Bush and Common Article 3

I was struck with something George Bush kept hammering home during Friday's press conference. It was about how Common Article III was "vague."

In answer to a question, he said in part:

This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article III of the Geneva Convention. And that Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's very vague. What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation. And what I'm proposing is that there be clarity in the law so that our professionals will have no doubt that that which they are doing is legal.

And then

Now, the Court said that you've got to live under Article III of the Geneva Convention, and the standards are so vague that our professionals won't be able to carry forward the program, because they don't want to be tried as war criminals.

And this:

...that this program won't go forward; if there is vague standards applied, like those in Common Article III from the Geneva Convention...

The talking point of the day seems to be "vague standards of Common Article III." Here's Tony Snow from the day before:

We believe that it's important to outline very clearly our obligations under law, under the Constitution, and in international treaties. Some of the language in Common Article II -- Common Article III -- I'm sorry -- is vague.

And so on. So the Administration is insisting that Common Article III is in need of clarification because "some of the language" in it is "vague." Well gang, here's Common Article III:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) 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.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

See, there's a lot more to it than the "outrages upon personal dignity" that seems to be confounding Dubya. There's the part prohibiting violence and torture and the part demanding "all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

But all this is on hold for our AWOL President because he's found the phrase "outrages upon personal dignity" to be too vague. I guess he missed the very next phrase - "in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" but I guess that's vague, too.

But, really, what's so vague about it?

Technorati Tags: George W Bush, Geneva Conventions, Common Article 3