That was a collective sigh of relief you just heard from the rest of the world, and from our armed forces. Apparently Bush has decided America will once again be a practicing party to the Geneva Conventions.

The problem, now as before, is that there has always been spotty enforcement of our torture and interrogation edicts, no matter what those were. Evidence is strong that troops on the ground don't understand enough about what is and is not okay to prevent war crimes from happening. So re-educating the troops and the detainment center administrators needs to be priority.

This EO comes as the US is increasingly being accused of atrocities abroad, so maybe it's a step in the direction of restoring our tattered reputation. And it's a definite victory for those theorists around the World Court and ICJ who have claimed that the world-wide norm against torture is strong enough to withstand defiance even by a major power like the US. On a day that has seen news break that Bush considers himself outside the Constitution and outside Congressional review, at least he doesn't consider himself outside the fundamental norms of humanity.

Now that the actual text has been posted i'm confused... he claims we're still not pursuant to Geneva, but then gives guidelines that look very like the Geneva guidelines against torture. I know the Conventions fairly well, so is there something in the US statutes that he quotes that woud create a substantial difference? (Or is it that the whole government isn't confined by Geneva, and this EO only covers the CIA, leaving other agencies/the military free to do as they please?)

Dear Paranoid Yet: Yes, I am. Your prediction is dead on.

But has he stopped beating his wife? I doubt it.

Does Section 5:

"Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, this order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to prevent or limit reliance upon this order in a civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding, or otherwise, by the Central Intelligence Agency or by any individual acting on behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency in connection with the program addressed in this order."

mean that in case this is violated the offended has no recourse?

That's what worries me too, Anna.

Though I have another, darker worry...

He's above the law, remember? *All laws*

He giveth .... and therefore... well, it just depends upon what he hears from on high.

It's a combination of CYA and PR.

Bush doesn't gives a whit about treating people fairly or what the world thinks of us or what other foreign powers will do to our soliders when they get their hands on them after what we've done.

The really, really SAD thing is that anybody who is a professional knows that torture does NOT produce valid or actionable intelligence. The entire PREMISE is wrong.

If these are "new guidelines" that certainly implies that these are not guidelines that have been being followed, right?

So is not this act of creating "new" guidelines an admission of torture in the immediate past?

How can it be read any other way?

Yes, it is a small step in the right direction, I suppose, but it certainly does just wipe away all accountabiltiy that has preceeded it.

CharlieL is right, everyone who's studied it knows that torture doesn't produce good evidence, and it's often much slower than non-torture techniques for information gathering. And Doreen is right that we've been torturing people for the last five years. This hasn't been a secret. Here's a link to an article on US torture policy to date:

http://www.merip.org/mero/mero120905.html

I've had a chance to study the EO a little more closely now, and here's what I can see of how it's different from Geneva (note: our troops are still not protected by the Geneva conventions, which should worry all these "protect the troops" types a lot more than it actually seems to):

The EO's definition of 'complying with GCIII' in Sec.3.b doesn't match that of the rest of the world. Bush wants the US to still be *party* to the treaty, but doesn't want to have to enforce it when it comes to terrorism suspects. So he defines 'complying' with the treaty very broadly. For the rest of the world, not torturing and providing basic necessities is important, but GCIII also guarantees that detainees have their sentences decided by "a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." Bush doesn't grant that in the EO. GCIII also allows that the wounded and sick have to be cared for (presumably by the Red Cross), and Bush doesn't seem to care, as he doesn't address it here.

In short, this is a step in the right direction, but Bush thumbs his nose at justice again by not requiring courts for sentencing, and fails to insure oversight of his 'do not torture' policy by disallowing the Red Cross from performing their function. It makes this order a lot more toothless than bush wants it to seem.

Thus, apparently we are no longer "civilized peoples."

How comforting.

Sounds like Bush is a bit worried about being targeted for War Crimes.

I am not a lawyer but doesn’t this appear to leave room for other CIA programs which do not comply with Common Article 3?

“I hereby determine that Common Article 3 shall apply to a program of detention and interrogation operated by the Central Intelligence Agency as set forth in this section. The requirements set forth in this section shall be applied with respect to detainees in such program without adverse distinction as to their race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth, or wealth.”

Shouldn’t this read all programs and all programs respectively in both cases?

I seem to remember similar weaseling language in prior statements coming out of the Justice Dept.

Remember most of all, Bush has never had a good intention in his life. Now:

Yes, The devil's in the details.

Section 1(a): this officially conflates al Qaeda & Iraq. You go, George!

But here are the money quotes:

"...(a) Pursuant to the authority of the President under the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including the Military Commissions Act of 2006, this order interprets the meaning and application of the text of Common Article 3 with respect to certain detentions and interrogations, and shall be treated as authoritative for all purposes as a matter of United States law, including satisfaction of the international obligations of the United States. I hereby determine that Common Article 3 shall apply to a program of detention and interrogation operated by the Central Intelligence Agency as set forth in this section. ..."

"...(b) I hereby determine that a program of detention and interrogation approved by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency fully complies with the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3, ..."

The key phrases herein:
"...shall apply to a program of detention and interrogation OPERATED BY the Central Intelligence Agency..."

and

"...a program of detention and interrogation APPROVED BY the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency..."

There's your gaping hole. Heelllllloooooo, Black Ops! Hello, Blackwater!

There is absolutely nothing but political cover here. This way, Bush's CIA head du jour is clean because they never APPROVED anyone doing THAT!!

So, there are no OFFICIAL CIA torture operations. But as we know, Bushies are very good at the clandestine side of life.

Also, since the phrase "...or their representatives..." is missing from the EO, consider this merely a directive from the Oval Office for the CIA to outsource. It's a Blackwater moment.

Pontius Pilate just washed his hands.

We are headed to confrontation. Smile!

We are headed to confrontation. Smile!

A few hundred billion dollars given to the right people, along with liability of other countries where our rendition occurred, will most likely insulate this administration from any Geneva Convention prosecutions. I just hope that our own elected officials don't follow the same route and allow these inhumane acts to go unpunished....

There's the frikkin' AUMF that gave Bush his crown.

"By the authority vested in me as President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107‑40)..."

I remember when Barbara Lee voted against the AUMF. I read the bill just prior to the vote and couldn't believe she was the only one who voted against it. The language was outrageous and still is.

Democracy in the US really laid down and died that day.

Just more bullshit. How many years after Abu Grahib (misspelt)?, is it? And who is gonna oversee these new "guidelines". Wise up! Nothin's changing!

I suspect over the next 18 months we're going to see a lot of Executive Orders that look like this one. They purport to "clarify" the President's position on one or more of his highly controversial situations shall we say. So that when he is no longer in office he can point to EO's like this one and say..." see, when I finally fonud out members of my administration MIGHT be breaking the law I clarified it for them" This gives him a ready made defense before a World Court.
I wonder if anyone will buy it?

The President seems to have forgotten that the last World Saviour was crucified by the people he came to save.

Haven't I read somewhere about "False gods that cometh among us"?

Geneva is silent on "torture"; it prohibits _all_ abuse.

THe US, in say, "We don't torture," fails to meet Geneva requirements of prohibiting all abuse.

US govt officials who condone this illegal treatment of POWs could be setting up all Americans -- even detained-charged-without-evidence-civilians -- in retalation for this abuse.

This is illegal and contrary to the requirements of the Court in re Hamdii/Hamdan/Rasul, concluding that non-charged detainees at Guantanamo have not been lawfully handled: "I determined for the United States that members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces are unlawful enemy combatants who are not entitled to the protections that the Third Geneva Convention provides to prisoners of war. I hereby reaffirm that determination."

There is no miert to any assertion that a POW is "not" entitled to prto4ections _until_ they are adjudiciated to have been an unlawflu enemy combatant. President has no power to make this judicial assertion, especially without permitting the defendants a chance to challenge their detentions.

The President is illegally asserting that he can [a] determine criteria to evalaute lawfulness; and [b] that the criteria, that he definess, will conclude that something "is lawful". This is not something the President has the power to do.

This is an illegal assertion of Judicial Power outside Article II powers: "(b) I hereby determine that a program of detention and interrogation approved by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency fully complies with the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3, provided that:"

-= He cannot "determine" something "does" or "does not" meet the US legal obligations of Geneva; this amoutns to an illgal self0-assertion that he fully compiles; and an ulnawful assertion of Judicial power.

You need to read the actual language in the frikkin' AUMF which handed Bush his crown to understand how much power Congress gave BUsh ack in 2001.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Public law 107-40

"In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Click the link. Read the full text. The AUMF gave Bush unlimited power.