From: "Rich Gauszka" 


"Mark"  wrote in message
news:436044bd$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:4360438a{at}w3.nls.net...
>> I'm not saying that following the GC will reduce acts of terrorists
>> against our POWs and I won't accept a doctrine that says as long as they
>> do inhumane actions it's OK for us to do it also.
>
> I never said it was OK. My point all along was feel free to argue
> vehemently for GC coverage for those that don't qualify for it all you
> want, but don't use the "if we don't our own POWs will suffer more"
> argument when you do so, because that argument is simply untrue.  don't assume falsely if the GC isn't used, this translates directly and
> automatically into the use of torture. Not using the GC does not mean that
> in any way, shape or form>
>
>
>

I'm against torture period.  The 'POWs will suffer more' argument  is
nonsensical as terrorists don't care whether we follow the GC or not

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5