>At the same time torture and rendition are authorized for people held off-shore to skirt laws. Oh, and it is "determined" that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to such "detainees".

Whats interesting is the latest SCOTUS ruling on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and the recent activity after the ruling. In Gonzales' Jan 25, 2002 memo to Bush he writes about Geneva not applying to prisoners, but he has concerns about the War Crimes Act of 1996:

"On January 18 [2002], I advised you that the department of Justice had issued a formal legal opinion concluding that the Geneva Convention III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPWIII) does not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda. I also advised that the DOJ’s opinion concludes 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 and accordingly that al Qaeda and Taliban detainees are not prisoners of war under the GPW."

Under the "Ramifications" portion of the memo, he writes...

Substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441).

That statute, enacted in 1996, prohibits the commission of a "war crime" by or against a U.S. person, including U.S. officials. A determination that the GPW is not applicable to the Taliban would mean that Section 2441 would not apply to actins taken with respect to the Taliban.
__________

In the July 2006 SCOTUS Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruling (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf) the court held that GC articles do apply...

The procedures adopted to try Hamdan also violate the Geneva Conventions. The D.C. Circuit dismissed Hamdan's challenge in this regard on the grounds, inter alia, that the Conventions are not judicially enforceable and that, in any even, Hamdan is not entitled to their protections. Neither of these grounds is persuasive.

Alternatively, the appeals court agreed with the Government that the Conventions do not apply because Hamdan was captured during the war with al Qaeda, which is not a Convention signatory, and that conflict is distinct from the war with signatory Afghanistan. The Court need not decide the merits of this arguement because there is at least one provision of the GC that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not between signatories.

The D.C. Circuit ruled Common Article 3 inapplicable to Hamdan because the conflict with al Qaeda is international in scope... That reasoning is erroneous.
___________

August 2006

The Bush administration drafted amendments to the War Crimes Act that would retroactively protect policymakers from possible criminal charges for authorizing any humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, according to lawyers who have seen the proposal. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/war_crimes

In an important part of the ruling, the court held that a provision of the Geneva Conventions known as Common Article 3 applies to the Guantanamo detainees and is enforceable in federal court for their protection. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/washington/29cnd-scotus.html?ex=1155700800&en=8f6f330111121fe7&ei=5070