>>>>>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.
>>
>>Hopefully, you live in an illusory world.
>>Geneva signatories had no intention to follow that declaration to full extent, just because full compliance would require elimination of wars as a pre-condition. It is the same story all times: people create something that they cannot follow and then look for scapegoats instead of mirrors.
>
>Now there is a defense of human rights violations I have not heard before: no one intended to follow the Geneva Conventions in the first place. You should be working in the White House!

Nice turn to 'human right violations'. Violating Geneva convention is not equal to that, even if you want it.