U.S. soldier to plead case as objector
 

U.S. soldier to plead case as objector
2004-06-23
By Ron Jackson
The Oklahoman

FORT SILL -- The first U.S. soldier to refuse to return to Iraq will plead his case as a conscientious objector today at Fort Sill.

Pvt. Camilo Mejia, 28, will testify at the 1 p.m. hearing, which will be closed to the public. He will do so as a convicted military deserter serving a one- year sentence at the Fort Sill Correctional Facility.

A military court convicted Mejia on May 21 at Fort Stewart, Ga., for going absent without leave in October 2003 after he returned from Iraq for a two- week furlough. Mejia surrendered to the military in March, armed with a 55- page conscientious objector application and stories of prisoner abuses allegedly witnessed at the Al Assad Prison near Baghdad.

"It's an absolute travesty that he (Mejia) has been charged as a deserter," said Nancy Lessin, who is scheduled to testify on Mejia's behalf.

Lessin co-founded Military Families Speak Out in November 2002 when two military families protested the government's decision to wage war on Iraq. Lessin claims more than 1,500 military families have joined her organization, several of which are expected to attend a noon vigil outside the Fort Sill gates to protest Mejia's prisoner status.

"People have asked, 'Why did Camilo join the military? Didn't he know there was a possibility he might go to war? What right does he now have to do this?'" Lessin said. "True, soldiers do sign an oath that they will go to defend country and constitution, but there is also an implied vow that the government won't engage in some reckless, military misadventure.

"And that's the vow that we feel has been broken."
Mejia, a Costa Rican and Nicaraguan citizen, joined the Army in 1995 after his family moved to the United States. In 1998, he continued his military service by signing on with the Florida National Guard.

Mejia was deployed to Iraq as a staff sergeant with Company C, 1st Battalion, 124th Infantry Regiment in April 2003. His rank was dropped to private after his court-martial, which created nationwide media attention.

A Web site dedicated to Mejia -- freecamilo.org -- champions his cause. On the site, Mejia is quoted as saying of his war experience, "At first they were happy to see us. Then we started setting up roadblocks, raiding their homes, killing civilians, and their attitude changed. The people didn't want us there any more, and we didn't want to be there."

Lt. Col. Ron Tittle, a Florida National Guard spokesman, is not sympathetic of Mejia's current problems. They are problems Tittle says Mejia could have avoided through legal military channels, or even by talking to an Army chaplain.

"We have had five Florida guardsmen killed in Iraq, and more than 100 who have been injured," Tittle said. "Our troops have served with honor and distinction. I suppose it kind of digs into the heart when one leaves and deserts his comrades."

More on Mejia...
 

Family of convicted deserter pleads for conscientious objector status

2004-06-23
By Sean Murphy
Associated Press Writer

LAWTON - Supporters of a soldier who refused to return to Iraq after a two-week leave urged the Army on Wednesday to give him an honorable discharge, even though he was convicted of desertion last month.

A military hearings officer from Fort Stewart, Ga., heard testimony from character witnesses in a closed hearing to determine if Camilo Mejia should receive conscientious objector status. The hearing was held at the Fort Sill Regional Correctional Facility, where Mejia is being held.

Dozens of Mejia's supporters and relatives held a vigil outside Fort Sill before the hearing. Supporters said at a news conference that Mejia's sincere beliefs led him to refuse to return to his Florida National Guard unit after a two-week leave in October.

"He listened to a higher power, which is the voice of his conscience," Mejia's mother, Maritza Castillo, said in Spanish through an interpreter.

Mejia, 28, was convicted in a military court at Fort Stewart, Ga., of desertion. He was sentenced to a year in military prison, received a dishonorable discharge and was reduced in rank from staff sergeant to private.

A report from Wednesday's hearing will be forwarded to the Department of the Army, which will decide whether to approve Mejia's request.

In his conscientious objector application, Mejia claims he saw Iraqi prisoners treated cruelly while he was overseeing the processing of detainees at al-Assad, an Iraqi air base occupied by U.S. forces.

Among those testifying Wednesday was Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst who leaked the 1971 Pentagon Papers, a top secret study of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Ellsberg met with Mejia for two hours before the hearing, and said the soldier is "very sincere in his beliefs."

Raymond Schmidt, 40, owner of a military surplus store across the street from the vigil, said he believes Mejia deserved to be punished.

"He signed up knowing someday he'd have to fill a role," Schmidt said.

Soldier's imprisonment sparks demonstration
 

Soldier's imprisonment sparks demonstration

2004-06-24
By Ron Jackson
The Oklahoman

LAWTON -- Thunderous echoes of artillery fire from nearby Fort Sill provided an ironic sound effect to a war protest staged Wednesday on behalf of a convicted U.S. Army deserter, Pvt. Camilo Mejia of Miami, Fla.

About two dozen protesters, some from as far away as California, rendezvoused in Lawton to speak out against Mejia's imprisonment at the Fort Sill Regional Correctional Facility. Mejia, 28, was taken to Fort Sill after being court-martialed May 21 at Fort Stewart, Ga., for desertion. He is serving a one-year sentence.

The afternoon protest coincided with a closed military hearing at Fort Sill on Mejia's application for conscientious objector status -- a document filed in March after he went AWOL during a two-week furlough from Iraq. A decision will be made on Mejia's application by the Department of the Army.

Mejia, activated from the Florida National Guard last year, served six months in Iraq prior to his furlough and disappearance.

Mejia received national attention during his flight by taking his story to CBS correspondent Dan Rather on "60 Minutes." Mejia, a dual Guatemalan and Costa Rican citizen, since has spoken and written about prisoner abuses he allegedly witnessed at the Al Assad detainee camp near Baghdad, as well as the killing of innocent civilians. Consequently, the line between traitor and hero has been debated in the arena of public opinion.

"Camilo is following his heart in that this is an illegal and immoral war," said Mary Harren, who traveled from Wichita, Kan., to represent an anti-war organization called Pax Christi. "He's a proud inspiration for the rest of our youth. ... This democracy -- or what we have left of it -- can be proud of young men like Camilo."

Among those gathered to support Mejia were his mother, Maritza Castillo, and aunt, Norma Castillo. Both women spoke at a news conference convened under a shade tree at Lawton's Elmer Thomas Park.

"I'm struggling day by day, minute by minute, but it's not going to stop until Camilo is free," said Maritza Castillo, who flew in from New York. "Camilo is always in harmony with himself and his decision. And I'm very proud of what he is doing."
Some are ashamed.

Norman businessman Larry Courtney made a special trip to Lawton to express his views. The Army veteran held an American flag aloft as he faced the that leads into the historic post where he once was stationed.

"I have no sympathy for him (Mejia)," Courtney said. "He signed up to do a job, and he should have done it. The military isn't the kind of job you can just up and quit. If he ever thought he might have had to claim conscientious objector status, then maybe he should have never joined the military."

Interesting case. He will most likely lose because, right or wrong, the military cannot have everyone be a CO, etc.

BUT, the interesting part to me is if he reported that abuse and can prove it existed and the military did nothing abiout it, he will be very popular. It also may substantiate in some way his CO case.

Thanks for posting.

He'll probably lose, but I'll cross my fingers for him. These kinds of stories make my blood boil, they're heartbreaking. I can't imagine the things he witnessed while in Iraq, those experiences are all the punishment he needs. Poor guy.

He was told to break the law. Someone's going to have to make this case. Unfortunately, it's going to have to be him.
I don't know what he saw or did at Abu Gharib but I think his case has to be made. The Geneva Convention was ignored. I don't blame the guy for being a conscientious objector to that. He served for a long time so the deserter charge is rather ridiculous to me. I'm sure at no point he ever agreed to commit war crimes.
God help him.

Now, let's be fair, saying he was exposed to this is not and should not be enough. He has to prove he was told to break the law - and regardless of how long he served, if his contract was not up, the law compelled him to stay to its fruition. I mean I am sure all CO's say things to get them out of their duty. He has to prove it. AND - even then, he should have followed the military's procedure for reporting such events. I am unsure, but I do not think military law allows a prisoner to refuse to return to duty way after the fact. In fact, his not reporting it when he saw it is probably another violation. So, although his heart may be in the right place now, he went about it in an illegal method and most likely will go to prison for it. If he had followed the rules, this could have been avoided and, depending on the situation and assuming he is telling the truth, less people could have been tortured. Instead, he appears to have taken the law into his own hands, which is hardly ever going to win in a criminal court - nor would society want it to - anarchy is the alternative :shrug: So, while I feel for this guy, I think he has made his situation worse.

As for the Geneva Convention, my understanding is the U.S. is adhering to it in Iraq. but not in Afganistan as far as Al-Q is concerned. They are correct regarding Al-Q because Al-Q does not fall within the GC's narrow combat rules nor are they civilians as the GC defines that. This is a good thing because if Al-Q did, all we could do with the captured people pretty much is ask them is their name, rank, and other such trivial info. I think we need more info. from these people than that (of course without torture). Interestingly, the combat provisions of the GC would apply to the military prisoners in Iraq, but not to the garden variety criminals who were not incarcerated in any type of battle. Any treaties we are in with Iraq (there are a few both countries (along with others) have singed) would also control and perhaps be more inclusive than the more limited GC. In the end, it has not been established the torturous actions of the soldiers (which were horrible and I am not defending them) rose to the level of official U.S. policy. If they cannot prove that (and I hope we cannot no matter how much I hate W) - then the U.S. is not in violation of the stadards set forth in the GC and any applicable treaties, the soldiers are and they will be prosecuted accordingly. It is unfair to hold the entire US accountable for them, unless it can be proven the U.S. officially sanctioned it and the people tortured fell within the def.'s of these laws. So, far, that has not been proven and the doc.'s the WH released last week negate it further.

I know this sounds like a techinicality, but I think it is unfair to place the U.S. in such a bad light because IMO doing so places all soldiers in this horrendus and quasi-felonious mind set. I think the vast majority of the soldiers there are the good guys and do not deserve such treatment by association :shrug:

Tone: This was said in a friendly not finger snapping manner :angel:

I said I didn't know what he had witnessed or been told to do. I am quite sure however, that he was told to break the law. We'll see. :shrug:

And the proper procedure for violating the Geneva Convention according to military rules is what? :confused:

Don't start that anti American, rah rah, you don't support the troops rhetoric with me.
Did I say they were bad? No. That's the current administration's bag of tricks. When are they going to be accountable or apologize?
Do you honestly think they even give a **** about Camilo, other than the fact that he's a nuisance to them?

You first said "He was told to break the law." I drew my conclusion from that because although you said later that "I don't know what he saw or did at Abu Gharib but I think his case has to be made" - the articles indicate he served at the "Al Assad detainee camp near Baghdad, as well as the killing of innocent civilians. So, I did not equate the two :shrug: :cool:

How can you be certain, you were there? This guy is a prosecutor's dream. I mean if it was so bad, why did he wait - people may have died or been tortured because of that. Do not tell me he was scared. He was a combat soldier based on what I read - so that defense looses a TON of credibility based on that fact. Then, he waits until he is back in the states and runs away. All of those things do not support his credibility. So, if it is his word against their word, he will lose. Also, if he did not report an infraction of the rules, I am pretty sure that is a source for reprimand as well, although I do not know for sure.

Yet, you just assume the US is the bad guy and ordered this guy (who essentially has no credibility or proof that I have seen to support his claim) or the people he saw to torture people and kill innocent civilians. You have to admit that smacks of more than a little bias :shrug: But, I still love ya anyway :cool: :laugh:

Look it up :laugh: :D :wavey:

And, for that matter, please read the GC BEFORE asserting we are in violation of it :cool: When you read it, you will see Al-Q did not fall into the def. covering capture of a nation's soldiers as well as other parts.

I would have bet a $100 you were gonna come back with that. I am not saying anyone is anti-american. I am saying that guilt by association is wrong and this guy and any other criminals have to be prosecuted and it angers me that they (and who knows who "they" includes) are casting the USA in a bad light. That is hardly the same as calling you anti-American :cool:

I'm sorry Strand. Sometimes when we are having these discussions, I completely forget that in your heart and mind, you still think that the United States instigating this war is the right thing to do. When I look at it that way, I can see and understand your viewpoint clearly.

Wait. You were calling me anti-American? :lol:

Al Qaida? I thought we were talking about Iraq/Abu Gharib prison. There goes that pesky Iraq/Al Qaida connection again.
Oops. I forgot. There was no Iraq/Al Qaida connection.

Okay. Where do I find that? In the UCMJ? :shocked:

I'm not assuming anything. What do you think Pollyanna? He just went off and did it all by hisself?
Maybe you can ring them up and they'll let you prosecute him while beating on your chest singing John Ashcroft's "Let The Eagle Soar."

I am saying he has to prove it happened. I strongly suspect every CO or deserter says similar things, just like every criminal says they are innocent. If we let people go based on their word, trust me - the jails would be empty :laugh: You do realize people will lie and say anything when faced with jail :shrug: In fact, people will lie and say anything when they cannot sell their case for immediate war based on the evidence everyone agrees with (Hello W :mad: ) :cool:

Again, I am not saying this guy did or did not do anything. I am just saying he has to prove it - and you just automatically believe him (I do not think he actually said he did anything did he). If he is relying solely on his word, that will not be good enough because his credibility is not very good in that he failed his duty to report it while there and instead he came home while still getting paid and while having turned his back on all the autrocities he allegedly witnessed. Then, once home, he then and apparently only then cried out against it. I am not too sure that will play well with the court (I am unsure if he will get a jury as he will be in military court and be prosecuted by the JAG) - of course, I could be wrong :shrug: Again, it will be his burden and unless he comes up with other than his word, which he may hopefully be able to do :shrug: - he most likely is going to jail.

This is just my speculation of the facts of this case.

Perhaps you do not think rendering medical aid to OBL's upper level guy and then setting him free is insignificant, but I do not (we already had this discussion). So, once again, the whole "no link between SH and Al-Q" is just not true - no "significant" link is closer to the truth, but it is still incorrect IMO. If SH had treated OBL and then let him go, would that have been enough :shrug: But, it does not matter to me because I do not think a link to Al-Q was necessary. As I have repeatedly stated, the world for 11 years thought SH had WMD and called for him to disarm or prove he had disarmed. he refused to do so and acted in every way possible to thwart the world. After 9/11, I, along with every other major political person in the word, thought the world could no longer afford the possibility that SH would give some chemical or biological weapon to any terrorist group, much less use them himself as Russia claims he wanted to do to us after 9/11 (granted they have not proved that - but it is a strong statement to lie about :shrug: ). Interestingly, every major political leader in the world agrees with me, including the D heir apparent :cool: My only issue was the timing of the war. I think in the end, however, SH could have had ten more years and he would never have cooperated AND according to David Kay, SH was in material breach, which only supported UN Res. 1441. So, regardless of any link with OBL and Al-Q, I think SH had to go. I do wish, however W had done it differently because in his rush to war, we sent untrained people over there and that has cost us significantly IMO.

But, I brought up Al-Q earlier to demonstrate that the GC does not apply against them. I also think they and/oe other terrorist groups we similarly cannot tolerate after 9/11 are in Iraq now. But, you may think differently despite the evidence to the contrary. I will not, of course agree with you :cool:

I have no clue. I would go a google search for the JAG codes and go from their. Happy Reading!!!!!! :cool:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/paust2.php
THE COMMON PLAN TO VIOLATE THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS
Professor Jordan Paust
University of Houston Law Center
JURIST Guest Columnist
If one focuses on the January 25, 2002 Memorandum for the President by White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales (available here) and President George Bush’s subsequent decisions and authorizations, there is evidence of the initiation of a Common Plan to violate the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

Behind the Plan was a memorandum addressing possible war crime responsibility and designs for attempted avoidance of international criminal responsibility that was written by then DOJ OLC attorneys John Yoo and Robert Delahunty entitled “Application of Treaties and Laws to Al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees” written on January 9, 2002 (available in part here) and “endorsed by top lawyers in the White House, the Pentagon and the vice president’s office,” according to the New York Times (Neil A. Lewis, “Justice Memos Explained How to Skip Prisoner Rights,” NYT, May 21, 2004, at A10).

According to the Gonzales memo, the Common Plan involved at least those responsible for “the Department of Justice...formal legal opinion concluding... [with respect to] the Geneva Convention III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPW)...that there are reasonable grounds for you to conclude that GPW does not apply with respect to the conflict with the Taliban. I understand that you decided that GPW does not apply...,” adding: “OLC has further opined that you have the authority to determine that GPW does not apply to the Taliban....OLC’s interpretation of this legal issue is definitive.” According to the Yoo - Delahunty memo, when asked by General Counsel William Haynes about “the effect of international treaties...on the treatment of individuals detained by the U.S. Armed Forces during the conflict in Afghanistan... [and, i]n particular, ...whether the laws of armed conflict apply to the conditions of detention and the procedures for trial... [, w]e conclude that these treaties do not protect members of the al Qaeda organization... [and] do not apply to the Taliban....”

The Plan among White House Counsel Gonzales and President Bush (and evidently others in DOJ and DOD at the time) that is evidenced in the Gonzales memo was legally inept. The Plan openly admits the unavoidable fact that “the customary laws of war would still be available.... Moreover, even if GPW is not applicable, we can still bring war crimes charges....” with respect to violations of the laws of war during the war in Afghanistan. Thus, the Plan recognizes that the customary laws of war apply to the war in Afghanistan but involves a design and decision to refuse to apply the 1949 Geneva Conventions despite the unavoidable facts: (1) that they apply to the war in Afghanistan, and (2) that they are treaty law that is also widely recognized as part of the customary laws of war that apply to the war in Afghanistan. As Secretary Colin Powell warned in his memo of January 26, 2002, “The United States has never determined that the GPW did not apply to an armed conflict in which its forces have been engaged.... the GPW was intended to cover all types of armed conflict and did not by its terms limit its application” (available at here ). It was reported in early February 2002 that the White House changed its prior plan to not apply the Geneva Conventions to the war in Afghanistan that the US internationalized on October 7, 2001. The newer Plan attempted to erroneously deny any protections to members of al Qaeda captured in that war, but admit that the Geneva Conventions applied during the war. See Paust, “Antiterrorism Military Commissions: Courting Illegality,” 23 Mich. J. Int’l L. 1, 7 n.15 (2001) [hereinafter “Antiterrorism”]. Later events demonstrate that the newer Plan was to deny Geneva protections for the Taliban as well, claiming that they were all unlawful combatants and, as such, had no rights under the Geneva law – which is also in error and in violation of the Conventions. See, e.g., Paust, “Judicial Power To Determine the Status and Rights of Persons Detained Without Trial,” 44 Harv. Int’l L.J. 503, 504 n.3 (2003) [hereinafter “Judicial Power”]; “Antiterrorism,” supra at 5-8 n.15.

The Plan attempted to rest on a supposed “high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information,” supposed “military necessity,” and a claim that a “new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning.” However, none of these claims justify a Plan to violate the Geneva law. Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions requires the United States “to respect and to ensure respect for the” Conventions “in all circumstances.” The Plan was to violate this duty. Common Article 3 requires that, “as a minimum,” all persons taking no active part in the hostilities, regardless of their status, “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely” and shall enjoy listed minimum guarantees. The Plan was to violate these rights and duties. No exceptions exist to the rights and prohibitions also contained, for example, in GPW Articles 13, 14, 16, 17, 130. No exceptions exist to the rights and prohibitions also contained, for example, in the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (GC) Articles 8, 16, 27 (except for necessary measures of control and security as such), 29, 31, 32, 33, 43, 78, 147. The Plan was to violate these rights and duties. As the Legal Adviser to the U.S. Department of State has written with respect to “the right to humane treatment – a right that belongs to all humankind, in war and in peace,” “[i]t is a general principle...that inhumane treatment is cruel and unacceptable under any circumstance.... More broadly, this customary law...found more expansive expression in Article 75 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. While the United States has major objections to parts of Additional Protocol I, it does regard the provisions of Article 75 as an articulation of safeguards to which all persons in the hands of an enemy are entitled.” William H. Taft, IV, “The Law of Armed Conflict After 9/11: Some Salient Features,” 28 Yale J. Int’l L. 319, 321-22 (2003); see also Paust, “War and Enemy Status After 9/11: Attacks on the Laws of War, in id. at 325-35; “Judicial Power,” supra at 504-14; Paust, Abuse of Iraqi Detainees at Abu Ghraib: Will Prosecution and Cashiering of a Few Soldiers Comply With International Law? Any person who is not a prisoner of war and who is detained, regardless of status, is protected under common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions as well as other relevant international laws. Most are also entitled to protections under the Geneva Civilian Convention. See, e.g., materials cited previously and U.S. Dep’t of Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare 31, para. 73 (1956). Thus, basic Geneva rights and duties concerning humane treatment apply whether or not a person detained is a prisoner of war, unprivileged belligerent, terrorist, or ordinary civilian.

Under the United States Constitution, the President (and members of the Executive branch) is bound to faithfully execute the law, which includes treaty law and customary international law. See, e.g., U.S. Const., art. II, Sec. 3; Paust, International Law as Law of the United States 169-73 (2ed. 2003), and cases and materials cited. Thus, the Plan to violate the Geneva Conventions is not only illegal but is also unconstitutional.

This inquiry focuses on the Plan evidenced in the Gonzales 2002 memo and reports concerning the Yoo - Delahunty memo. It does not begin to address the criminal authorizations, orders, and other actions effectuating the Plan or other plans that involve patent violations of the laws of war, such as plans (1) to remove persons who are not pws from occupied territory in Afghanistan or Iraq in violation of GC Articles 49 and 147 (war crimes and “grave breaches”), (2) to engage in forced disappearance of persons by refusing to disclose names and/or whereabouts of those detained without trial, (3) to offer rewards “dead or alive” (a war crime), (4) to deny persons who might face trials in military commissions at Guantanamo the minimum due process rights that are required under human rights law and the Geneva Conventions, and (5) to adopt “20" or other secret interrogation techniques which apparently include some that are patent per se violations of the laws of war and human rights and some that are highly problematic and can constitute violations in particular circumstances.

With respect to planned denials of Geneva protections for those being interrogated, it has also been reported that there is evidence of an effectuation of the Common Plan at Guantanamo through April 2003 when Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld ended the use of certain illegal tactics but approved other secret harsh methods, claiming that the Geneva law did not apply to the detainees. See Robert Burns, “Lawyers Opposed Questioning at Guantanamo,” The Tribune, SanLuisObispo.com , May 21, 2004. See also DOD Background Briefing, May 20, 2004 (Di Rita: “the president had determined that the conflict...with the Taliban, while it was subject to the Geneva Conventions, people picked up as Taliban would be considered” unprotected; and a DOD Working Group created by General Counsel William Haynes in January 2003, with DOJ input, approved secret harsh interrogation techniques, which Secretary Rumsfeld approved in April 2003). There were also September 2003 and October 12, 2003 memos by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez concerning approved and need-to-be approved interrogation techniques in Iraq. We are still learning more about the impermissible interrogation techniques. Readers will recall that war crimes can range from “all measures of intimidation” through “inhumane treatment” and “cruel” treatment to “torture” and that the United States has several statutory bases for prosecution of both military and civilian persons who are reasonably accused of dereliction of duty, complicity, perpetration of various crimes, and direct involvement in common plans to violate the Geneva Conventions and other international criminal proscriptions. See, e.g., Paust, Abuse of Iraqi Detainees.

Clearly, it is important that President Bush carry out his promise to initiate prosecution of all who are reasonably accused of relevant international crimes and end criminal practices such as illegal transfers of detainees, forced disappearance, and illegal forms of interrogation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan J. Paust is Law Foundation Professor at the University of Houston Law Center and a former Captain, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps and member of the faculty of TJAG School (1969-1973).

BTW - the articel says "A military court convicted Mejia on May 21 at Fort Stewart, Ga., for going absent without leave in October 2003 after he returned from Iraq for a two- week furlough. Mejia surrendered to the military in March, armed with a 55- page conscientious objector application and stories of prisoner abuses allegedly witnessed at the Al Assad Prison near Baghdad." So, isn't this a different prison?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason...hts/index.html

Lack of protection
Long before Abu Ghraib, senior officers warned that Bush appointees in the Pentagon were undermining prisoner safeguards.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason

May 7, 2004 | Long before official reports and journalistic exposés revealed the horrific abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, high-ranking American officers expressed their deep concern that the civilian officials at the Pentagon were undermining the military's traditional detention and interrogation procedures, according to a prominent New York attorney.

Scott Horton, a partner at Patterson, Belknap, Webb and Tyler who now chairs the Committee on International Law of the Association of the Bar of New York City, says he was approached last spring by "senior officers" in the Judge Advocate General Corps, the military's legal division, who "expressed apprehension over how their political appointee bosses were handling the torture issue." Horton, who once represented late Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov, was serving as the chairman of the bar association's Committee on Human Rights law when the JAG officers first contacted him.

Prompted by their allegations as well as press reports of torture and mistreatment of detainees in Afghanistan, Horton and other members of the New York bar began to compile a report examining U.S. and international legal standards governing the treatment of military prisoners. Horton says he and his colleagues met with JAG officers expressing the same concerns again last fall.

The bar association's 110-page report, released last week, leaves no doubt that the practices revealed at Abu Ghraib violated both U.S. and international law. During the preparation of that report, Horton and his colleagues were more concerned with practices in Afghanistan and Guantánamo than in Iraq. What they have learned recently, however, suggests that questionable practices and attitudes toward prisoners stem from broad policy decisions made at the very highest levels of the Defense Department.

Indeed, Horton says that the JAG officers specifically warned him that Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith,one of the most powerful political appointees in the Pentagon, had significantly weakened the military's rules and regulations governing prisoners of war. The officers told Horton that Feith and the Defense Department's general counsel, William J. Haynes II, were creating "an atmosphere of legal ambiguity" that would allow mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Haynes, who was recently nominated to a federal appeals court seat by President Bush, is responsible for legal issues concerning prisoners and detainees. But the general counsel takes his marching orders from Feith, an attorney whose scorn for international human rights law was summed up by his assessment of Protocol One, the 1977 Geneva accord protecting civilians, as "law in the service of terrorism."

Haynes, who was recently nominated to a federal appeals court seat by President Bush, is responsible for legal issues concerning prisoners and detainees. But the general counsel takes his marching orders from Feith, an attorney whose scorn for international human rights law was summed up by his assessment of Protocol One, the 1977 Geneva accord protecting civilians, as "law in the service of terrorism."

In practice, the changes in oversight appear to have blurred authority and accountability at Abu Ghraib. Along with the lack of proper supervision and training of the Army reservists who ran the prison, these changes resulted in lawlessness and atrocious abuse.

After hearing the complaints of the JAG officers, Horton and his bar colleagues wrote to Haynes and the CIA's general counsel in an effort to clarify U.S. policy on the treatment and interrogation of detainees. Those inquiries, he recalls, "were met with a firm brushoff. We then turned to senators who had raised the issue previously, and [we] assisted their staff in pursuing the issue directly with the Pentagon. These inquiries met with a similar brushoff." The Bush administration wanted no meddling by human rights lawyers as it brought democracy and human rights to the benighted region.

Horton says that career military officers at the Pentagon were "greatly upset" by what they regarded as the deliberate destruction of traditions and methods that have long protected soldiers as well as civilians. Those officers, and others who may have evidence to offer, are obviously reluctant to step forward and speak because they fear reprisal from the Pentagon and the White House. They have been instructed not to talk to anyone about these issues. It is to be hoped that in the investigations to come -- whether or not Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld and Undersecretary Feith keep their jobs -- those conscientious officers will be able to tell what they know about the decisions that led to this national disaster.

Good article, but it is wrong in assuming Al-Q qaulified as POW's. That is just incorrect - period. The Taliban on the other hand probably should have. They were fighting on behalf of a country we attacked (though provoked) , they wore uniforms, etc. So, we should have considered them POW's under the GC. But, Al-Q - no way. Again, this does not mean I think the Al-Q detainees should be tortured in any way. Rumsfeld allowed that, or at least came close to it with the use of dogs as a threat, etc. For that, he should be prosecuted. You will get no argument from me there.

I was wrong. It was Al Assad. Does it matter?

Which article?

http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/4812581.html

Newsweek recently published excerpts from a January 2002 memorandum from Alberto Gonzales, White House counsel, to President Bush, in which Gonzales urges the president to declare that the Geneva Convention does not apply to the conflict with Al-Qaida or the Taliban.

As Secretary of State Colin Powell objected in a dissenting memo, such a declaration would "reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva Conventions." But Gonzales nonetheless urged President Bush to take this unprecedented step, on the grounds that it would "substantially reduce the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act."

Well, yes it does in the context of my point. No evidence exists to support the abuse extended outside of Abu Ghraib. This guy is claiming but cannot prove it did and it was rampant and that is why he does not want to go back. The prosecution will bring that fact up. They will say something like "Isn't it convenient that once you saved yourself and were comfortably back in the USA, you are now claiming prison abuse in a prison where it never happened" or something like that. This guy opened the door with that by allegin it and he will get slammed for it. In the end, there is no proof that Abu Ghraib was anything more than an abberation - it very could be the tip of the iveberg, but proof is what will matter. I am not saying it was or is, I am just saying that within the contect of this guy's case, he cannot prove it - therefore, it most likely will weigh against him. Whether that is right or wrong, I make no comment. That is just the reality of it. Again, all he has is his word, which he lessened the credibility of by failing to report the rampant abuse he alleged and instead brought his own hide to safety before making an effort to stop the abuse. Rather, it looks like he got back to the US and made up some convenient and timely excuse not to go back. He is in some trouble.

http://www.news14charlotte.com/conte...asp?ArID=66870

The White House also released documents detailing some of the most harsh interrogation methods Rumsfeld approved for use on prisoners at the lockup at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Rumsfeld's Nov. 27, 2002, memo approved several methods which apparently would violate Geneva Convention rules, including: Putting detainees in "stress positions," such as standing, for up to four hours.
Removing prisoners' clothes.
Intimidating detainees with dogs.
Interrogating prisoners for 20 hours at a time.
Forcing prisoners to wear hoods during interrogations and transportation.
Shaving detainees' heads and beards.
Using "mild, non-injurious physical contact," such as poking.


Prisoners at Abu Ghraib were interrogated for as long as 20 hours at a time, kept hooded and naked, intimidated with dogs and forcibly shaved. Bush and other administration officials have said other treatment at the Iraqi prison, such as forcing prisoners to perform sex acts, beating them and piling them in a naked human pyramid, were unquestionably illegal.

Less than two months later, on Jan. 15, 2003, Rumsfeld rescinded approval for those methods without saying why. He appointed a Pentagon panel to recommend proper interrogation methods.

That panel reported to Rumsfeld in April 2003, and its recommendations included prohibiting the removal of clothes, which it said could be considered inhumane treatment under international law. Rumsfeld issued a new set of approved interrogation methods later that month, disallowing nakedness and requiring approval for four techniques: use of rewards or removal of privileges; verbally attacking or insulting the ego of a detainee; alternating friendly and unfriendly interrogators in a "good cop, bad cop" method; and isolation.

Bush had agreed in February 2002 that al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were not protected by the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war because they violated the laws of war themselves.

Bush's previously secret Feb. 7, 2002, order also agrees with Justice and Pentagon lawyers that a president can ignore U.S. law and treaties.

"I accept the legal conclusion of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice that I have the authority to suspend Geneva (conventions) as between the United States and Afghanistan," Bush wrote. "I reserve the right to exercise this authority in this or future conflicts."

Bush and Rumsfeld have said the Geneva Conventions do apply to all prisoners in Iraq.

But Rumsfeld acknowledged last week that he ordered a suspected terrorist to be secretly held in Iraq without notifying the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld said he approved an unspecified number of other, similar secret detentions.

Both actually :laugh: But, I referred to the one fronm the Professor in Houston.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGE46LJQ51.DTL

Officials say methods at prison broke rules
Pentagon aides say abuses violated Geneva accords

Washington -- Two of the Pentagon's highest-ranking officials were forced to admit Thursday that a tough method approved for handling prisoners in Iraq appeared to violate the Geneva Conventions, although both said they were unfamiliar with how the decision to allow such techniques had been approved.

The statements by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put them at odds with their boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and with the U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who approved a "stress matrix'' for interrogating detainees there.

"I would describe it as a violation, sir,'' Pace told Sen. Jack Reed, D-R. I., after Reed pressed him on whether placing prisoners "naked, with a bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes,'' would violate the Geneva Convention of 1949 requiring the humane treatment of prisoners of war.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...146574,00.html

Officials admit Iraq interrogations violated Geneva Conventions

By Ken Guggenheim
The Associated Press


Washington - The No. 2 military and civilian officials at the Pentagon indicated that interrogation techniques ordered in Iraq violated the Geneva Conventions and said they did not know who approved them.

Bush is correct when he says the GC would not apply to all prisoners in Iraq. The GC POW status applies only to the soldiers fighting in the Iraqi army, if there are any left. These new people currently exploding car bombs, etc., would more properly and accurately be considered enemy combatants because they are not fighting under the flag of Iraq, wearing the Iraqi uniform, etc. - these are the terms set froth in the GC. I cannot comment on the existing treaties because I have not read them. Finally, any prisoners already in prison (although SH mostly emptied the jails prior to the invasion) would be considered as civilians under the GC because they did not attack us, etc.

This is why W should not have rushed to war and why Rumsfeld needs to go to jail and prey he gets treated nicely - what a jerk!

You want to email the former JAG and tell him of the error? Or shall I? You know all of the legalese much better. I'm just a hippie/dippy white chick. It might sound better coming from you. Want his email address? :angel:

He might, as many do, think I am a loon :laugh: But, he is incorrect about Al-Q unless he insome way can prove Al-Q was fighting on behalf of The Taliban, which would be hard to do considering The Taliban deined Al-Q was even in the country :shrug:

Then, whatever could this mean:

"Bush and Rumsfeld have said the Geneva Conventions do apply to all prisoners in Iraq."

Torture, war, concientious objectors, war crimes-it's enough to make your head spin!

Here is a link to a site about which I know nothing, but it has the relative part of the GC:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Here is the text:

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.