[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

Wrong. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The point of the Geneva Conventions is reciprocity. Read the quote I cited before. Your unsupported statement dies in the face of what the Conventions actually say - not what you want them to say.

Ok, let's review what the articles actually say, using the actual text of the 3rd Geneva Convention instead of Wikipedia's heavily commented version.

The point of the Convention is NOT reciprocity. Article 2 states:

"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof" (emphasis added).

Thus all signatories are bound by the Convention, under all conditions, regardless of whether the other "Power" has signed. To reiterate this point, the 2nd sentence closes a loophole that might allow a signatory to believe the Convention only applies where both Powers are signatories before the conflict, or where one Power is and the other isn't. (The loophole would exist when a non-signatory signs during the conflict, thus technically releasing the other party from its obligations under the Convention.)

Countries abide by the Conventions so that others will do so and both sides can expect decent treatment for their POWs. Doesn't work with terrorist groups who routinely torture, maim, and kill your people.

If "reciprocity", as I have shown, is not part of the signatory agreement, then a country's motivation to sign seems closer to civilization, ethics and morality than the self-serving agreement you describe.

Under the Conventions, a nation has no obligation to fight fire with limp-wristed gheyness. It can fight fire with fire. To do otherwise is pretty stupid.

Could you clarify "limp-wristed gheyness". Do you mean that fighting a war without complete reciprocity is ghey? I'm curious, because if you're right, we've got a lot of catching up to do. We better start recruiting suicide bombers, setting off IEDs, flying airlines into buildings and killing civilians pretty darn quick. Cause we sure don't want our friends, neighbors and the rest of the world to think we're a bunch of weak-kneed, yellow-bellied, fudge-packers.

Come on. If we can't figure out how to fight this war with honor and without torture, we aren't as smart as we ought to be. This isn't a playground, and our job isn't to "pay them back" for everything they did since 9/11. Our job is to protect our nation, and hopefully stabilize as much of the region as we can.

This reciprocity bullsh!t doesn't work. It only shows our enemies that we care just as little for human life ... that we have the same disrespect for human rights ... and that we can piss on everything God represents ... just like they do. And that's not going to do us a whole lot of good.