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.
The word "should" is used and it says there is limited and specific mil necessities where they "should not" be.
" 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.