This is not to condone torture, which is still prohibited by the Torture Convention and federal criminal law.
American soldiers had to guard prisoners on the inside while receiving mortar and weapons fire from the outside. Guantanamo is distant from any battlefield, making it far more secure.
That is because the conflict with al Qaeda is not governed by the Geneva Conventions, which applies only to international conflicts between states that have signed them.
Once the attacks occur, as we learned on Sept. 11, it is too late. It makes little sense to deprive ourselves of an important, and legal, means to detect and prevent terrorist attacks while we are still in the middle of a fight to the death with al Qaeda.
Under the Geneva Convention, for example, a POW is required only to provide name, rank, and serial number and cannot receive any benefits for cooperating.
It shows an interest in thinking deeply about the role of the courts in society and the proper interpretation of the Constitution based on its text and history.
The effort to blur the lines between Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib reflects a deep misunderstanding about the different legal regimes that apply to Iraq and the war against al Qaeda.
It urges policy makers and the Supreme Court to make the mistake of curing what could prove to be an isolated problem by disarming the government of its principal weapon to stop future terrorist attacks.
A decision by the Supreme Court to subject Guantanamo to judicial review would eliminate these advantages.
Human-rights advocates, for example, claim that the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners is of a piece with President Bush's 2002 decision to deny al Qaeda and Taliban fighters the legal status of prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.
In light of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, critics are arguing that abuses of Iraqi prisoners are being produced by a climate of disregard for the laws of war.
Applying different standards to al Qaeda does not abandon Geneva, but only recognizes that the U.S. faces a stateless enemy never contemplated by the Conventions.
The Justices are currently considering a case, argued last month, which seeks to extend the writ of habeas corpus to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at Guantanamo.
If you believe those rules have been changed by the state Supreme Court in this instance, you have the legal right and indeed the constitutional duty at that point to intervene,
The Bush administration policy is against torture of any kind it's prohibited by federal criminal law. The debate is whether you can use interrogation methods that are short of torture. Some who have been critical of the Bush administration have confused torture with cruel, inhumane treatment.
President Bush and his commanders announced early in the conflict that the Conventions applied.
Punishing abuse in Iraq should not return the U.S. to Sept. 10, 2001, in the way it fights al Qaeda, while Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants remain at large and continue to plan attacks.
Former co-clerk Saikrishna Prakash recalls teasing, John, break out the crystal ball and tell us what the framers thought. ... Yes, I consulted the framers. You're all wrong, and I'm right.
While Taliban fighters had an initial claim to protection under the conventions, they lost POW status by failing to obey the standards of conduct for legal combatants: wearing uniforms, a responsible command structure, and obeying the laws of war.
It is important to recognize the differences between the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. The treatment of those detained at Abu Ghraib is governed by the Geneva Conventions, which have been signed by both the U.S. and Iraq.
It is also worth asking whether the strict limitations of Geneva make sense in a war against terrorists.
Al Qaeda operates by launching surprise attacks on civilian targets with the goal of massive casualties. Our only means for preventing future attacks, which could use WMDs, is by acquiring information that allows for pre-emptive action.
Nonetheless, Article 5 makes clear that if an Iraqi civilian who is not a member of the armed forces, has engaged in attacks on Coalition forces, the Geneva Convention permits the use of more coercive interrogation approaches to prevent future attacks.
The naval station's location means the military can base more personnel there and devote more resources to training and supervision.
I thought of John Roberts as a peace offering. President Bush could have nominated someone much more conservative.
I'm not talking policy. I'm just talking about the law.
We can guess that the unacceptable conduct of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib resulted in part from the dangerous state of affairs on the ground in a theater of war.
If the Court were to extend its reach to the base, judges could begin managing conditions of confinement, interrogation methods, and the use of information.
The national government has certain kinds of compelling interests that conflict with the right of the press to keep their sources confidential, like national defense and security.
This means that the U.S. can pursue different interrogation policies in each location. In fact, Abu Ghraib highlights the benefits of Guantanamo.
More John Yoo Quotations (Based on Topics)
Law & Regulation - War & Peace - Custom & Convention - Thought & Thinking - Constitution - Performance Arts - Mind - Conservative - Actions - History - Facts - Society & Civilization - Duty - Punishment - Danger & Risk - Movies - America - Goals - Soldiers - View All John Yoo Quotations
Anne Sullivan Macy - William Vickrey - Robert Sternberg - Lawrence Lessig - Horace Mann - Felix Adler - Ellsworth Huntington - Elizabeth A. Sherman - Catharine Beecher - A. Bartlett Giamatti