1) MCCAIN: So the guards were instructed to treat the prisoners, under some kind of changing authority as I understand it, according to the Geneva Conventions?RUMSFELD: Absolutely.
If you actually read the applicable article in the Geneva Convention, you will discover that none of the actions taken violated those provisions - because none of the prisoners were covered by it. I have posted the definition of P.O.W. as have others.
My main gripe is with people who jump up and believe anything put out by the media talking heads and news readers, then rant about how cruel our soldiers are. As in you case, they often try to back up their perceptions with inadequate and/or misrepresented information.
I personally believe in giving the benefit of the doubt until some honest proof is tendered.
" because none of the prisoners were covered by it. I have posted the definition of P.O.W. as have others."
I am well aware that Iraq is an occupied country and almost everyone of the detainees is either a criminal, or an ununiformed combatant. The Iraqi army has long ago ceased to exist, along with it's ruling regime. Only a coalition govm't exists there now and it has no forces, other than those of the US, a limited Iraqi police force under it's control and a limited number of allies in arms.
Unlike the detainees from Afghanistan, the Iraqi detainees are to be considered as POWs and entitled to the appropriate GCs, until otherwise determined by the appropriate authority. Obviously many can't possibly apply. The ones that do are those that refer to humane treatment. Specifically in this case sofar, prohibitions on humiliating and degrading treatment.
The reason the Administration insists on this for Iraq is, because of their own concern for human life and their goal of leaving an intact, functional govm't that is very unfriendly to terrorists and has peaceful intents for it's neighbors. Just to mention it, the same humanitarian treatment applies to the Guantanomo pen and every jail in the US.