As George Bush repeatedly denies having sanctioned torture, as he continues to say that he instructed his underlings to treat prisoners of war and "unlawful detainees" according to the Geneva Conventions, it becomes easier for Americans to begin thinking that stripping prisoners naked and hooding them is okay. Maybe the way detainees are treated at Guantanamo and in Iraq really is sanctioned by the Geneva Conventions. George has said it, over and over; therefore, it might be true.

Well, it's not true. It's a direct and obvious violation of the Geneva Conventions. Anyone who doubts that forcing prisoners to lick food off the floor, threatening them with dogs, sexually humiliating them in front of female guards, and throwing them in isolation for 30 days at a time is maltreatment needs to visit the International Committee of the Red Cross' website (http://www.icrc.org) and look at their summary of the Third Chapter of the Geneva Conventions, which govern the treatment of prisoners of war. All prisoners are to be treated equally. Prisoners are to be provided with clothing, for Christ's sake, and adequate food. Their mental health must be considered--isolation and "stress positions" are strictly forbidden. So are 20-hour interrogation sessions. But, here's the kicker: they're supposed to be allowed to elect their own representative to negotiate the terms of their treatment with the US military authority. Democracy. What a concept.

The ICRC writes, "This institution is very important...the prisoners' representative is the intermediary qualified to further the physical, spiritual and intellectual well-being of prisoners of war. He not only supervises the distribution of relief supplies but also does all he can to mitigate the severities of discipline, to help prisoners in their difficulties with the detaining authority." Relief supplies, my god. What relief supplies? Donald Rumsfeld has admitted to hiding at least one prisoner from the ICRC inspection teams, and other prisoners have been shifted around in groups in the middle of the night to keep them away from the Red Cross. Aid parcels? When prisoners aren't even allowed contact with the world's oldest humanitarian organization, you know aid parcels and letters from home don't even figure in to the equation. And that's not considering the fact that family members can't find where their detained relatives are being held, because the US hasn't set up any central office where Iraqis can go to find out this basic information.

The US government is so deeply in violation of the Geneva Conventions that Bush & Co. better pray they can stay out of the clutches of the International Criminal Court. Happily, the UN Security Council balked last week at extending immunity to US citizens under the ICC. Look out, George, Kissinger's old news now!--Maria Tomchick

Last week the Bush administration released a handful of memos relating to how they determined the status of Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, and how they came up with their list of torture techniques. Most notable was George Bush's own memo claiming that, indeed, he could set aside the Geneva Conventions if he wanted to, but he won't do it yet. Then, two paragraphs later, in the same fucking memo, he says the following: "I determine that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants and, therefore, do not qualify as prisoners of war under Article 4 of Geneva. I note that, because Geneva does not apply to our conflict with al Qaeda, al Qaeda detainees also do not qualify as prisoners of war." In short Bush says one thing--"I won't set aside Geneva, even though I can"--then turns around two paragraphs later and sets aside the Geneva Conventions completely. What a two-faced, son-of-a...um, I could get really abusive here, but I won't. I have some self-restraint, unlike Bush & Co.

Even more odious is the fact that Bush's underlings discussed the terrible consequences of setting aside the Geneva Conventions with the intent of using torture on detainees. They mention the potential backlash against US soldiers who are captured as prisoners of war: that they might be tortured or mistreated because the US has decided to set aside international law, which sets a terrible precedent. So they knew this would happen, they predicted it, and they fully understood the consequences of their decision. But they conclude that, because the US has right on its side--presumably a Divine Right, since no other convincing legal or moral argument is made--that the other side could be sued for abusing US prisoners, while the current US administration can get away scot-free. This was little comfort to Paul Johnson and Kim Il-Sung, the two contractors who were recently beheaded on live Internet video. Notably, both were wearing orange clothing that evoked the orange jumpsuits worn by Guantanamo detainees. Shockingly, the US media has been completely oblivious to this obvious connection.--M.T.

R.I.P. Velma Veloria. The venerable, progressive South Seattle state senator isn't dying, but she is leaving--not only retiring from her seat, but moving to Cambodia, where her husband is already working organizing in sweatshops. Other good folks, most notably laborite Bob Hasegawa, are already running for her seat, but first and foremost let's take a moment to honor Velma as one of the most outspoken and effective voices for justice in Olympia, and in Seattle, for many years. She'll be sorely missed.--Geov Parrish