This is dated today. It says nothing about filing charges.
Developments in US policy and legislation towards detainees: the ICRC position
In an interview for the ICRC website, the organization's President, Jakob Kellenberger, talks about the recent developments in US policy and legislation towards those detained in the fight against terrorism.
Q: What is the ICRC reaction to the recent policy and legal changes that have been taken in the US relating to the persons captured in the "war against terrorism"?
The US Government has recently taken a series of noteworthy decisions regarding the detention, treatment and trial of persons in its custody. They include: the publication of a Department of Defense directive on detention and of the Army field manual on interrogation, the disclosure of the CIA detention programme, as well as the adoption of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The ICRC is carefully examining these developments and is in a dialogue with the US Government regarding the legal and practical impact they could have.
Let's remember that until September 2006, the US Government said that it was treating its detainees humanely, "consistent with the principles" of international humanitarian law. Since the Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan of June 2006, the US government has recognized that Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions is the minimum legal standard applicable to persons detained in the fight against terrorism.
In recent doctrine, the Department of Defense has acknowledged that common Article 3 is the legally binding minimum standard for detainees in its custody. This is a welcome development.
Q: What is the ICRC's first reading of the "Military Commissions Act of 2006"?
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is a complex law that addresses a wide range of issues. Some of them are a matter of domestic law, while others involve interpretations of international law, including international humanitarian law.
Our preliminary reading of the new legislation raises certain concerns and questions. The very broad definition of who is an "unlawful enemy combatant" and the fact that there is not an explicit prohibition on the admission of evidence attained by coercion are examples.
We are similarly concerned about the way in which the Act has created two tiers of prohibitions out of those listed in common Article 3. The Act provides a list of violations it calls "grave breaches" of common Article 3 broader than the text of the Article itself (rape, sexual assault, biological experiments and intentionally causing serious bodily injury have been added), which is noteworthy.
At the same time, it omits certain violations from the list of acts that are war crimes under US domestic law. These include the prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, and the prohibition of the denial of the right to a fair trial, which is a basic protection provided for in international law. This distinction between the different violations disrupts the integrity of common Article 3.
These and other issues are the subject of our ongoing dialogue with the US.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(75 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
