1. The officers griping about Gitmo(whose view you apparently share, since you bolded it and turned it red) claim that those who capture U.S. troops will treat them based on our treatment of prisoners.
2. My point was that the assertion is wrong, since our enemies have committed many atrocities against our troops even when we scrupulously followed the Geneva Convention. My evidence was Japanese, North Korean/Chines and Vietnamese atrocities against our men which had nothing whatsoever to do with how well we were following the Convention.
3. You responded as if my point were "Our enemies didn't follow the Convention, so we don't have to."
4. "Enemies' violations of the convention does not depend on our level of adherence to it, but depend on their level of evil" does not equal "They don't do it, so why should we?"
But wait, it gets better:
Is this part of the rationale, then, for targeting civilians in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden? If I'm not mistaken, the purposeful targeting of civilians removes all Geneva protections as handily as the failure of third-worlders to wear proper uniforms.
So, you bring up attacks on civilian targets to explain why people from an alliance that delivered 1 kiloton of combat power into Manhattan on a Tuesday morning should be granted full Geneva Convention rights?!? Last time I checked, stockbrokers, waiters and EMTs weren't combatants.
So yes, our behavior should be determined by objective truths, which is why I'm not buying any whining about Gitmo. Not only are we not violating the Geneva Convention or our Constitution, but it should be noted that neither of those documents was meant to hinder the defense of the nation in any way, much less be a suicide pact.