[FreedomCalls]

If so, Constitutionally we are bound to abide by it. A ratified treaty is the law of the land and those military members not abiding by it are in violation of the law and their oath to uphold the Constitution. The LAST thing you want is the military making up their own rules as they go.

But we would be adhering to the GC if we did not apply its provisions to those who are not abiding by its rules. For it clearly states when they should be applied and when not. In this case, abiding by the GC means not granting certain privileges to the Taliban who according to the GC itself have not earned it.

[GrandEagle]

I just read most of the Convention agreement. I found it interesting. Instead of just speculating, maybe we should all read it. As it turns out, both parties do not have to be signatories for it to apply to the one who has signed it. Right or wrong, like it or not, it is the law of the land.

GE