>>>>>No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pretty obvious by they want to sidestep this one.
>>>>
>>>>Alan, can you name one war where no 'any other form of coercion' was inflicted on POWs? This thing is pretty stupid. It is about the same as making laws mandating that sun should not rise every third day and then accusing authorities in poor enforcement.
>>>
>>>I don't see the comparison. Human beings signed and agreed to the Geneva Accords. Why should it be a physical impossibility for them to live up to their word. Is the U.S. administration's word (or any other signatory nation's) worth nothing? If they don't like the Geneva accords, then they should opt out honestly and honourably instead of pretending to the world that they think the accords are righteous while they use weasel words to subvert them.
>>
>>The Geneva accords is an agreement between nations to ensure that those nations respect basic rights of prisoners of those nations.
>>
>>Which nation that signed the Geneva accords do the terrorists belong to?
>
>To the best of my knowledge, Afghanistan. Besides, calling them terrorists without actually having to prove they're terrorists is hardly justification for contravening the convention.

So Afghanistan claims these people were fighting on their behalf?