Yonivore
07-12-2006, 09:31 AM
I was watching the evening news last night and they reported on a "major shift" in the administration policy regarding al Qaeda and the Geneva Conventions.
Well, I got to poking around on the old internets and, sure enough, there were other sites, bloggers and news sites (conservative and liberal) all reporting the same thing.
They were basically saying that the administration has thrown in the towel and, as a result, of the Hamdan decision, terrorist prisoners were now being afforded Geneva Convention protections.
Well, knowing how lazy the media is, I figured the source for this ridiculous story could only be one place -- that's right -- the New York Times. So, looking back at yesterday's edition, I find this article on the fallout from the Hamdan decision titled "In Big Shift, U.S. to Follow Geneva Treaty for Detainees." (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/world/11cnd-detain.html?hp&ex=1152676800&en=e36adb8e22b9523a&ei=5094&partner=homepage)
It would be possible to write a more misleading headline, but it wouldn't be easy.
The Times purports to report on the administration's efforts to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling to the effect that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to all GWOT detainees. But the paper fails to note that the administration has always treated the Geneva Conventions as applicable to the conflict in Iraq. To quote Don Rumsfeld (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5024068/):
"Iraq's a nation. The United States is a nation. The Geneva Conventions applied. They have applied every single day from the outset."
Further, the Times writes that "The Pentagon memo, issued last Friday and released today, orders that all detainees be treated in compliance with what is known as Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, a passage that requires humane treatment and a minimum standard of judicial protections for prisoners." The paper notes the administration's observation that this memo did not constitute a reversal in policy, but the article's headline, trumpeting a "big shift" in policy, explicitly rejects that observation. In fact, as Jed Babbin wrote yesterday on Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/07/dod_memo_on_terror_detainees_j.html), the Pentagon memo says that:
[W]ith the exception of the military tribunals tossed out by the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan, the treatment of the terrorist enemy combatants - under the cited Defense Department and Army manuals - is believed to be consistent with Geneva standards. The media hype of this is entirely wrong.
In other words, our treatment of detainees is already in compliance with Common Article 3.
Further, President Bush ordered (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:SgTty3Kv4xwJ:www.justicescholars.or g/pegc/archive/White_House/bush_memo_20020207_ed.pdf+bush+memo+February+7+200 2+detainees&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=safari) on February 7, 2002 (That's pre-Hamdan for you people who are fact-challenged):
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.
In short: some "big shift."
But, while we're on the subject of Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, let's also discuss this notion that it pulled the legs out from under the NSA Surveillance programs -- which, apparently, are still operating (where are the calls for the NSA to stop?) -- albeit, now under the shadow of enemy awareness.
In response to a letter from Senator Schumer (http://lawculture.blogs.com/lawculture/files/NSA.schumer.letter.pdf) seeking the Administration's view of the NSA domestic surveillance program in light of the Court's decision in Hamdan, the Deparment of Justice has submitted this letter (http://lawculture.blogs.com/lawculture/files/NSA.Hamdan.response.schumer.pdf), in which it contends:
That the AUMF overrides FISA (even though, per Hamdan, it does not override the UCMJ);
That, in any event, Congress has no Article I power to enact FISA, at least with respect to the President's wartime surveillance practices (even though Congress did have the power to prescribe limits on military commissions); and,
That even if Congress did have an Article I power to enact FISA, the President's Article II power as Commander-in-Chief and as the "Executive" entitles him to disregard FISA in wartime (a position DOJ contends is still valid because Hamdan does not even require the Administration to comply with the UCMJ if it conflicts with his Commander-in-Chief powers or his constitutional duty to protect the nation).
Gotta love an administration that can defend itself and its positions; Hamdan, Schmamdan. By the way, is the Mainstream Media reporting this exchance between Senator Schumer and the Department of Justice? It would seem to me, to be big news -- in light of the "big shift" in administration policy.
Again, where are the calls for the NSA Programs to be stopped? And, similarly, what was the public interest the NYTimes was serving when they leaked this and the SWIFT Programs? I'm still waiting on an answer to that.
Finally, and this is for you who continue to mock the idea that the administration is pursuing the leaker or that there will ever be prosecutions; the Heritage Foundation put on a program (http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev071106a.cfm) yesterday on the captured Iraqi documents that are being made available via Project Harmony. You can get a podcast of the event here (http://multimedia.heritage.org/mp3/Allison-071106.mp3). I haven't had time to listen to it yet, but this Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-07-12T004252Z_01_N11276431_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-HOEKSTRA.xml&src=rss) story gives a rather garbled account of the address given by Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee:
The Bush administration is preparing a crackdown on intelligence leaks to the media and will try to pursue prosecutions in some recent cases, the chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee on Tuesday.
"There will be a renewed effort by the Justice Department in a couple of these cases to go through the entire process ... so they can prosecute," Hoekstra said in a speech to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
Hoekstra also said the newly-installed CIA director Michael Hayden was conducting aggressive internal investigations against leakers.
Reuters also attributes to Hoekstra a rather weird suggestion that the recent leaks may be due to penetration of our intelligence agencies by "other nations or organizations." Hoekstra reportedly admitted that he had no evidence of any such penetration by foreign governments.
Personally, I think that penetration of the CIA and other intelligence agencies by Democrats is more than enough to explain the leaks.
Well, I got to poking around on the old internets and, sure enough, there were other sites, bloggers and news sites (conservative and liberal) all reporting the same thing.
They were basically saying that the administration has thrown in the towel and, as a result, of the Hamdan decision, terrorist prisoners were now being afforded Geneva Convention protections.
Well, knowing how lazy the media is, I figured the source for this ridiculous story could only be one place -- that's right -- the New York Times. So, looking back at yesterday's edition, I find this article on the fallout from the Hamdan decision titled "In Big Shift, U.S. to Follow Geneva Treaty for Detainees." (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/world/11cnd-detain.html?hp&ex=1152676800&en=e36adb8e22b9523a&ei=5094&partner=homepage)
It would be possible to write a more misleading headline, but it wouldn't be easy.
The Times purports to report on the administration's efforts to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling to the effect that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to all GWOT detainees. But the paper fails to note that the administration has always treated the Geneva Conventions as applicable to the conflict in Iraq. To quote Don Rumsfeld (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5024068/):
"Iraq's a nation. The United States is a nation. The Geneva Conventions applied. They have applied every single day from the outset."
Further, the Times writes that "The Pentagon memo, issued last Friday and released today, orders that all detainees be treated in compliance with what is known as Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, a passage that requires humane treatment and a minimum standard of judicial protections for prisoners." The paper notes the administration's observation that this memo did not constitute a reversal in policy, but the article's headline, trumpeting a "big shift" in policy, explicitly rejects that observation. In fact, as Jed Babbin wrote yesterday on Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/07/dod_memo_on_terror_detainees_j.html), the Pentagon memo says that:
[W]ith the exception of the military tribunals tossed out by the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan, the treatment of the terrorist enemy combatants - under the cited Defense Department and Army manuals - is believed to be consistent with Geneva standards. The media hype of this is entirely wrong.
In other words, our treatment of detainees is already in compliance with Common Article 3.
Further, President Bush ordered (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:SgTty3Kv4xwJ:www.justicescholars.or g/pegc/archive/White_House/bush_memo_20020207_ed.pdf+bush+memo+February+7+200 2+detainees&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=safari) on February 7, 2002 (That's pre-Hamdan for you people who are fact-challenged):
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.
In short: some "big shift."
But, while we're on the subject of Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, let's also discuss this notion that it pulled the legs out from under the NSA Surveillance programs -- which, apparently, are still operating (where are the calls for the NSA to stop?) -- albeit, now under the shadow of enemy awareness.
In response to a letter from Senator Schumer (http://lawculture.blogs.com/lawculture/files/NSA.schumer.letter.pdf) seeking the Administration's view of the NSA domestic surveillance program in light of the Court's decision in Hamdan, the Deparment of Justice has submitted this letter (http://lawculture.blogs.com/lawculture/files/NSA.Hamdan.response.schumer.pdf), in which it contends:
That the AUMF overrides FISA (even though, per Hamdan, it does not override the UCMJ);
That, in any event, Congress has no Article I power to enact FISA, at least with respect to the President's wartime surveillance practices (even though Congress did have the power to prescribe limits on military commissions); and,
That even if Congress did have an Article I power to enact FISA, the President's Article II power as Commander-in-Chief and as the "Executive" entitles him to disregard FISA in wartime (a position DOJ contends is still valid because Hamdan does not even require the Administration to comply with the UCMJ if it conflicts with his Commander-in-Chief powers or his constitutional duty to protect the nation).
Gotta love an administration that can defend itself and its positions; Hamdan, Schmamdan. By the way, is the Mainstream Media reporting this exchance between Senator Schumer and the Department of Justice? It would seem to me, to be big news -- in light of the "big shift" in administration policy.
Again, where are the calls for the NSA Programs to be stopped? And, similarly, what was the public interest the NYTimes was serving when they leaked this and the SWIFT Programs? I'm still waiting on an answer to that.
Finally, and this is for you who continue to mock the idea that the administration is pursuing the leaker or that there will ever be prosecutions; the Heritage Foundation put on a program (http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev071106a.cfm) yesterday on the captured Iraqi documents that are being made available via Project Harmony. You can get a podcast of the event here (http://multimedia.heritage.org/mp3/Allison-071106.mp3). I haven't had time to listen to it yet, but this Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-07-12T004252Z_01_N11276431_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-HOEKSTRA.xml&src=rss) story gives a rather garbled account of the address given by Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee:
The Bush administration is preparing a crackdown on intelligence leaks to the media and will try to pursue prosecutions in some recent cases, the chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee on Tuesday.
"There will be a renewed effort by the Justice Department in a couple of these cases to go through the entire process ... so they can prosecute," Hoekstra said in a speech to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
Hoekstra also said the newly-installed CIA director Michael Hayden was conducting aggressive internal investigations against leakers.
Reuters also attributes to Hoekstra a rather weird suggestion that the recent leaks may be due to penetration of our intelligence agencies by "other nations or organizations." Hoekstra reportedly admitted that he had no evidence of any such penetration by foreign governments.
Personally, I think that penetration of the CIA and other intelligence agencies by Democrats is more than enough to explain the leaks.