My fellow Americans,
It goes without saying at this point how deeply divided America was in the last election on the issue of morals.
Yet a question has arisen that should unite us as one. In light of yesterday's release by the ACLU of the Executive Order authorizing torture, how can anybody continue to stand up and say they believe in President Bush's morality? What sort of morals promote, endorse and condone torture - of anyone?
The text of the order, it is true, does not mention torture by name. It DOES, however, condone it and turn a blind eye toward those who commit it. For those who don't understand yet, I will break it down.
For the record, my source for the Executive Order is the International Law of War Association (
http://lawofwar.org/Bush_torture_memo.htm)
1. Our recent extensive discussions regarding the status of al-Qaida and Taliban detainees confirm that the application of Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, (Geneva) to the conflict with al-Qaida and the Taliban involves complex legal questions. By its terms, Geneva applies to conflicts involving "High Contracting Parties," which can only be states. Moreover, it assumes the existence of "regular" armed forces fighting on behalf of states. However, the war against terrorism ushers in a new paradigm, one in which groups with broad, international reach commit horrific acts against innocent civilians, sometimes with the direct support of states. Our nation recognizes that this new paradigm - ushered in not by us, but by terrorists - requires new thinking in the law of war, but thinking that should nevertheless be consistent with the principles of Geneva.
In this paragraph, George W. Bush lays out a definiton of "terrorist," and says that the Geneva Convention does not apply to this new kind of warfare because terrorists are not independent nations (tell that to Libya), nor are they "regular" armed forces (what defines "regular?") fighting on behalf of independent nations. (Indeed, I believe Hamas would like to know about that.)
2. Pursuant to my authority as commander in chief and chief executive of the United States, and relying on the opinion of the Department of Justice dated January 22, 2002, and on the legal opinion rendered by the attorney general in his letter of February 1, 2002, I hereby determine as follows:
a. I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al-Qaida in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, al-Qaida is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.
Here, George W. Bush says that, because al-Qaeda is not a nation in and of itself - it does not have a "regular" army such as many of the world's nations do - and was not a signing party to the terms of Geneva, the protections afforded prisoners of war by said agreement cannot be applied here. He further states that his decision is made on information and opinions provided by the Department of Justice and by Attorney General John Ashcroft.
b. I accept the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time. Accordingly, I determine that the provisions of Geneva will apply to our present conflict with the Taliban. I reserve the right to exercise the authority in this or future conflicts.
This deals with the Taliban prisoners currently being held at Guantanamo Bay. Here, it is said that the Attorney General (John Ashcroft) and the Department of Justice have determined that the US may "suspend" Geneva at any time. In other words, the US has the right to brutalize prisoners of war at any time. It is further stated that, while at the signing of this document he (W. Bush) chose not to exercise this power, he reserved the right to do so. To judge by the reports from Gitmo, our prison in Afghanistan, he has since made that decision.
c. I also accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either al-Qaida or Taliban detainees, because, among other reasons, the relevant conflicts are international in scope and common Article 3 applies only to "armed conflict not of an international character."
d. Based on the facts supplied by the Department of Defense and the recommendation of the Department of Justice, I determine that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants and, therefore, do not qualify as prisoners of war under Article 4 of Geneva. I note that, because Geneva does not apply to our conflict with al-Qaida, al-Qaida detainees also do not qualify as prisoners of war.
These are the two paragraphs, sections 2c and 2d, that form the core of the document. Taken together, as they must be, they render all the rest of the document's platitudes about "military necessity" and treating prisoners of war in a human manner meaningless - because al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoner don't count as prisoners of war! Note that this is based on "facts" unmentioned, supplied by the Department of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld). Even though al-Qaeda is an international organization that views its armed conflict with America as jihad - a holy war, Bush insists that the principles of the Convention do not apply!
Note that I give here also the text of the Geneva Convention, Part I, Article Two:
Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
(Source: The Jewish Virtual Library, found at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html)
So the US is required, by having signed the Convention and agreed to its terms, to treat ALL prisoner of war humanely, regardless of whether or not war is recognized. But that apparently can be blown off with ease, according to President Bush. To return to the document in question:
3. Of course, our values as a nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. Our nation has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles. As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva. (emphasis mine)
This means nothing. Al-Qaeda detainees do not qualify as prisoners of war. Taliban detainees do not qualify, either, although they did fight for a particular state. That releases them from the protections of Geneva, relieving the US leadership of the international backlash from a broken treaty. With the international law no longer hanging overhead, "military necessity" no longer exists - this effectively says, there is no need to treat these people with dignity or humanity!
4. The United States will hold states, organizations, and individuals who gain control of United States personnel responsible for treating such personnel humanely and consistent with applicable law.
This is just plain chutzpah, and a blatant double-standard. The US will not treat prisoners humanely, but expects other nations who take our soldiers and civilians prisoner to treat our soldiers with respect and dignity? Remember the executions - remember those dead, and place them directly at the feet of George W. Bush as retaliation for our own violations of Geneva!
5. I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the secretary of defense to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.
Apparently Donald Rumsfeld put that order through the signature machine and it jammed, because "humane treatment" is not what we have been seeing. Again, "military necessity" no longer exists when the weight of international law is no longer there to enforce humane treatment.
6. I hereby direct the secretary of state to communicate my determinations in an appropriate manner to our allies, and other countries and international organizations cooperating in the war against terrorism of global reach.
This is just telling Colin Powell to tell the world that we will no longer abide by the terms of the Geneva Convention.
That concludes the Executive Memo, signed 07 February 2002 by President George W. Bush.
The implementation of this memo does not stop at Guantanamo Bay and Gitmo - it also applies to the practices of Abu Ghraib. Remember sections 2c and 2d? The Iraqis detained in Abu Ghraib are assumed guilty of terrorist acts until proven innocent - assumed to be part of al-Qaeda, and automatically stripped of human rights (among other things) until and unless proven innocent!
Tell me - how does this match with the Constitution that Bush has sworn to preserve, protect and defend? What kind of example does this set? How does this follow a moral and ethical code of behavior that is respectful to all? What standards does this President hold to so dearly? At the very best, this order shows that he turns a blind eye to the implementation of torture and the degradation of human dignity, and at the worst Bush implicitly condones it! Further, FBI documents claim that he explicitly ordered torture to be used at Abu Ghraib. He claims to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but this very order that bears his signature puts them in greater danger than ever!
The US has impeached one president for doing nothing worse than having an extramarital affair. How, then, can we as a nation possibly stand aside now? How can we fail to call for impeachment against this president, who endangers our troops without need, who steps us down as a nation to the level of the terrorists we fight, and who violates the laws of war and the laws of humanity - all in one document?
My fellow Americans, aside from retaining any shred of credibility in the eyes of the international community, if you have any heart or any conscience, if you profess any claim at all to morality or ethics, then you have no choice. You must call for the impeachment of George W. Bush on a national level, and for the trials of John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld and of George W. Bush as war criminals on an international level.
Anything less is unconscionable; to the world at large, to our troops in grave danger, to yourselves, and to America.