Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are up to their wacky fun war policies again. It seems that the Pentagon has decided that the Geneva Convention (http://www.genevaconventions.org/ ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions ) just is not that important. The New Army Field Manual on interrogation changes decade long standards that followed the Geneva Conventions guide lines.Bush had suspended portions of the standards in 2002 for treatment of Al Qaeda & Taliban. There are lawyers in the state department fighting to restore the conventions to the field manual but when the vice president's office is pushing it forward what chance do they have?

On Friday in Geneva, Switzerland. The U.N. Committee Against Torture will target the Bush administration's interpretation of a torture ban and interrogation methods at prisons such as Iraq's Abu Ghraib.

I don't think all the people we now have in custody are technical "prisoners of war" as defined by the conventions:

"(Article 4) "Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy"

* "Members of the armed forces"
* "militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
* "Persons who accompany the armed forces"
* "Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft"
* "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms""

But if we are in a war for the hearts and minds of people how can we ignore international standards for treatment of prisoners of war?

Here are some points from the convention about treatment:
# (Article 13): "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated."
# (Article 13): "...Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."
# (Article 17): "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 unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

I agree that some terms in this are broad (nor "any" form of coercion), but there must be some sane way to get information from them. If we want people to see us as more than monsters we can not act like monsters. The President can not say no to torture with his right hand and yes to it with his left.

What ever happened to Sodium Pentothal, good old truth serum. (decreases higher cortical brain functioning. Since lying is more complex than the truth, it becomes harder to lie). Or even hooking some one up to a lie detector and judging their reactions to questions. I know we must question these people in hopes of putting an end to their terrorist activities but their must be some alternative to torture. Ignoring the Geneva Conventions is a start down a path that America can not afford to take.

I must say, I am appalled, but not at all surprised, by this new change in US policy. For a country that has prided itself on the rights of the individual for hundreds of years, the USA is far too ready to allow these rights to be compromised in any manner of ways. From Guantanamo Bay to the so-called "torture flights", allegations are coming in thick and fast, and what I am astounded at is how little is happening over it.

Think about it. If allegations like that were made in the UK, there would be an independent public enquiry set up before the end of the day. If any of it was proved to be true, never mind officially-sanctioned, it would be the downfall of the government. Nobody would have confidence in them any more. And yet the US seems to be free to act how it wishes, in the face of criticism from every country in the Western world, even the UK itself, despite the "special relationship".

Maybe it's because it's abroad, nobody sees what's happening. The old traditions die hard, it seems. But still, I wonder what the US reaction would be if, say, France arrested and allergedly tortured a US citizen under suspicion of terrorism? Out of sight, out of mind again? Or does the US operate its double standards?

~Capreolus