WHY IS KERRY HOLDING BACK ON BUSH’S DISREGARD FOR THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS?

Posted on May 23, 2004 by Dave Pollard

There has been a lot of discussion lately, at least in moderate and left-wing circles, about the growing evidence of the Bush Regime’s deliberate abrogation of the Geneva Conventions, on the basis that respecting it compromises the ‘war on terror’. The best report was Friday on Bill Moyers NOW on PBS, which included a lengthy interview with Scott Horton, the lawyer for the NY Bar Association, about the Association’s report on the Bush Regime’s arguments for ignoring the Conventions, and their implication for the safety of American troops, and the integrity of international law. The report was commissioned in part because of concerns expressed by the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) office about alarming and inconsistent instructions that military personnel were receiving about non-application of the Conventions. These concerns stemmed from a whole series of classified memoranda from the very top of the Bush Regime, justifying widespread setting aside of the Conventions on flimsy grounds, notably a memo from Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo developed to pre-justify systematic contravention of the Conventions. Or as Newsweek puts it “a legal framework to justify a secret system of detention and interrogation that sidesteps the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions.”

There is a great deal more on this story. The NOW site above has links to additional stories. And Joe Conason at Salon.com has a good summary of it this week.

So the question is: Why is John Kerry not raising this as a serious campaign issue, a defining distinction between his policy and Bush’s? In the interview with NOW, Horton says that all the major media, especially the TV networks, have refused to provide significant coverage of this issue because “it is too complex to be understandable or of interest to the public.” This is an astonishing position for the media to take, and a total abrogation of their journalistic responsibility. So, for the benefit of these media, allow me to make it simple, so that even a media mogul could understand it:

The primary purpose of the Geneva Conventions is as a mutual code of civility, to safeguard prisoners on all sides from torture, murder and atrocities. As long as all sides in a war agree to be bound by the Conventions, the war is unlikely to deteriorate into gruesome and barbaric abuse and slaughter of the innocent. But when one side, as the US has now done, disregards the Conventions, it provokes the other side to abrogate the Conventions as well. So the first consequence of the Bush Regime’s decision that the Geneva Conventions does not apply in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and other secret US prisons in the ill-defined and boundaryless ‘war on terror’, is to imperil the lives and safety of American troops, peacekeepers and civilians worldwide. We have already seen some despicable instances of this.
Respect for and adherence to the Geneva Conventions is a backbone of international law, but it is equally enshrined in American law. Secret papers calling for the ignoring and abrogation of the Conventions, from the highest levels of the Bush Regime, are in fact instructions to commit illegal acts, and a statement that this government considers itself above, and not bound by, the rule of law in America.

So we have a government that, by its actions, is threatening the lives and safety of American troops, peacekeepers, and civilians worldwide, and putting themselves outside and above the law by commissioning illegal acts. Surely this is simple enough for anyone to understand, and surely it is grounds for Kerry to express outrage, demand an impartial and unimpeded investigation (not another of these farcical and impotent commissions we have seen so far), and in fact seek criminal charges against the people responsible. The NY Bar Association believes there are ample grounds for this, and they should know something about the law.

If we reserve our outrage and only prosecute those on the front lines that follow the orders they are given, and even then only when there are provocative photos, and if by our inaction we actually encourage those that commission the illegal and dangerous acts, give the orders, and then hide behind executive privilege and secrecy, what does that say about us?

It’s time for John Kerry to speak up.

Photo: Interrogation room at Guantanamo, where Bush has declared that no prisoners are protected by the Geneva Conventions.

This entry was posted in How the World Really Works. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to WHY IS KERRY HOLDING BACK ON BUSH’S DISREGARD FOR THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS?

Rayne says:

May 23, 2004 at 12:43

Why? One word: Vietnam.Demanding an investigation will only allow for the right-wing to charge full-bore into anything and everything about Vietnam and Kerry. Bush, after all, cannot be accused of violating Geneva Conventions in Vietnam since…well, you know Vietnam is a long way from Alabama.Bush is doing quite a good job of shooting himself in the foot — and conservatives like McCain are doing much to fight the fight for Kerry. I suspect that may be the ploy at work here; minimize potential damage to the Democratic opposition while widening the breach inside the RNC. Kerry and McCain have a strong relationship; why not let McCain do battle now, let Kerry focus on the future?Both Kerry and McCain are only too well acquainted with Geneva Conventions and their necessity for all combatants, after all…why not an effective proxy on this point?
Steve Hooker says:

May 23, 2004 at 16:53

The issue of the media censoring this topic appals me. I see the US becoming more and more like a fascist state.
Adrian says:

May 23, 2004 at 22:13

Kerry might be able to get around some of the problems which Rayne brings up if he focuses on the need for accountability at the top (as opposed to just going after the grunts). More and more Americans across the political spectrum are wondering why the buck never seems to stop anywhere in this administration, whether it’s 9/11 or WMDs or bad (non-existent) postwar planning. Kerry should relentlessly hammer away at every bad decision that has been made, name the parties responsible, and ask why they still have their jobs. The facts speak for themselves: Bush has succeeded in accomplishing almost the exact opposite of the stated goals in the Iraq war. He’s created a brand-new Al-Qaeda hotbed, spent vast sums and sacrificed lives to demonstrate what Hans Blix could have told him, trashed the credibility American regained during the 80s and 90s, shown our military and intelligence to be disorganized, inept and vulnerable, and raised the price of oil to boot. People are starting to register all this, and it may be best right now for Kerry to stick to the taekwondo approach — let Bush defeat himself.
adaplant says:

May 23, 2004 at 23:23

This issue isn’t going away.The campaign is a marathon not a sprint.While Bush is on the ropes and bleeding, jabs will do the job and not turn the crowd against the jabber.With Bush’s bankroll, the unwavering support of his base and the incumbency advantage, there are no possible “knockout punches” Kerry can throw.
David says:

May 24, 2004 at 10:13

I actually don’t think that it is best to frame the issue in terms of the Geneva Conventions.I agree with Rayne’s point. I also think that, without evidence of endorsment at high levels in the government (e.g. Rumsfeld), attacking Bush on the issue would be seen as “politicizing” the issue.If I were Kerry, I would frame it in terms of accountability and ask why no one has lost his job over this. And that’s what he’s done.
Dave Pollard says:

May 24, 2004 at 10:21

The problem with accountability is that it allows the Secrecy Machine to sacrifice the poor order-followers at the bottom, and shrug off responsibility at the top, which is where it belongs. This is the most ‘irresponsible’, in both sense of the word, governments in human history. Do you really think it would be seen as weakness or partisanship if Kerry said “Unlike the president, I will respect and abide by the Geneva Conventions, because to do otherwise threatens the security of our forces and our people all over the world, damages our reputation as a civilized nation, and shows contempt for the rule of law and the principles of democracy, the very qualities that differentiate America most clearly from the enemies we are fighting?”
Rayne says:

May 24, 2004 at 10:54

Dave, that’s slippery slope material. Regardless of my personal beliefs on the topic of an international court, it would be damned difficult in a campaign to make that statement and not be able to reply about the inevitable question to follow: what will America’s stand be on the international court under Kerry, assuming Kerry whole-heartedly embraces the Geneva Conventions?Much bigger issue than it appears on the surface. And the old question of Vietnam still lingers.
Andrew Morrison says:

May 25, 2004 at 01:49

There is a strategy at work here. Kerry will get there. Don’t worry. There are tons of issues Kerry has not waded into yet, and it’s a good thing –so far. One of my most recent articles, entitled “Kerry Campaign Can Relax” discusses the need for restraint as the Bush administration continues it’s disappearing act.
David Johnson says:

May 25, 2004 at 07:28

The problem is, many Americans see torture as justifiable. If torturing a few terrorists can lead to information to save some terrorist attacks and ultimately save American lives, then the use of torture can be justified. Many don’t agree with that but many do. Revenge and even proactive revenge (if they are going to kill us, lets kill them first) is a significant part of the American psyche. This is also an election year in which Bush is trying to portray Kerry as soft on the war against terrorism it might be political suicide to make a strong stand which could be portrayed as being soft on terrorists. Rather he has chosen the more political decision of being quiet and letting the bad news simply play out in the media and I am sure he enjoys watching Bush’s poll numbers drop. No sense stirring the pot when the pot is already getting well mixed by others.
Jon Husband says:

May 26, 2004 at 08:32

“The problem is, many Americans see torture as justifiable”I think a good case can be made for saying that the USians are more-or-less acting in character, just as they have for most of the past 50 years around the world – they just got caught this time (as did Canadians a few years ago). An important aspect of the American character is caught up in violence, revenge and racism.It has always bothered me that there is so much trumpeting about holding up America as a moral leader, a land of opportunity and freedom, yadda, yadda. This might be true if there weren’t such good evidence of so much nefarious conduct on the part of the CIA, FBI and other clandestine operations, both internally and around the world, over the past half-century.As far as I am concerned, regularly announcing to the world that we (Americans) are the most free, the most democratic, the real upholders of humanist values … is a case of “methinks he doth protest too much”.How would Americans know that ? – how much knowledge do they have of the ways that political systems and societal values work in other countries ? For those who have travelled extensively, I’d be willing to bet many could offer examples that give the lie to much common propaganda about other copuntries/systems.