To answer Glummer

[Fletchette]

The opening question:

"Specifically, I keep seeing references to "putting our troops in danger in future wars." I can't understand the implication. (I don't mean in the sense of disagree with it - I mean I can't figure out what you're trying to say.) The Conventions, as I understand it, cover soldiers/POW's (nothing changed here),& non-combatants (again, no change). The problem arises with non-soldier combatants, who are not either category. Bush wants to make up new rules, since there are none now. How does that endanger our SOLDIERS in future conflicts?? If we employed irregular, insurgent types, THEY would be in trouble; but that would be true today, anyway. But regular troops would be covered under the current agreements. So what, exactly, is the argument?"

So far, almost everybody is everywhere except on answering the question!

Stick to the subject of the thread, okay? So far, there ain't no glue being used.

, Art

Sorry Art. It is amazing how quickly threads can drift (myself to blame!)

As far as the Geneva Conventions go, Glummer and Medula Oblongata are correct- it does not cover irregular insurgents. No arguement from me. Thread drift occured by delving into the subject of torture.

The arguement of "putting our troops in danger in future wars" appears bogus to me. Geneva Convention or not, our enemies will most likely torture our troops anyhow. Those trying to argue this point seem to think that if we treat captured terrorists well, then the terrorist will treat our uniformed solider POWs well. I think the holes in that arguement are obvious.
__________________