WP: U.S. Troops Will Benefit from Geneva Convention Clarity, Experts Say

[DeepModem Mom]

U.S. Troops Will Benefit From Clarity, Experts Say
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 12, 2006; Page A05

The biggest effect of the Pentagon's acceptance of a recent Supreme Court ruling that requires it to abide by the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners is likely to be not at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp or in U.S. courtrooms but on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, military lawyers and other experts said yesterday.

Experts said the justices' ruling removes much of the ambiguity about what sort of protections detained Iraqis, Afghans and foreign fighters enjoy and what rules apply to the actions of U.S. troops....

***

For years, these experts said, U.S. military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan were operating under guidelines that were not clear. As prisoners were taken in Afghanistan late in 2001 and early in 2002, for example, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that the United States "for the most part" was treating the prisoners "in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Geneva Convention" but that it was not required to do so, because the detainees are "unlawful combatants" who "do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention."

This murkiness has been cited by some critics of the administration's operations in Iraq as contributing to a culture of abuse that led to inhumane treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison and other sites.

As a result, some lawyers with expertise in military affairs said they believe military leaders would be reassured by a clarification of prisoners' rights in part because it is a reversion to U.S. military tradition. "I think commanders in the field will see it positively -- they see the value of complying with the law of war," said Col. David Wallace, a West Point law professor. "It's not seen as an impediment to mission performance."...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071101041.html

[Erika]

1. W's rejecting the Geneva Convention rules opened our troops

up to a lawless order by their captor's. This was pointed out consistently to W who stubbornly refused to treat combatants as POW's. The chickenhawk talking in him.

[Rex]

2. So now we will follow the geneva convention, good idea.

Is this like pre-emptive war, bottom line it is still war. Why didn't we take Saddam out in Gulf War I? Had more troops and hardware.

It is always mission accomplished with these idiots.