Presumably the Bush administration is in the market for a face transplant. They certainly seem to believe they have lost an enormous amount of face due to the recent Supreme Court decision which rejected military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees, and implied that they (and other “enemy combatants”) are entitled to the protections of the Geneva conventions.

What else would explain the administration trying to keep it quiet that they have decided that “all detainees held in US military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions”?

The Financial Times broke the story:

The FT has learned that Gordon England, deputy defence secretary, sent a memo to senior defence officials and military officers last Friday, telling them that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions – which prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners and requires certain basic legal rights at trial – would apply to all detainees held in US military custody.

This reverses the policy outlined by President George W. Bush in 2002 when he decided members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban did not qualify for Geneva protections because the war on terrorism had ushered in a “new paradigm…[that] requires new thinking in the law of war”.

That should, of course, say “suspected” or “alleged” members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

And it should clarify that a non-trivial percentage of those detained as “enemy combatants”, and deprived of the protections of the Geneva conventions, are widely believed to be in custody only because someone in Afghanistan or Iraq with a score to settle decided that, as long as there was a reward and no questions asked, it would be a fine thing to turn in the object of their disaffection, and use the full morally myopic might of the U.S. government as an instrument of personal vengeance.

“This memo was a prudent and responsible thing to do,” said a former Bush administration official with knowledge of the memo.

Presumably that’s why the Bush administration had to be led to it kicking and screaming. And why even when they did it, it had to be done furtively.

How ironic is that? When we strip away what are internationally regarded as basic rights from these people, we do it proudly and in full sight of the whole world. We strut and posture and slap our thighs. When we restore those rights, we do it slinking around in dead darkness. We do it with eyes averted and head hung low.

There maybe a little bit of slinking around still left to do, however:

While the Pentagon order applies to all detainees held by the US military, it does not apply to prisoners held outside the military detention system, such as Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks who is being held in a secret Central Intelligence Agency prison. But the Pentagon move could increase pressure on the administration to re-examine CIA detention policies and practices.

And before I slink away, let me give credit where it’s due:

The Pentagon memo, which requires senior military officers to ensure that their detention and interrogation policies are compliant with Common Article 3, was ordered by William Haynes, the Pentagon general counsel, who has attracted criticism for his role in developing controversial interrogation techniques.

Mr Haynes, who has been nominated to become a federal judge, faces a critical nomination hearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. Until now, he has consistently sided with Mr Cheney in internal disputes in arguing prisoners captured in the war on terror should not receive Geneva protections.

*** Update at 7 am JUly 12 ***

WaPo:

Administration officials … disputed the suggestion that the new Pentagon policy represents significant change, because the administration already said that it treats detainees humanely.

What’s the big deal, really? Earlier we used to say it. So now we’ll do it. Big deal.