[FreedomPoster]

You're studiously ignoring the point. Under that scenario, under Geneva Conventions, that would not be a violation.

[SJSAMPLE]

How, exactly?

1. He's accused of violating internal rules of the DOD (interrogation techniques).

2. There's a lot of room for interpretation under both Geneva and the Hague Accords. Depending on the true details of what happened, he could have done nothing wrong or something eggregious. Most people here don't want to know, either way.

How can I be ignoring the point? I'm one of the few here who isn't trying to throw out every convention and law and forget the whole thing. I believe he's entitled to a hearing and, if warranted, a fair trial.