Over the last ten years, American and international observers have fiercely criticized U.S. detention policies for the perceived abuse of detainees and the allegedly unfair criminal process applied to them. Rightly or wrongly, at times the United States has seemed to place security concerns above legal ones for at least two reasons: first, a belief that strict adherence to detainee well-being inhibited the ability of the United States to acquire critical intelligence regarding future terrorist actions; and second, a belief that criminal due process for detainees increased the chance of release of dangerous, security-threatening actors. As former President George W. Bush said in 2010, in detainee interrogations “the choice between security and values was real.”

   Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have sought to quiet criticisms concerning U.S. detainee policy, with the most recent pronouncement, putting forth a more “values-oriented” approach, coming in a March 7, 2011, White House press statement. Pursuant to the policy announced in the press release, military commissions, which President Obama had halted upon entering office, were reinstated, and the Administration vowed to seek repeal of congressional restrictions on trials of detainees in federal courts. Moreover, the Administration promised “that individuals who we have determined will be subject to long-term detention continue to be detained only when lawful and necessary to protect against a significant threat to the security of the United States.” Finally, the Administration committed itself to the humane treatment and enlarged rights of detainees by both encouraging the Senate to ratify Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions (AP II), which expands legal protections for those detained pursuant to a noninternational armed conflict, and recognizing “a sense of legal obligation to treat the principles set forth in Article 75 [of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions] as applicable to any individual it detains in an international armed conflict.”

   This Essay focuses on the Administration’s proclamations regarding the Additional Protocols, analyzing what, if any, practical effect they will have on detainee treatment. Section I briefly reviews key post-9/11 U.S. decisions on the treatment of detainees and their Geneva-based status as detainees. Sections II and III analyze whether the March policy will change the day-to-day treatment of detainees, as well as the policy’s impact on detainee trials. This Essay concludes that the announcement has little effect beyond symbolism, although this symbolism may have positive implications for international law.