>>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Require elimination of wars as a pre-condition??? You made that up. There is nothing even remotely like that in the Geneva Convention.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I take it then that this means you don't feel that if you sign a document, you need to worry about upholding your end of the deal? You don't feel any need to live up to an agreement you sign? Ok, fine, I take my word very seriously. If I sign something, I do everything in my power to live up to my end of whatever it is I've agreed to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Please. There is no need for personal aggrandizement on this issue. I didn't sign that convention so your noble stature does not diminish my position.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are asserting that it is perfectly ok for someone to sign an agreement that he has no intention of living up to. Sorry, if it sounds like self aggrandizement, but that is unacceptable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My point was that your interpretation of certain convention clauses does not coincide with signatories' intentions because, imo, your way would make the enforcement untenable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is completely ridiculous. The clauses speak for themselves. If the signatories didn't understand what they were signing, they shouldn't have signed. The wording of the agreement is not complicated or convoluted. I've seen very few wordings that are as clear as this one is. The various clauses are pretty blunt and straightforward.
>>>>>
>>>>>As we already decided, our positions do not concide in regard to clause interpretations. Please, note that everything can be interpreted differently and court proceedings, fortunately or not, are the only way to decide.
>>>>>At the same time I want to give you a practical example when signing an agreement does not necessarily mean strict compliance. If you as an independent consultant sign a contract, does it mean that both you and your client are legally bound to strictly follow all contract clauses? The answer is no, because, in case of serious dispute, court may invalidate either whole contract or some clauses if it found them contradicting to legal practices, accepted labor standards, common or contract law, etc., or if it just found that enforcement is untenable. It means, that signing itself is not enough, it should be in accordance with many other things.
>>>>>Please note, that my example should not be labeled as 'ridiculuous', because it is very real; I guess, that many independent consultants on this forum could confirm it.
>>>>
>>>>I agree with your example absolutely, but I fail to see how it relates to the Geneva Convention agreement. If you look at the clauses in that agreement, none appear to contravene any laws or standards and enforcement is certainly not 'untenable'. All the U.S. has to do to live up to it is to treat the prisoners humanely, give up the barbaric practice of 'rendition', and set about legally proving that these people are, in fact, terrorists, rather than simply labelling them as such and feeling that's enough to allow them the latitude to torture.
>>>
>>>Alan, what's point to go this circle again? You think that interrogation is a torture and so it is prohibited by the convention. I don't think so. That's it. Please, note that US government may prove that some of these guys are terrorists, but if it is not done, it does not mean that they have to be set free. No convention, including any possible interpretations, says that POWs must be set free when war is still on.
>>>By the way, any document can be disputed in the court, so my example just show that court may decide for one side or for another, nothing is written in stone, including any convention.
>>
>>Please, where and when did I say that interrogation is torture? Waterboarding is torture, sleep deprivation is torture, rendition is torture. Interrogation? That's just asking questions.
>
>I see we are getting to some common ground. If someone is seized as a POW, he can be interrogated, and Geneva convention is applicable; POWs are held until the war ends. If someone is arrested as a terrorist, not everyone in Gitmo was caught in military ranks, then Geneva convention is not applicable and the person goes to court.

Yes, it might be that we are in 'somewhat' agreement here. Though, I tend to think of anyone who is fighting against a military target and is caught, as a POW. People caught trying to blow up airplanes etc, are not POWs. What they are is for a court of law, but I think the outcome is generally predictable if they are actually caught in a situation like that.

I will add that since we are in somewhat of an agreement, I think I'd better start laying in canned goods. ;)