The CA3 is not just up to what a country interpretation of it is. Although there are so many vague areas that it leaves open much to interpretation. Japanese thought one should die before surrendering. Did they have a right under GNC to kill prisoners? No.

You seem to still be avoiding the reality of this situation. The U.S. is a very PC country. The interrogators and the front line troops do not know what ACLU crap will come back and bite us in the butt. It has happen more times then I care to remember. Why not spell it out?

Look,

Dr. Sowell says it well, this morning:

When you enter a boxing ring, you agree to abide by the rules of boxing.
But when you are attacked from behind in a dark alley, you would be a fool to abide by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. If you do, you can end up being a dead fool.

...

Does any sane adult believe that the cutthroats we are dealing with will respect the Geneva convention? Or that our extension of Geneva convention rights to them will be seen as anything other than another sign of weakness and confusion that will encourage them in their terrorism?

...
No one has suggested that we disregard the Geneva convention for people covered by the Geneva convention. The question is whether a lawless court shall seize the power to commit this nation to rules never agreed to by those whom the Constitution entrusted with the power to make international treaties.

The much larger question -- the question of survival -- is whether we have the clarity and the courage to go all-out in self-defense against those who are going all-out to destroy us, even at the cost of their own lives.

There are too many signs that we do not and those signs are visible not only in our political and judicial institutions but throughout American society and western civilization.
...

Our job is to first suvive... to win this conflict.

As the doctor says:

Squeamishness about how this is done is not a sign of higher morality but of irresponsibility in the face of mortal dangers.

Does anyone truly believe that the only difference between the terrorist and us is aggressive interrogation techniques?

Then you continue on saying women interrogating Muslims do not physically or psychologically harm them therefore it doesn’t violate GNC.
One, what constitutes psychologically harm. That is an extremely vague standard. Some claim spanking a child or not spanking a child cause psychologically harm.

Two, you seem to completely ignore the degrading treatment part. Also the actual phrase in the GNC is “insults”.

You saying something is quite obvious do not make it so. I seen people twist and turn the so call obvious so often that I am not sure if obvious exist any more.

If such things are so obvious, why not spell it out in black and white? Simply because it isn’t black and white and people don’t want to face it.

The words of Patrick Henry leap to mind…

I find it more than slightly ironic that someone who espouses the ideals of "Take my liberty to save me from death" would so freely quote Patrick Henry. To further that irony, you quote him advocating war to win freedom while you yourself are advocating fewer freedoms to win a war. But since, you obviously respect the thoughts and feelings of Patrick Henry, I'll throw in a few more:

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.

No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.

You’re actually suggesting that the way to defeat this enemy is to make peace with them.

What I'm suggesting is that terrorists are born of conflict. Conflict has existed in the middle east well before 1993 and, in a large part, the US and US policy was involved in that. I was not suggesting we make peace with the terrorist, because I know they don't want peace. I'm suggesting that creating peace and prosperity in the region will snuff the fire that keeps creating more terrorists. I'm not alone in this, President Bush has the same goal in mind, just different methods for achieving it.

This, I have got to hear.

Explain to us all how when we win the war they have one. Explain to us all how when we remove their ability to make war on us we’ve lost.

They will have won the war when their efforts to destroy our society succeed in destroying our society. When their efforts to isolate us, their efforts to remove us from our position to influence the world accomplish those goals. Will you please for the love of God get it into your head that this is NOT A PHYSICAL WAR, but an ideological one. Their ability to make war on us is driven by the psychological and emotional states they build in their populations, not the bombs and guns they build in their factories.

What you both seem to be messing(sic), is the idea that they… our enemy… hopes that we don’t start fighting the battle as they have.

No, that is exactly what our enemy wants us to do, because that is the only way they can defeat us.

1984 has finally arrived.

This, I have got to hear.

Explain to us all how when we win the war they have one. Explain to us all how when we remove their ability to make war on us we've lost.

Once again you are wrong. Peace, morality, civilization, those are not the products of defeating this enemy, those are the means of defeating this enemy.th

Good God...
You're actually suggesting that the way to defeat this enemy is to make peace with them. At what stage of the game had we declared war on them prior to the 1993 bombing of the world trade center, for example? We've been dealing with attacks from these bastards for the last 50 years, in the name of 'peace'. And yet, we've HAD no peace.

The words of Patrick Henry leap to mind...

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of (...our enemy)... for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land.

...
Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt.

In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
...
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!

...

And if you were to look to Southern Manhattan, you'd find that there was some rather stark evdience to this point.

Under the Carter administration, we waited for 450 days or so, in the name of "peace". Tell us, what that bought us, except a repuation of a weakling, and more American dead, in the following years, up to and including 9/11.

What you both seem to be messing(sic), is the idea that they… our enemy… hopes that we don’t start fighting the battle as they have.

No, that is exactly what our enemy wants us to do, because that is the only way they can defeat us.

The peace… morality… civilization… a stable culture… are all products [of] defeating the enemy.

Once again you are wrong. Peace, morality, civilization, those are not the products of defeating this enemy, those are the means of defeating this enemy. Again you would abandon your means of victory, and lower yourself to the level where they can defeat you, and you call that safety.

with the Geneva convention as it is today, and we followed today’s Geneva conventions to the letter, we’d all be speaking German, just now.

There is very little in the Geneva conventions that we violated in the war with Germany. Not violating them would not have changed the outcome of the war. If you think otherwise, give us some compelling argument for it, not just more fear mongering. The American people are no longer afraid of your particular boogie man.

Interesting take on WW2. Without people like you, who were ready to commit any atrocity their leader told them was necessary, Hitler could not have risen to, nor stayed in power.

Actually you scare me more then Bin Laden does. A terrorist may plant a bomb, and it may kill me, but I will die a free man who retains his humanity. Guys like you want to destroy both the freedom & the soul of America.

Maybe this shining city on a hill is not safe enough for you, maybe it’s light does show our enemies where we are, but that doesn’t give you the right to snuff that light out just so you can feel safe.

You'd better figure out, and quickly, then absent someone to truly defend it, that city will no longer exist as such. The peace... morality... civilization... a stable culture... are all products defeating the enemy. That hurdle MUST be gotten over BEFORE anything else can be played out.

The whole question is a red herring and you know it.

But, that is precisely what the argument degenerates into, isn't it? Look at your own response to me for a clue as to why that is.

Should we have had gulags in American during the cold war?

Old, I don't know. You might wantna ask the Japanese on that one.

And speaking of WWII, and death camps and such, here's a hint; with the Geneva convention as it is today, and we followed today's Geneva conventions to the letter, we'd all be speaking German, just now.

Nobody here is arguing that we should follow the Geneva conventions because of some hope that our enemies will do the same. The argument has been that we, Americans, do not have to abandon our morality to defeat these enemies.

And then we have...

Great argument. We should sink to our enemies level

What you both seem to be messing, is the idea that they... our enemy... hopes that we don't start fighting the battle as they have.

A better question would be, what kind of message to we send when we react to our enemy by becoming our enemy?

And that we are willing to do what's necessary to win. Absent that reaction to our enemy we have no such indication.

I let's, however, make some serious progress here, shall we? There is no such thing as civilized were fair. It doesn't exist. Warfare is the absence, in fact, of civilization. There is no such thing as a moral war. Warfare is the absence of morality. Civilization and morality result from having won the war.

what kind of message do we send when we refuse to react to our enemy?

A better question would be, what kind of message to we send when we react to our enemy by becoming our enemy? We're telling the terrorists that our freedoms, our ideals, our virtues, can be taken away if they can only scare us enough.

Maybe this shining city on a hill is not safe enough for you, maybe it's light does show our enemies where we are, but that doesn't give you the right to snuff that light out just so you can feel safe.

You and I may not consider a Female interrogating a Muslim as an insult but many can and do, to them that would be a violation of GNC.

The point of the Geneva conventions is to prevent harm against those in captivity. In that spirit, it provides for their protection against physical violence, psychological abuse, and degrading treatment. Somebody might find it disrespectful or demeaning to have a woman given authority over him, but that quite obviously does not fall under the protections of Geneva. It in no way causes them any harm, physically or psychologically. The whole question is a red herring and you know it.