Originally Posted by mcbear
I do find it very interesting that the kids at the White House have been worrying about this since late 2001. That says that they have known that they have been breaching Geneva Convention Treaties with full knowledge since day 1.
Those laws were put into effect to insure that all combatants are protected when captured and if not, the people who do not treat them correctly and to the letter of the law are punished in World Court. The War Crimes Act of 1996 was put in place so the US could go after NVA Regulars who treated US prisoners bad in VietNam, above and beyond the Geneva Convention Treaties.
Looks like that Clintons little BJ perjury indictment could look like a fart in a hurricane if the World Court wants to push a Geneva Conventions Trial against the US ala Nuremburg. Karma is a real Bitch.
The whole argument hinges on the term, "combatant." Legal combatants are supposed to carry arms openly, wear some badge of identification, preferably a uniform or flag, and they are supposed to follow the rules of war like not targeting civilians, not storing or hiding cache's of weapons or soldiers among civilians and of course, prisoner treatment.
IRRC, when either side fails to follow the rules it is the choice of the other side whether to continue following the rules. I'm not certain about that last one, but it would make sense since it would reward the violator for one side to stick to the rules while the other side gets to flout them.