Replies

The terrible SCOTUS decision linked incorrectly our treatment of AQ and other non-state actor prisoners to the Geneva Convention. Congress was tasked with defining exactly what was considered to be illegal treatment. Article 3 of the Geneva convention needs to be defined specifically so our personnel know exactly what is expected of them. McCain, Powell, Warner, et. al. would prefer using the ambiguous provisions of the Geneva Convention, which should never have been used in the first place.

Article 3 Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.