Since the terror attacks of September 11 and the official war on terror has commenced, questions have been raised as to how the United States should engage itself in regard to both its military operations and treatment of enemy combatants. Debate over the United States applying rules of war, namely the Geneva Conventions of 1949, has only become more controversial. While some have argued that the United States is obligated to conform to the Geneva Conventions Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, many policymakers have insisted otherwise. It has been contended that the war on terror is not a conventional war and therefore principles set forth under the Geneva Conventions do not apply. There exists an endless quantity of documentation surrounding the policy decisions of how to employ international law in the war on terror.
[...] Id. at 593. Id. at 594. The New York Times, Broad Use of Harsh Tactics Is Described [...]
[...] However, when the Convention was ratified by the United States, it was believed that “existing federal and criminal law was adequate to fulfill this obligation [of not torturing], and did not enact implementing legislation.”[7] Importantly, the United States set forth an express reservation in that it considered itself bound to the prohibition on cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment only to the extent that such treatment was prohibited by either the Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. [...]
[...] Likewise, al Queda detainees are not qualified as prisoners of war. The memorandum concluded with an overly broad assertion that the detainees are to be treated in a civilized manner. Specifically it stated, the detainees by treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.”[4] The provision allowed for great discretion on how interrogation was conducted on both the battlefields as well as the prisons such as Guantanamo Naval Base. Following, was a document issued by the U.S. [...]
[...] And they vow to fight without following the rules of law, according to conflict.”[15] To assure the public that the detainees in Guantanamo were enemies, Haynes explained they had been screened out of more than 10,000 in Afghanistan and reduced to a select few combatants who were held for ‘development of their intelligence value.' The most severe of the approved techniques used to interrogate constituted mild, non-injurious physical contact such as poking, grabbing, and lightly shoving. Haynes went on to explain that the classified list of techniques were approved as part of a military necessity with particular “safeguards” in place and only after an accompanying legal review was conducted.[16] The August 2004 Press Briefing was an attempt to explain that many of the previously released documents described the permissible legal framework surrounding interrogation practices and the applicability of the torture convention. [...]
[...] General Counsel Haynes concluded that have so much process at Guantanamo, so much more that is required by the Geneva Conventions The decision made by the Bush administration not to apply the Geneva Conventions to detainees at Guantanamo Bay naval base now appears to have many reverberating effects. There has been widespread documentation of abuse of detainees in Guantanamo. Many critics have linked the permissive legal interpretations applied in Cuba to the mistreatment of detainees at the Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq.[18] In addition, the denial of the right to allow those being held in Guantanamo to individual hearings has been directly challenged in U.S. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
