That's right he said the GCs should be obeyed.
The Secretary of Defense said it? And you offer the article 15 report as proof? Where is the connection?
Here's a copy of a US govm't doc that specifies the prisoners are to be treated as POWs.
I see you are either not familiar with legal or military writing and word usage.
EPWs and Civilian Internees should receive the full protections of the Geneva Conventions
It does not state that they shall receive . There is a difference.
The statement is explicit and was written by mil authorities. The word "should" is used and it says there is limited and specific mil necessities where they "should not" be. Given the specific reasons the rule should not be followed under the "unless", mil personnel are directed by this to treat both EPWs and civilian internees with full protection of the GCs.
"4. (U) EPWs and Civilian Internees should receive the full protections of the Geneva Conventions, unless the denial of these protections is due to specifically articulated military necessity (e.g., no visitation to preclude the direction of insurgency operations). (ANNEXES 19 and 24)"
" The Secretary of Defense said it? And you offer the article 15 report as proof?"
Yep. In fact both Rumsfeld and Bush are at the Pentagon this morning discussing the damage caused by all of those that have an inabilty to understand and follow simple English word usage.