The point of the Geneva Conventions against torture is this and ONLY this: we don�t do it to you, you don�t do it to us. If you support torture of America�s captives, you support torture of Americans. End of discussion.

The point is, things like the Geneva Conventions can only apply to those who also follow them, or else they don't work. (That would be the "we don't do it to you, you don't do it to us.) If you give the GC protections to enemies who don't reciprocate, then you take away people's incentive to reciprocate.

It is those who favor giving Geneva Convention protections to terrorists who are supporting the torture of Americans, because the terrorists are torturing Americans, and will continue to torture them. And giving them GC protections takes away any incentive they might have to stop.

The point of the Geneva Conventions against torture is this and ONLY this: we don't do it to you, you don't do it to us. If you support torture of America's captives, you support torture of Americans. End of discussion.

Of course, it's hardly surprising to see you and your ideological fellow-travellers automatically impute bad faith to "people on the right". Projection, is what I believe it's called.

Yes, I know what Field Manuals are used for. Theyâ??re the basis of Army training and doctrine. If itâ??s not in the FMs, itâ??s not going to be trained.

The McCain Amendment does not supercede United States treaty obligations. Treaties, which require 2/3 Senate ratification, stand above statute in the hierarchy of our laws.

You misrepresent what is going on, hopefully from simply not having been directly exposed to it.

Much that is not in FMs is trained. The FM is the *beginning* of doctrine (or it is supposed to be--teh McCain Amendment made the FM on Interrogation into dogma). Doctrine also encompasess, and is modified by, Tactics, Techniques and Procedures, and Lessons Learned, two areas that the Army in particular has only made significant strides to capture and codify in the past decade.

The FM gives the "shoolhouse" answers. The Commander and the Soldier decide which parts work and which parts don't.

The Russians for years accused us of writing the best doctrine that we didn't use.

General training on the Law of Land Warfare will not be changed one iota by changing the FM on Interrogation. There is also a separate FM on the Laws of Land Warfare as well as supporting Army Regulations. None of these, to my knowledge, are being changed.

The changes proposed represnet, at worst, a genuine and honest, different interpretation of the signed treaties of the United States. Not a contravention.

In accordance with the Geneva Convention all that has to happen, all that has had to happen, is for one of the High Contracting Parties to articulate, formally, a difference of opinion on the treatment of detainees which makes it a matter for a tribunal to determine.

No challenge,as is presently the case and has been, seems to me to be a tacit approval, or at least acceptance, by the world community.

And I love the people on the right who conveniently forget that the prohibition against "humiliation and degradation" is specifically written into the treaty we signed, and therefore federal law. But rather than take the appropriate actions to get the law changed, they'd rather insult and criticise the people pointing out that the law is, in fact, being broken by policy.

Jon Henke points us to this LA Times article citing anonymous sources discussing revisions supposedly* being made to the Army Field Manual regarding interrogation of detainees in response to the McCain Amendment, which was designed to raise the standar...

BTW, my previous comment was not directed at you, rather those who would scream about torture as a matter of policy. It has yet to be shown.

I would not say that the amendment supercedes the treaty either, only that the item in question is the application of the GC. Does it apply, or doesn't it?

The Pentagon's concerns are probably valid. In this GWOT, with this administration, a 'detainee' could make specious complaints (Koran flushing) and the media will eat it up. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. What level of 'discomfort' (way short of torture BTW) are we willing to accept?

Drindl- what planet do you live on?

It's a busy day. First the good news: We are still alive, the world has not come to an apocalyptic end. Thank God. But then again, Victor David Hanson has Europe's days of old numbered and things don't look so good for the 56 kidnapped in broad dayl...

The McCain Amendment does not supercede United States treaty obligations. Treaties, which require 2/3 Senate ratification, stand above statute in the hierarchy of our laws.

Why totally avoid the issue of what constitutes 'toture'? The reason the manual is being revised is:

The protections for detainees in Article 3 go beyond the McCain amendment by specifically prohibiting humiliation, treatment that falls short of cruelty or torture.

New war, new tactics, new manual. Nowhere has anybody advocated 'torture'. Save your tears for the result of your media war against America.

As sustained combat in Iraq makes it harder than ever to fill the ranks of the all-volunteer force, newly released Pentagon demographic data show that the military is leaning heavily for recruits on economically depressed, rural areas where youths' need for jobs may outweigh the risks of going to war.

I was raised in rural Wisconsin and now live in rural Washington. There are a lot of kids in these areas that are joining the military and it's not for lack of jobs. It's because of values held and patriotism. So the WaPo can cram their condescending BS where the sun don't shine.
Legion said:

No, Jeff. You�ve just missed the whole point of having a moral code. We don�t act in a certain way in order to get other people to act similarly.

Legion, I think you missed the whole point which is to provide incentives for warring factions to distinguish themselves from the civilian population. This might, you know, reduce civilian casualties.