I don't think it is appropriate to regulate one's behavior toward another based upon "country of origin" or "what he was wearing". Moral concepts seem rigid to me.
...no terrorist would say that such an agreement applied to them. They would still cut off heads.
My behavior is not determined by the misbehavior of another. I make my own way through this issue. I've never been one to follow the croud.
I'm not sure you've read all of my posts. I am all in favor of DECLARING war and wiping those people off the face of the earth. It is the cowardly act of brutalizing people who are bound and hooded that bugs the crap out of me.
I was referring to Geneva Conventions, Protocol II.
The Geneva Conventions which pertained to the treatment of prisoners engaged in terrorism was spelled out in Protocol II. However, Protocol II, to make it binding to the United States, had to be ratified by Congress. This was not done.
So what makes the interrogation techniques unlawful? It might be the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) case which said such prisoners were afforded prisoner-of-war protections under the Geneva Conventions.
If the Bush Administration were to be subject to prosecution due to the Supreme Court’s ruling, one must look at Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution which says that the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws. The states are prohibited from the same by clause 1 of section 10.
It appears that the Democrats are moving towards prosecution that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions committed during interrogation techniques prior to the Supreme Court’s interpretation. Such would be a violation of Article I, section 9.