever since Mr. Bush came to power, he systematically flouted international agreements that the U.S. signed up to in the past.

Although previous leaders of the United States might not be able to claim much better records, it is clear that the current U.S. President is not even making an attempt to stick to these numerous treaties, laws and obligations.

Bast week, the U.S. Supreme Court rebuked the American President and his anti-terror policies, dealing a major blow to his efforts to fix his tarnished image before November midterm elections. The court ruled that Bush overstepped his authority by creating military tribunals for prisoners at the controversial Guantánamo Bay detention center, reining in part of the administration's prosecution of the so-called "war on terrorism".

The ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that military commissions for trying suspects held at Guantánamo Bay violate both U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention, came as a real slap in the face of the American President.

But what's striking in the court decision is holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda, which makes senior officials at the Bush administration subject to prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act.

Geneva Convention provisions were aimed at protecting noncombatants in times of war. But Mr. Bush has long argued that most of these protections apply only to conflicts between states. And since Al Qaeda network, which Washington claims is responsible for September 11 attacks that hit the U.S. in 2001, is not a state, Bush's administration consider Geneva Convention not applicable to its so-called "war on terror".

"These assertions gave the administration's arguments about the legal framework for fighting terrorism a through-the-looking-glass quality. On the one hand, the administration argued that the struggle against terrorism was a war, subject only to the law of war, not U.S. criminal or constitutional law. On the other hand, the administration said the Geneva Convention didn't apply to the war with Al Qaeda because it applies only to an "armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties", which put the war on terror in an anything-goes legal limbo," stated a recent editorial on Los Angeles Times.

This provided the current U.S. government with the legal cover needed for its disgraceful policies, ranging from setting Guantánamo military tribunals to Bush's efforts to hold even U.S. citizens indefinitely without counsel, charge or trial, justifying his claim that those the administration labels "terror suspects" could be subjected to degrading and inhuman interrogation methods, including torture, physical and psychological abuse, the editorial added.

According to Bush's administration logic, such methods were not illegal under U.S. law because U.S. law was trumped by the law of war, and they weren't illegal under the law of war either, because Geneva Convention prohibitions on torture and cruel treatment were not applicable to the conflict with Al Qaeda.

The court's declaration that Common Article 3 applies to Bush's alleged campaign to root out terrorism worldwide carries great significance, for it will pave the way for war crimes prosecutions of those responsible for crimes committed against detainees.

Common Article 3 prohibits "cruel treatment and torture [and] outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment," which means that most of the interrogation techniques used inside Guantánamo jail and approved by the Bush administration are forbidden, and that's why Bush claimed that Common Article 3 is not applicable to his "war on terror".

This resolves the debate about interrogation techniques. The federal criminal law stipulates that whoever "commits a war crime ... shall be fined ... or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death." Also a war crime is defined "any conduct ... which constitutes a violation of Common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva." This means that U.S. officials responsible for subjecting terror suspects to torture, cruel treatment or other "outrages upon personal dignity" could be sentenced to jail or even sentenced to death.

But key Republican figures seem intent to come up with a military tribunal system offering prisoners a watered-down version of a court martial.

In response to the Court ruling on Thursday, John McCain, who introduced legislation in Congress banning the use of torture and other inhumane treatment of detainees, said the tribunals should be based on the U.S. Code of Military Justice, the basis of the U.S. court martial system.

"But they shouldn't be exactly the same as that which applies to a member of the U.S. military," he said.

"The U.S. Code of Military Justice is a good framework and we should work from there.

"Using the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, we can make sure that bad guys - and there are bad guys - are not released and those who deserve to be released will be."

Other Republicans echoed Senator McCain's remarks.

Senator Lindsay Graham, a former U.S. Navy senior prosecutor, said he hoped Congress would pass a law that gives Bush's admin. the authority to set tribunals for 14 Guantánamo detainees.

"I intend to sit down with the Administration and come up with a process that holds terrorists accountable, to give them a fair trial, but to make sure that if they do the things we're alleging, they're fairly punished," he said.

On the other hand, Democrats are calling for a wide-ranging review of the administration's anti-terrorists campaign, including wire-tapping program by the National Security Agency.

Major Michael Mori, the lawyer representing Australian Guantánamo Bay detainee David Hicks, who's facing charges of "conspiracy to commit war crimes, attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent and aiding the enemy", called for holding a regular court martial or a Federal Court trial for his client.

"We have said all along that we would accept a regular court martial," he said.

"You have to ask just why they have been so keen to avoid normal court martial proceedings for detainees like David," Major Mori said.

"Is it because a court martial would not guarantee a conviction?"

Source: AlJazeera