Those "who participated in the interrogations vulnerable to war-crimes"

[ProSense]

War crimes:

USA>Domestic Politics
from the September 21, 2006 edition

Clash of visions over CIA interrogations

Can the broad terms of the Geneva Conventions be more clearly defined without weakening them?

By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Common Article 3 establishes a base line of protections for anyone captured in a conflict. The Bush administration had decided that Common Article 3 did not apply in the war against Al Qaeda since the terror group does not honor the laws of war. But the Supreme Court ruled in June that it does apply.

Now Mr. Bush is trying - after the fact - to establish a legal foundation for a secret CIA program that has operated since 2002. The problem is that some of the wording in Common Article 3 leaves Americans who participated in the interrogations vulnerable to war-crimes charges.

Danger in tampering with Article 3:

Critics warn that the administration is opening a Pandora's box.

"This is extremely dangerous terrain the president has walked upon now," says David Scheffer, director of the Center for International Human Rights at Northwestern University School of Law and former US ambassador at large for war crimes issues during the Clinton administration.

Professor Scheffer says Common Article 3 was carefully drafted to deter broad categories of potential human rights abuses. "If we take this step to narrowly define Common Article 3 crimes, it will be open season for other governments to do exactly the same thing," he says. And that, Scheffer adds, would put US troops at substantial risk whenever they serve overseas.

"Once you narrowly define what the general prohibitions in Common Article 3 cover, whatever you do not prohibit in your detailed list of prohibited activity will be assumed to be appropriate and legal," he says. "It was never the intention of the drafters of the Geneva Conventions and of Common Article 3 to be so specific in defining these crimes. That would create an enormous opportunity to gut the convention itself."

The Christian Science Monitor

[CJCRANE]

1. "Bush changed everything"

that's seems to be the truth more and more, not "9/11 changed everything".

[kentuck]

2. And if our service people can be tried for "war crimes"...

then, so can their leaders that authorized it. Bottomline.

[kestrel91316]

3. I say go for it. Hang 'em high.

[ProSense]

4. This is the attack on our country! n/t