A recipe for national health: more Colin, less Rice

"Colin Powell, former secretary of state, isn't stalling when it comes to speaking his mind on closing down the naval base at Guantanamo Bay unlike his successor, Condeeleezza Rice who approaches Gitmo the way most of us approach doing our taxes. In fact, Powell says that he would close Gitmo "not tomorrow but this afternoon," acknowledging that the detention center, in Cuba, has done more damage to America's reputation, and national security than good. (Reuters)

And, while many remember him for his counterfeit claims to the United Nations about weapons of mass distraction, he must also be remembered as being the first public figure, in the Bush administration, to assert that the U.S. is breaking international law, and the Geneva Conventions by its handling of prisoners of war."


No votes yet

With everything going on the world today, you'd think we'd be seeing alot of our Secretary of State. Instead Condeeleezza Rice completely MIA...

I'm curious to know how the U.S. is breaking international law at Gitmo because I've read the Geneva convention and the wording of it is so vague that even the Veitnamese treatment of our POW's could have been read as legal.

I read the article you cited Neighborhood and I couldn't find it. It makes a case that the CIA has violated international law but not GITMO which is run by the Pentagon.



...was very interesting...

"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has sought out former Secretary of State Colin Powell for advice on foreign policy matters," the Associated Press reports. "While Powell served in the administrations of two Republican presidents, he said Sunday it was too early in the 2008 race to say whether he would back the GOP nominee. 'I'm going to support the best person that I can find who will lead this country for the eight years beginning in January of 2009,' Powell said. ... Powell said he has met twice with Obama, the Illinois senator."

"The American Government is breaking international law," he told The Independent. "The main building block of a democratic society is that everyone is equal before the law, innocent until proved otherwise, and has the right to legal representation. If the guilt of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay is beyond doubt, why are the Americans afraid to bring them to trial? Transparency and accountability are the other side of the coin of freedom and responsibility. We are all accountable for our actions in spite of circumstances. The events of 9/11 cannot erase the rule of law and international obligations."


A bit dated, yes.

"The court's ruling also establishes that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals involving "enemy combatants" held overseas in U.S. military custody. The Bush administration had argued they lacked it."


"The camp has drawn strong criticism both from within the U.S. military, in the U.S. in general, and world-wide, for its extrajudicial detention of captives, and acknowledgment that the interrogation rules there opened the possibility that captives held there were subjected to abusive interrogation techniques that could cross the line into torture.[3][4] The detainees held by the United States were classified as "enemy combatants". The U.S. administration had claimed that they were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against this interpretation on June 29, 2006.[5] Following this, on July 7, 2006, the Department of Defense issued an internal memo stating that prisoners will in the future be entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions.[6][7][8]"



Thank you for your post although I'm unsure that answers it.

It seems to be more from a general opinion and not that of a legal one which was what I was looking for. Mainly because in the first quote he speaks of the principles of a democratic society but the Geneva convention is not based upon a democratic society. The Geneva convention is a restation of prior rules of war that involves all societies regardless of social philosophy.

One could better argue that GITMO is against the U.S. Constitution however the U.S. Constitution offers no protection to enemy prisoners of war, only to that of American citizens.

Also the wording of the Geneva convention actually gives more rights (although extremely vague and easily gotten around) to prisoners than the Constitution does.



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.