>>You're still missing the point of my arguements, McGrath;
By the definitions of the Geneva Convention, neither the Taliban nor al Quieda can be described as participants in the agreement - not by a lng shot. Why should they enjoy the protections of a covenant to which they have no part?<<

I think you're missing the point. I am civilized, I do not torture people. I don't care who they are or what they believe. I may capture them, I may question them, I may jail them for a time, I may try them for war crimes. I might even execute a few if it can be proven they are guilty of such crimes. What I will not do is torture them. There is something wrong with someone who says the Geneva Convention rules are only for an enemy that abides by them. The Geneva Convention rules are to establish some sanity amidst the madness of war. It is to prevent your doing something you will be VERY sorry for years down the line.

Your reasoning reminds me of people who say all rapists should be gang-raped and fucked in the ass with cattle prods. Okay, fine. But who's going to doll at that kind of punishment and call themselves any better than the one they tortured? I may not want that rapist around my daughter but I also sure as hell don't want his tormentors around her either.

We must not torture al Qaeda suspects because we are civilized people--not because of the Geneva Convention but because we simply KNOW better. The Geneva Convention is only for idiots too dense to get it on their own. And, unfortunately, the U.S. appears to fall into that one.