My point in bringing up 1955 was to indicate that there hasn't been much controversy over the language since then - until the Bush administration decided that the Geneva Conventions were quaint and obsolete.

The ideas behind the GCs go back to the 1920s and even earlier. They don't exist because they're convenient. They exist to spell out in clear language that people must be treated humanely when they're captured as a result of military action.


Yep..they established rules of war...not just captive rules. And the strongest case the adminstration has is that the currently enemy was not a thought of the framers of those rules.

I actually am completely in agreement that captured terrorists should NOT have to be treated by convention rules. They do not meet any standard set forth to qualify. They don't wear designated uniforms..they openly target civilians as part of their engagement strategy. This entire exersize, including the wish to clarify the rules, is an example of our ethical superiority to our current enemy...even if we only settle on degrading.

So my point is that there is sufficient change in the game of war since 1955, and sufficient change in environment (and media pressure is a large component of that) that would lead to the need to make sure the rules are much more specific.

You and I both know its not that big a deal, but we're not the ones that are asking people to do things that could land them a lifetime in prison if some dutch guy has a different definition of inhumane.

And mind you, this is a game that only we will play...as I don't think any Al Q members are going to worry about definitions of inhumane...they know torture and death and will continue to treat our soldiers and worse, our civilians along those lines.