The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the Supreme Law of the land. Treaty law only obligates us to operate within the parameters of treaty but does not compel us to do so in violation of direct or intended Constitutional Authorities.
Again, not sure if I understood your question. I am okay with Geneva 3 and 4 but the rest of the world wants to dictate the terms. In other words an enemy combatant should be housed and card for under Geneva 4.
I disagree with their premise and anyway I prefer Geneva 3 in which a “nonuniformed” enemy combatant may be held until fully interrogated and adjudicated under “US Military Tribunal”.
So the “Terrorists” and Enemy Combatants can in my view be waterboarded while still being respected and getting superb medical treatment and 3 squares a day. Or whatever they eat. This also helps to reduce the health hazards associated with lice and fleas without using what could be harmful chemicals
But if my country or fellow Americans are presumed to be or are in imminent danger, then by whatever means we can obtain information with the utmost expediency seems appropriate to me.
In fact, it would be amoral and inhumane to act otherwise, so as to protect Americans from harm or supreme tragedy.
Let me sharpen my question, then. You made this completely accurate statement: “Treaty law only obligates us to operate within the parameters of treaty but does not compel us to do so in violation of direct or intended Constitutional Authorities.” So, what part of the Constitution, or what constitutional authority, would the Geneva and Torture Conventions violate? The rest of your post is sensible but you’re talking about policy preferences; I’m talking about law.
As for sarcasm, I was referring to your reference to my “invisible /s tag.” Didn’t know what you were driving at.