Today's [major U.S.] papers [from SLATE, the WaPo's on-line magazine]
Geneva Genuflection By Eric Umansky Posted Wednesday, July 12, 2006, at 3:46 AM ET The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal's world-wide newsbox, and New York Times all lead with the administration at least seeming to cry uncle and acknowledge it's bound by the Supreme Court's recent ruling that even terror suspects are entitled to base-line protections spelled out by the Geneva Conventions. ... You wouldn't know it from some of the headlines, but there's plenty of confusion about where the administration now stands on detainees. Terror suspects in U.S. custody won't get full POW status under the Genevas. Instead—per SCOTUS's order—they'll be covered by what's known as Common Article 3, which simply says detainees must be treated humanely and can't face "outrages upon personal dignity." Word of the change, which was first reported by the Financial Times, came via a Pentagon memo ... "It doesn't indicate a shift in policy," a Pentagon lawyer told senators. Except it does. President Bush signed an executive order back in 2002 concluding that terror suspects weren't covered by any part of the Genevas. A statement "late yesterday from the White House" clarified: "As a result of the Supreme Court decision, that portion of the order no longer applies." Moreover, a Pentagon memo on the military's newly recognized obligations suggested that no previous military interrogation policies ran afoul of the Genevas. It'll be an interesting argument if they stick to it: SecDef Rumsfeld had briefly approved keeping a detainee naked, in dark cell, and leading him around by a leash. Is the administration A-OK with those orders? "The administration has fought tooth and nail for four years to say Common Article 3 does not apply to Al Qaeda," one former Justice Department lawyer told the NYT. "Having lost that fight, I'm afraid they're now saying, 'Never mind, we've been in compliance with Article 3 all along.' " So far as TP knows, the military has no current interrogation techniques that violate the Geneva protections—but the CIA, which is holding top suspects, has a whole slew of them. This is where things get even murkier. Citing the White House's statement, the NYT declares that even the agency has been ordered to play by the new rules. The WP says that might not be a done deal: "Some officials said the CIA decision was firm; others described it as preliminary. ... But there is resistance to the idea of bringing the CIA prisoners into public scrutiny." And the LAT, perhaps just behind the curve, says the "administration remained silent" on the question. Flashback: When the Supreme Court handed down its detainee decision a few weeks ago, most of the papers focused, myopically, on the question of military tribunals. Only the LAT emphasized that the ruling would, whadayaknow, force the administration to rejigger its whole stance on detainees and interrogations. Speaking of those now stymied tribunals, the [Wall Street] Journal, which downplays the Geneva flip, focuses on administration officials in congressional hearings telling senators they'd be much obliged if Congress would authorize new tribunals along the lines of the same ones the Supreme Court said were no good. If they keep pushing that plan, warned Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, "It's going to be a long, hot summer." The NYT fronts an inspector-general's report concluding that the feds' potential-terrorist-target database—the one they use to help apportion security funding—is hopelessly stuffed with Podunk places. Sites on the list include the "Amish Country Popcorn factory," "Nix's Check Cashing," and a "Beach at End of a Street." Indiana ranked as the state with the most possible targets, twice as many as California. -- Jim Devine / "Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." -- Pat Robertson
