Six Floors" of Detainee Operations in the Post 9/11 World"

Abstract

All you need know is that there was before 9/11 and an after 9/11. After 9/11 the gloves came off. --Corer Black, CIA (1) Before 9/11, many nations battled terrorists and mufti-clad insurgents in places like Ireland, Israel, and Algeria and subsequently detained these nontraditional These nations deliberated the applicability and relevance of the Geneva Conventions (2) and frequently decided conduct their detainee and interrogation operations by other standards. (3) United States had faced similarly ambiguous in past conflicts, choosing to extend basic prisoner of protections such persons ... based upon strong policy considerations, and ... not necessarily based on any conclusion that the United States was obligated do so as matter of law. (4) After 9/11, however, the United States ceased viewing its efforts against terrorism as police enforcement action and embarked upon Global War on Terrorism. (5) Bush Administration asserted this was a new kind of war that justified reconsidering the manner in which the Laws of War would be interpreted and applied. (6) According Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, The reality is, the set of facts that exist today with al Qaeda and the Taliban were not necessarily the set of facts that were considered when the Geneva Conventions were fashioned. (7) Certain provisions of the Geneva Conventions were even considered quaint. (8) United States has, by its post-9/11 policies and actions, demonstrated that the standards for conducting detainee operations, and perhaps the Geneva Conventions themselves, are ripe for reform. on terror is in its fourth year, yet there has been little academic or political agreement on what detention and interrogation techniques are ethically advisable and legally allowed. US detainee operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo have been labeled by one analyst. (9) US classification of detainees in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay as unlawful combatants has aroused voluminous and vociferous academic debate, (10) complicated because there are no internationally accepted, clearly delineated detention and interrogation standards for treating unlawful combatants. Even in Iraq, where the Administration conceded the Geneva Conventions applied, the overall post-9/11 paradigm shift prompted the Army's command conduct deliberative analysis of acceptable interrogation and detention techniques. (11) Department of Defense is currently undergoing more comprehensive formal initiative, with the Army acting as the lead agent. (12) To describe the complexity of conducting modern military operations in an urban environment, US Marine Corps General Charles C. Krulak used the metaphor of three-block war, (13) an environment wherein soldiers or marines simultaneously fight high-intensity conflict in one block, suppress simmering insurgency in another block, and facilitate humanitarian aid in contiguous third block. Military forces conducting operations must anticipate encountering an array of friendly, hostile, and neutral persons within the three blocks. Detainees from these three blocks may be interrogated for strategic, operational, or tactical reasons. Just as recognizing the nature of the three-block war enables commanders conduct successful operations in that environment, clarifying lines of demarcation within the new gray zone of detainee operations is essential. Delineating the categories of potential detainees is the starting point. Determining the limits on interrogations and other legal responsibilities for each category of detainees is the logical next step. Geneva Conventions provide the basis for considering different categories of detainees; they also provide the legal, ethical, and moral framework for differentiating treatment among the categories. Publishing post-9/11 framework and clearly communicating that the United States faithfully adheres well-enunciated and reasoned, if new, standard can substantially support US policy and strategy. …