Analysis: The Geneva Convention Debate
Council on Foreign Relations
September 18, 2006
Prepared by: Lionel Beehner
Terrorist suspects can be interrogated but not tortured under international law. But the definition of torture is open to interpretation (WashPost). The White House wants to clarify what it says is “vague” wording in the Geneva Conventions’ Common Article Three, which codifies that all detainees be provided with humane treatment. Congress now faces a choice: reinterpret the treaty to square more with U.S. domestic law or be bound by a set of international legal principles in place since the nineteenth century (last revised after World War II).
The debate transcends political and legal arguments. Opponents of the president’s bill, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell, say it will damage America’s moral standing in the world. Others, like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), worry about reciprocity and the treatment of U.S. troops in foreign custody. If Iran captures an American soldier and the U.S. rejiggers the treaty on POW treatment to allow techniques like water boarding, what’s preventing Tehran from doing the same? Meanwhile, experts question the usefulness of evidence obtained by coercion.
The White House disagrees. “This program has saved innocent lives,” President Bush told a news conference dominated by the issue last Friday, adding that intelligence gleaned from captured terrorist suspects has prevented terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Further, he argues, these detainees are unlawful combatants who target civilians and therefore are not privy to Geneva Conventions protections.
Read the rest of this article on the cfr.org website.
Copyright 2006 by the Council on Foreign Relations. This material is republished on GlobalSecurity.org with specific permission from the cfr.org. Reprint and republication queries for this article should be directed to cfr.org.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
