CITIZEN ALERT v1.51COMMON ARTICLE III

Article 3 describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Does it to you? Noncombatants or combatants who are no longer fighting because they've surrendered or have been imprisoned are to be treated humanely, and cannot be humilated or treated in a degrading way.

How clear is that? That paints some broad strokes for a very simple reason. It covers all forms of torture. The Bush administration finds Article 3 "vague". They want it changed with more specific wording i.e. whatever doesn't show up in the new version gives them clearance to perform that form of torture on detainees.

Consider this exchange at a press briefing with Tony Snow:

TONY SNOW: Some of the language in Common Article II -- Common Article III -- I'm sorry -- is vague. It is not unusual for the United States Congress in such circumstances to use legislation as a way of making clear our treaty obligations....In the case of Common Article III, of course, you have had some of -- the "prohibitions against cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" -- that's important to figure out what that means. As you know, in --

REPORTER: It's vague to you?

MR. SNOW: Yes, it is.

REPORTER: Mean, cruel, inhuman, degrading?

MR. SNOW: Yes, because you have to specify exactly what you mean.

REPORTER: Keep smiling. (Laughter.)

Ouch!

Here's Bush, the brain trust that he is, giving his take on Article 3:

It's very vague. What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation.

What does that mean?! Are you kidding me? Next we'll have to explain what war means to him.

Bush has hit a brick wall thankfully with his own Republican Congress led by Republican Sens. John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina as well as Colin Powell who chimed in with a letter earlier this week . One of the many points that they oppose is the classifying of evidence against a detainee -in effect, barring him from seeing the evidence being used to prosecute him. The Republicans rightly argue that this undermines the credibility of the court. Sometimes it seems Bush's own party has to remind him that in order to spread democracy you need to act democratically.

McCain also adds that, "Weakening the Geneva protections is not only unnecessary, but would set an example to other countries, with less respect for basic human rights, that they could issue their own legislative 'reinterpretations'. This puts our military personnel and others directly at risk in this and future wars."

Now, it was brought up this weekend on the McLaughlin Group that the Bush administration was redefining Common Article 3 to protect themselves (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) from possible prosecution of war crimes which is why I found this statement from the President during his Rose Garden press conference on Friday to be at best disturbing.

I will tell you this, I've spent a lot of time on this issue, as you can imagine, and I've talked to professionals, people I count on for advice -- these are people that are going to represent those on the front line of protecting this country. They're not going forward with the program. They're not going -- the professionals will not step up unless there's clarity in the law. So Congress has got a decision to make: Do you want the program to go forward or not?

He's basically calling the congress out on this one saying that if you don't give us this legislation then the programs come to a halt and the next terrorist attack is your fault. Now, back when everyone was giving him grief over his wiretapping program, he said he didn't care he was protecting American lives and wasn't going to stop the program no matter what. Here, he has suddenly changed his mind - he will stop the programs - he will stop protecting the American people, and if the changes he is requesting are in fact to protect his administration from war crimes, then he is telling the American people: If I go down, I'm taking you with me.

Bush is set to address the UN on Tuesday.