More Ambiguity About Torture

"Mr. Bush's order of Feb. 7, 2002, issued shortly after American-led forces toppled the Taliban government in Afghanistan, specifically said that critical aspects of the Geneva Conventions do 'not apply to either Al Qaeda or Taliban detainees.'

"In response to a question, the White House issued a statement late Tuesday, saying: 'As a result of the Supreme Court decision, that portion of the order no longer applies. The Supreme Court has clarified what the law is, and the executive branch will comply.' "

The New York Times highlights previous administration statements now rendered inoperative.

A key passage from that 2002 presidential memo: "I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the secretary of defense to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity , in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva." My italics.

Carol Rosenberg and Margaret Talev write for McClatchy Newspapers: "The two-page Pentagon memo repudiates a core element of the legal foundation of President Bush's approach to dealing with terrorism. Bush and his legal advisers initially had said the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to the war on terrorism because it was a new type of conflict that demanded more aggressive action.

"In a 2002 memo , then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales told Bush that this nontraditional war 'renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.'

"Vice President Dick Cheney and White House spokesmen made clear in many public statements since 2002 that they didn't think that terrorism suspects deserved the rights that the Geneva Conventions granted to enemy soldiers. At the same time, Bush has said repeatedly that his administration is committed to complying with the Geneva Conventions, but he's also reserved the right to waive them if he sees fit as commander in chief. . . .

"In claiming an exemption from the international law on prisoners' rights, Bush said the United States nevertheless would adhere to the Geneva Conventions' standards as a matter of policy. The distinction is subtle, but critics said it signaled interrogators that they could push the limits of acceptable behavior when dealing with terrorism suspects."

Peter Spiegel and Maura Reynolds write in the Los Angeles Times: "The Pentagon acknowledged that the Supreme Court decision had forced its hand, and ordered that all personnel and policies adhere to the convention's standards.

"But the administration at the same time gave almost no ground. The Pentagon said that other than the military commissions struck down last month, all of its other detainee policies -- from interrogations to medical treatment -- already complied with the convention's strictures. Critics have assailed administration interrogation and detention techniques as illegal under U.S. and international law, including convention standards."

Questions of Implementation

---

Adam Zagorin writes for Time that "many questions remain about how the Pentagon will implement the new policy."

That's an understatement.