Bush Administration & Geneva Conventions – Foreign Policy Youth Collaborative

The United Nations (UN) writes, “among the greatest achievements of the United Nations is the development of a body of international law, which is central to promoting economic and social developments, as well as to advancing international peace and security.”

The establishment of “international law” under the UN governs and influences U.S. political strategy to this day. Under the multilateral treaties and conventions agreed upon by member states, entities can enforce regulations based on international law in accordance with subjects such as human rights, environmental protection, humanitarian law, etc. While sectors of the UN such as the International Court of Justice and the General Assembly have the power to adopt multilateral treaties or legally manage international cases, individual states have the obligation to uphold the treaties in which they enter. In the case of international humanitarian law, these sets of rules are intended to “limit the effects of armed conflict” by ensuring the protection of civilians, combatants, and prisoners of war (POWs).

Particularly influential articles of international accordance with humanitarian law come in the form of the Geneva Conventions. Within the Convention’s 159 articles, pertaining specifically to POWs, it details the responsibility of legal, respectful, and humane treatment of prisoners. In Article I, the Convention asserts that all parties who have ratified these articles must respect and ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances. Article II elaborates on the application of the Convention, declaring, “the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them” and “although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.” With additional articles to safeguard naval personnel and civilians under enemy occupation, practically every country in the world has authorized the Geneva Conventions, including the United States. As with most “binding” multilateral UN treaties, sovereign states who violate the Geneva Conventions may face significant consequences, including facing charges of war crimes.

During the 21st century, criticism of the American government for human rights violations rose drastically under George W. Bush’s administration. The shift in American political and humanitarian ideals came right after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and was further influenced by the War on Terror. Significant claims arose that suggested major U.S. violations of the Geneva Conventions in both war zones and military bases. Despite Bush having stated that U.S. detained individuals should be treated “humanely, and to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles [of the Geneva Conventions],” critics’ investigations into these potential war crimes have not been halted.

To better understand how actions under the Bush administration may have violated the Geneva Conventions, we can analyze an article published by the Council on Foreign Relations, titled, “The United States and the Geneva Conventions.” The first case of a human rights violation was explained through the events occurring at Abu Ghraib: a U.S. detention center that held Iraqi prisoners from 2003 to 2006. An article published by Al Jazeera along with citations from a Red Cross report from 2004 stated that an estimated “70% and 90% of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake.” The article goes on to describe a quote from President Bush where he responded to the scandal by comparing prisoner abuse at that site from foreign leaders as “torture” but asserting that “American troops dishonored our country and disregarded our values.” Regardless, the disturbing images and survival stories leaked from Abu Ghraib provided a shocking new side to previously considered “good” American morals.

In more prominent cases, such as Guantanamo Bay, there have also been numerous detailed accounts of illegal interrogation along with torture tactics used on this American base. There have been several accounts, after President Bush’s approved interrogation program, that detailed the techniques used in areas such as Guantanamo Bay and C.I.A black sites in Thailand. In an article published by the New York Times in 2019, it revealed that after Obama outlawed the interrogation program, a Senate study showed that the CIA lied about its effectiveness and brutality. First-hand accounts from Guantanamo bay prisoners established reports of clear abuse and mistreatment coming from this facility.

These cases, and many more that are not declassified for public knowledge, have raised increasing suspicions on the Bush administration’s handling of the Geneva Conventions. In the administration’s defense, they stated that Article III of the Geneva Conventions serves as vague blueprints for interrogators. As detailed in an article published by the Council of Foreign Relations, former President Bush told reporters that the standards were “vague” and their professions weren’t able to carry the program forward due to the fear of being tried as “war criminals.” He has also implied that the interrogations by CIA officials prevented American-targeted terrorist attacks in the future and suggested the proposal of a bill that would reinterpret Article III of the Geneva Conventions. The article published by the Council of Foreign Relations also mentioned that this new bill would ideally “comport more with U.S domestic law.”

Although in the Supreme Court case, the Court ruled that the administration violated the Geneva Conventions and the rules of the Uniform Code of Military Justice accompanying it because the Conventions prohibits “the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”

In the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a Yemeni citizen Ahmed Hamdan, driver of Osama bin Laden, was captured by bounty hunters and sold to the U.S. military where he was later transferred to Guantanamo Bay. In 2004, he was charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism but prior to being sent before a military commission, he filed a writ of habeas corpus. After tribunals, several writs of habeas corpus, and additional appeals, his case was reviewed by the Supreme Court in 2006. In an article published by WNET Thirteen, “the Court argued that it was immaterial that the terrorist group Al Qaeda was not a signatory because the Convention still applied to individuals, like Hamdan, who was captured in the context of ‘international conflicts’ within member nations of the Convention, like Afghanistan.” This is where the Court ruled that the Bush administration’s use of military commissions violated the Geneva Conventions.

After the terrorist attacks during September of 2001 and further U.S. military intervention in Iraq, the shift in American values towards a more xenophobic and Islamaphobic culture became blatantly apparent. It not only altered the way American leadership conducted foreign affairs, but it also built the foundation of excuses that made way for pardoning international war crimes; including the Geneva Conventions. While the security of the American population will always be the priority in American foreign policy, as a major world power, there is also the responsibility to not contradict treaties we force our opponents and allies to uphold. As mentioned in the declassified “Torture Report” of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, “such pressure, fear, and expectation of further terrorist plots do not justify, temper, or excuse improper actions taken by individuals or organizations in the name of national security.” And although the cases of the Bush administration’s actions were declassified, there is still a multitude of information that is still classified and unable to be reached by the average citizen. For this purpose, it is difficult to reach an exact conclusion and pinpoint a solution in which all parties are satisfied. Preliminary instinct without knowledge would most likely sway supporters towards the torture methods enforced by the Bush administration. These naval bases and black sites would theoretically protect American security and interests while also attacking enemy forces. If international law was this simple, there would be no need for discussion, however, in the cases of Abu Ghraib, it was noted that many of the prisoners were innocent civilians caught up in US military raids, instances similar to Ahmed Hamdan.

Personally, I believe that the inhumane and internationally frowned upon treatment of these POWs not only pose a threat to American security, but they also do not deter nor do they de-incentivize our enemies. While armed conflict will be inevitable in the future, the way we regulate long-standing international treaties/conventions during times of war is what truly determines America’s strength. While we might encourage these actions as a response to American interests, who knows what new, shocking declassified information we’ll uncover in a few years from the Obama, Trump, or possible future president’s administration.

Sources:

Written by Lisel Ndrecka.