A panel discussion at the Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy is critical of the White House's interrogation policies.

01:00 AM EDT on Saturday, June 19, 2004

BY ALEX KUFFNER
Journal Staff Writer

NEWPORT -- Since 9/11, America has entered a legal gray area, where the war on terror doesn't fit the definition of a traditional war between nations.

"We claim it's a war," said David Scheffer, the U.S. ambassador at large for war crimes during the Clinton administration. "But we're not following the rules of war."

He said the Bush administration has "stepped outside of the legal regime," distancing itself from the Geneva Conventions and other treaties that govern how war is waged.

The results, Scheffer argued, can be seen in the alleged use of coercive tactics in interrogating detainees in Afghanistan, the detention of "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and most recently in the abuse of prisoners in Iraq.

Scheffer spoke yesterday afternoon at Salve Regina University's Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy during a panel discussion entitled "War, Law and Human Rights: What Way Forward?"

He was joined by Christophe Girod, North America chief of the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, a professor of international law at the Naval War College.

They talked about international humanitarian law and how it applies to the war in Iraq and the United States' campaigns against al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. To varying degrees, they all raised concerns about the administration's attitude toward international treaties.

Scheffer pointed to recent disclosures about government memos on the treatment of prisoners as examples of how politics had influenced the interpretation of international law.

One from the Justice Department in 2002 informed White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzalez that inflicting physical or psychological pain may be justified in some situations, according to a Washington Post report earlier this month.

"It's clear that there was a policy objective that was being pursued after 9/11," said Scheffer, a visiting professor of international law at Georgetown University who called the Justice Department memo an extreme interpretation.

The administration's reading of the law is "an abandonment of values," von Heinegg said. He said it may set a dangerous precedent that could influence how American soldiers are treated if they are captured.

Girod said the United States is posing a serious challenge to international law.

"The main superpower sets the example," he said. "It's sending very strong signals abroad."

The United States has followed a pattern of stepping away from international conventions on armed conflict, including the agreement to set up the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands, said Girod.

Former President Clinton signed the treaty before leaving office, but the Bush administration said it was withdrawing from it in 2002. Scheffer, the lead U.S. negotiator during the formation of the court, said it's important that America respects international law.

"It is in our self-interest to adhere to and enforce international law," he said. "We're invested in this."