That "Vague" Common Article III

The new White House talking point seems to be "the vagueness of Common Article III." This refers to that section of the Geneva Conventions which outlaws torture and/or the inhumane treatment of prisoners. We're hearing from a slew of Administration spokespersons all over the media. They see this as a new lie to convince Americans to, once again, surrender what it means to be an American and become barbarians.

George W. Bush and Karl Rove are still convinced that if they repeat the same lie enough times stupid Americans will accept it as fact. Hey, it's worked before. Too many times in fact. I think the people are onto their game now.

Here's their strategy: flood the airwaves with the message that new legislation is needed to define what Common Article III means. Keep refering to it as "vague" and in need of specific language, language that essentially renders it meaningless.

I listened to Stephen Hadley on Stephanopoulos this morning on my to an event and he was spouting the phrase at every opportunity. Then I heard it repeated by others on newscasts. Let's take a look at Common Article III:

ARTICLE 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in
the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict
shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of
armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat '
by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances
be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour,
religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:(a)
violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation,
cruel treatment and torture;(b) taking of hostages;(c) outrages upon personal
dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;(d) the passing of
sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment
pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the
Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force,
by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the
present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal
status of the Parties to the conflict.

I heard Hadley making some specious arguments. First he kept repeating that the detainees at Gitmo and those the CIA held in their secret prisons weren't military people but unlawful combatants. Then he referred to them as "military" and also said they'd had military training to resist torture.

So these people had military training. The only fact substantiating Bush's classification of them as non-military then is the fact they weren't wearing uniforms. I'm not sure many Afghan military, if any, wore uniforms. He contradicted his own case. He also said we could modify the treaty after the fact. Except we haven't felt a need to modify this since it was enacted in 1949. You don't revisit a treaty 55 years later.

He also claimed that Common Article III has never covered Al Qaeda. Duh, I wasn't aware Al Qaeda existed in 1949. Or 1959 even. There have been insurgent groups involved in civil wars all over the globe ever since that time however and Article III did apply. We never objected to the provisions during all those years. Why? Because we were America and Americans didn't tolerate anyone who violated human rights guidelines. Until now.

We can extract the information we need by using skilled interrogators. Experienced law enforcement professionals are very skilled and very capable of getting the real, genuine information needed to bust this group and protect our country. In fact we're better off using those tactics because torture and inhumane treatment always give you false information. We know we got lots of bogus information that cost us billions.

Hadley wants us to believe them that no such activities occurred. Why then did they keep these prisoners and prisons secret? Why was the Red Cross not notified or given access as international law requires? Because they couldn't allow it because of the torture. It doesn't require much logic to figure that.

Hadley also cited last year's Act pushed by John McCain. He left out an important aspect of that bill: Bush's signing statement saying he wouldn't abide by its provisions. Yes, George W. Bush issued a signing statement saying some of its provisions didn't apply to him.

I don't find the language in Article 3 to be in any way vague or unclear. I have a very good understanding of its meaning with just a quick reading. I understand what conduct is inhumane, degrading or humiliating. I do understand why this full court press is underway to confuse the issue: too many reports, including first person accounts, have leaked out detailing widespread violations of Article III. What's more some of those detained weren't even "unlawful combatants." How about the Kabul cab driver who was swept off the street and tortured to death?

While we're at this game how about we discuss all the civilian murders and rapes our uniformed soldiers have committed in Iraq? These people were ordinary Iraqis and American troops raped, killed, and mutilated them. These are war crimes too.

The bottom line here is, once again, an absence of accountability. Once again it's George W. Bush refusing to be held accountable for the misdeeds of those he authorized to act on our behalf. Remember the infamous memo when (then) White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales called the Geneva Conventions "quaint?" Remember how Bush himself said publicly that torture was ok? Wonder why the troops thought they could do anything?

No Mr. Hadley, there isn't anything "vague" about the Geneva Conventions. I understand them perfecty well and I bet most Americans also do.

I have a message for the President: you did these deeds in our name. I WILL hold you accountable for that. I hope you do too.