Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
The North Vietnamese used the same logic to torture US POWs.
|
Read the GC, the language clearly implies reciprocity among signers and their allies/client states.
Otherwise there would not be so much language to determine if the person in question falls into the category of someone protected.
That said, I'm fine with staying on the "good" side of things—but as close to the edge as is legally possible assuming it is
effective. That means a gnat's hair to one side of "severe" as defined in the GC, etc. Note that even the expanded definitions posted above merely add "prolonged" to the list of mental pain. There is nothing at all definitive there.
Remember that during the Bush administration they were bashed for having THIS discussion we're having right now. Just talking about where the limits might be was reported as dangerous and wrong. Given the intentionally vague language,
not having this discussion would have been irresponsible, IMHO.