From: "Robert G Lewis" 

If I recall correctly there are provisions within the Convention for
denying its protections to prisoners.

If we are not going to follow the Conventions as a matter of Policy then we
should withdraw. Otherwise our signature on a treaty is worthless.


"Mark"  wrote in message
news:43601d34$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> You miss my point John, whether we follow it or not, they won't. That's a
> fact. So using that argument, that they'll mistreat our POWs because we
> don't, as a point for why we should, isn't relevant.  not for torture, nor am I for giving those GC considerations to POWs that
> don't qualify for them>
>
>
> "John Cuccia"  wrote in message
> news:5f60m1hu2optq0mf1b1tcqu5o9jhtvobj2{at}4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:55:22 -0400, "Mark"
 wrote:
>>
>>>Has any other country at any time, in any war, ever followed the Geneva
>>>Conventions in their treatment of our prisoners of war? Has any stateless
>>>terrorist group ever done so? Do you really think if we hire bi-planes to
>>>tow banners across the world that we absolutely follow the Geneva
>>>Conventions in all cases, even when not warranted, that any less heads
>>>will
>>>be cut off on video?
>>
>> That's irrelevant.
>>
>> We are signatories to the Geneva Convention.  We, the United States of
>> America, are either a principled nation whose word can be trusted or
>> we are liars and cheats.
>>
>> Which do you prefer we be?
>>
>>>the reasoning above is simply faulty
>>
>> Indeed.
>
>

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