Guantanamo Bay or Tehran

Where would you prefer to be imprisoned, Guantanamo Bay or Tehran?

  • Guantanamo Bay
  • Tehran

0 voters


Tehran


Guantanamo Bay

What is Blair Complaining About?
by Pham Binh
March 31, 2007
British Prime Minister Tony Blair is mad as hell that Iran grabbed 15 sailors and marines in the Persian Gulf. When Iran released a letter from Faye Turney, the only female sailor, Blair said “It is cruel and callous to do this to somebody in this position and playing this kind of game - it is a disgrace.” He even labelled their seizure “blatant aggression.” Iran has begun showing TV footage of some of the prisoners asking embarassing questions like shouldn’t the British be getting out of Iraq?

Cruel, callous, and disgrace are strong words. But I have two words for Mr. Blair and his phony outrage: Guantanamo Bay. He (and the prisoners) are lucky they weren’t detained by U.S. forces where…
zmag.org/content/showarticle … emID=12463

I was detained by Irish immigration once. We had a nice cup of tea in a warm office and then the immigration officer fed us buttered scones and told us to be on our way and not to do it again. Hell on earth. (They had no jam - really what on earth do I not pay my taxes for!!!?)

In Gitmo one would assume the worst. Those chaps are in the biz of breaking people’s souls.
In the Tehran, one would at least be able to play the factions off each other, & using subtle prompts, maybe even gain access to outside media sources. Yet that would be in between the main psyop angle from the Terroranians…
& all that that entails… :noway:
:uk:

I’m not going to defend the goings on at Gitmo, but to make Iran the victim in this dispute, or to pretend they’re really nice people, is just silly.

Of course, for the likes of Pham Binh it’s all about George W. Bush. Even when it’s about 15 British servicemen it’s about George W. Bush. Bush bashing transformed from political opposition to fad long ago.

While what Iran is doing - coerced statements and ridiculous TV “interviews” - to the British prisoners is positively humane by comparison, it is still wrong.

At the time of writing, respondents to this thread’s poll declared a preference for incarceration in Tehran by 2:1. Had any of them done a little research they would have discovered articles such as this.

The true face of incarceration in Tehran

Wow. The Iranian police are wearing Chinese uniforms and beating up a Chinese bloke. That’s terrible.

Anyway, the Brits have all been let go now. Brilliant politics on Ahmedinejad’s part. Wonder what Tony’s going to say?

BroonAmnesty

That picture came up when I googled “Iran torture”. I can’t positively identify the uniform, and I’m sure you can’t either. You are indeed to be congratulated on your super powers - identifying a person’s ethnicity by looking at his back.

But one doesn’t really need pictures unless one is incapable of reading and / or believing the multitude of human rights abuses in Iran, documented by various NGOs. However, if it’s pictures you want, there’s no shortage of them…


[quote=“Dr Zoidberg”]That picture came up when I googled “Iran torture”. I can’t positively identify the uniform, and I’m sure you can’t either. You are indeed to be congratulated on your super powers - identifying a person’s ethnicity by looking at his back.

[/quote]

Why don’t you have a look at that clearwisdom.net site from where that picture came and find anything at all to do with Iran on it. It’s a Falun Gong mouthpiece. Look at the coppers hat: it’s mainland Chinese. So it’s not superhuman powers, just looking a little further than Googling Iran torture and believing the first thing that came up.

But you are very clever in finding all those other pictures and indeed that is to be congratulated.

:bravo:

BroonApplauds

Here’s where the plot thickens. None of the photos clearly show anything that meets the new U.S. definition of “torture”:

"Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture (under U.S. law), it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years. . . . We conclude that the statute, taken as a whole, makes plain that it prohibits only extreme acts.’’

Haha Spook.

Anyway, time to review some of what qualifies and what does not under Geneva? surely?

[quote]The Geneva Conventions are not an anthem. They are treaties, which make them the stuff of contract — i.e., specific obligations by which parties, after careful consideration and, in the U.S., a constitutionally mandated ratification process, agree to be bound. They are not an expression of zeitgeist that evolves with the whims and passions of changing times or excitable commentators.

The Third Geneva Convention, which deals with treatment of captives in an armed conflict, exactingly prescribes an opt-in regime. “High contracting parties” to the agreement are duty-bound to honor its terms with respect to the other high contracting parties; others, be they countries which did not sign the treaty or non-state forces, may qualify for Geneva protections, but only by compliance with the treaty’s terms for the recognition of non-party rights.

In the case of sub-national, irregular forces, Geneva provides an opportunity, under limited circumstances, for opting in to its framework. We could argue about the circumstances (presently, I’ll get to one of them, addressed in the Supreme Court’s Hamdan case), but it’s really not necessary to do so. For all other considerations aside, to get the benefits, irregulars must at a minimum acknowledge and abide by the terms of Geneva. Article 2 is very clear: a non-party may not earn the privileges and immunities of the treaty unless it “accepts and applies the provisions thereof.” These provisions, most fundamentally, include using force only in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Al Qaeda exists to flout those laws and customs, which are tightly aimed at protecting civilians and civilian infrastructure — the terrorists’ main targets.

Thirty years ago, people just like Andrew Sullivan — people admirably concerned about human rights but, in my view, naive in their methods — actually tried to get Geneva protections for terrorist groups and sub-national militias. Specifically, they urged the adoption of the 1977 Geneva Protocol I. Why? Precisely because they well understood what is pellucid in Geneva’s language: Terrorist groups and sub-national militias are not protected by the terms of the treaties. Were they protected, the entire Protocol I exercise would have been a monumental waste of time.

The United States declined to join Protocol I. You can argue that we should have (I would disagree). You can even argue that Protocol I, despite our express refusal to be bound by it, has now somehow transmogrified into binding international law (again, I would disagree). But the inescapable facts are that (a) Protocol I is a treaty adopted by many of Geneva’s high contracting parties because Geneva, as written, does not protect sub-national irregular forces which fail to opt in and otherwise qualify; and (b) while treaties do not become the law of the United States absent ratification, and international law obligations may not be imposed on the United States absent an act of Congress, the United States has neither ratified Protocol I nor enacted its provisions.

In Hamdan, the Supreme Court construed Geneva’s Common Article 3 (CA3) to accord some minimum standards of humane treatment to non-state combatants. To do so, the majority had to (a) torture (pardon the pun) the language of CA3, which by its terms applies only to conflicts not of an international nature (the war against jihadists, to the contrary, is not merely international but intercontinental); and (b) ignore settled law that courts must defer to the president’s interpretation of treaties (including such questions as whether a conflict is international, on which the executive branch, not the judiciary, has the superior institutional competence). That five justices came to this conclusion does not make it the right one — although certainly we must honor it as the binding one. But it bears emphasizing that even those five justices did not claim unlawful alien combatants are entitled to the same protections as honorable prisoners of war.

WHO DECIDES
I am not claiming that alien combatants should have no protections. I am simply stating as a fact that they fall outside the existing legal frameworks. This is no different from saying that an insurance contract fails to account for a particular type of injury. As a human being, I might well feel that society ought to do something to redress the injury. But as a lawyer, a citizen, or — were I one — a judge or a policy maker, it would be wrong for me, based on my subjective sense of right and wrong, to pretend that the contract covers the injury if it doesn’t. Not only would that discourage people from contracting, which would be bad for society; it would, further, usurp authority that doesn’t belong to me.

The question of due process for captured combatants is as much an argument about who should decide as what should be decided. It is frequently the case that actors and actions fall outside the scope of constitutional protections and treaty obligations. That does not represent an assessment that those people and actions should exist in a law-free zone. The Constitution sets forth basic protections for members of our body politic; treaties often set forth protections (usually enforceable by diplomacy, not courts) for defined classes of persons. If someone falls outside those frameworks — if someone is a member of neither the body politic nor the treaty-defined class — that does not mean the law should not reach them. But it does mean that, to reach them, we need to make new law.

In our democracy, that is the function of the political branches. When an emergent problem demands action, we should not want old laws stretched beyond recognition and in contravention of the purposes for which they were enacted. We should want Congress to fix it with new laws adapted to the new challenge.

We should not want courts to come to the rescue, particularly when the matter involves international relations in the context of treaties that expressly disclaim judicial enforcement. Courts are supposed to enforce antecedent law. When a person or his conduct falls outside existing legal frameworks, a court cannot reach it without pretending those frameworks say something they do not. Such pretensions are bad in at least three different ways: (a) they pervert the frameworks for future purposes; (b) a court is likely to get the result wrong because it is set up to decide cases as framed by self-interested litigants, not to address societal problems in the public interest; and © when a court gets it wrong, it is harder for a legislature to repeal or correct the damage, especially if the court purports to ground its decision in a command of the Constitution.

I am not saying that unlawful alien combatants should have no rights. I am saying that it is for Congress and the president to determine what those rights ought to be in a searching legislative process that balances, in the way a court cannot, the conflicting goals of national security, human rights, military necessity, cooperation of our allies, intelligence needs, and appeal to Muslim moderates. It is a very complex balancing act, and it may take us several swings before we get it right — all the more reason why it should be done by Congress.

WHERE WE DISAGREE
It’s a shame that Andrew goes the simpleton route — McCarthy’s “beloved [Bush] administration”; McCarthy supported Abu Ghraib abuses; McCarthy liberally enables use of water-boarding, sleep deprivation, and stress positions for prisoners of war; blah, blah, blah. Readers can judge for themselves, but none of this is so — I’ve hammered the Bush administration quite often; I’ve called for the creation of a national-security court to try to strike a better balance between due process and national security; I condemned Abu Ghraib; and I don’t support coercive interrogation as a regular practice. But as I really do think Sullivan and I are not worlds apart on goals, we might actually have had a worthy discussion about how best to maximize the recognition of human dignity and minimize torture (including interrogation methods that are close to torture even if they don’t meet the statutory definition). I take his good faith as a given even though I sincerely believe his way leads to more atrocities. I don’t know why he mocks mine.

In any event, I have some core philosophical differences with what I take to be Sullivan’s positions. On the Third Geneva Convention, literal terms aside, I believe it is a betrayal of the treaty’s civilizing impulses to grant its benefits to those who refuse to take up its burdens. Geneva’s raison d’etre is to impel warriors to conform to its civilian-protective standards. If you reward barbarity by treating terrorist operatives as if they were honorable combatants, you are guaranteeing more barbarity. But saying terrorists are not entitled to the POW protections of Geneva is not the same thing as saying we are not morally obligated to recognize their human dignity. And, indeed, irrespective of Geneva, we are legally obligated to refrain from torture under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and its resulting statutes (which render torture illegal under federal law).

First, while I concede that torture is despicable, I don’t believe moral wrongs live in a vacuum. So I don’t agree with what I take Sullivan’s view that torture is so evil it must never be resorted to, no matter what the stakes. Indiscriminate mass homicide as practiced by terrorists is, for me, a worse moral wrong than some forms of coercing information from a culpable person. Attempting to get the information under emergency circumstances where getting it could save innocent lives is, for me, a lesser wrong than knowingly doing nothing and allowing the annihilation of those it is one’s highest duty to protect.

That does not mean anything goes. There are some methods of culling information (e.g., mutilation, harming innocents to induce cooperation) that are so repugnant they should never be resorted to. And coercion approaching torture should never be acceptable unless there is a true emergency and a good-faith basis to believe the detainee’s information could be used to foil the attack. But if we were in a ticking bomb scenario, I don’t believe it would be unacceptable to inflict pain on one of the plotters in order to try to save, perhaps, thousands of lives. I say that with great trepidation, and with due respect for the contrary view that this is a slippery slope to be avoided at all costs.

Secondly, if you assume as I do that there are certain, very limited circumstances in which torture would be acceptable, you are left with the problem of how to regulate so that only that torture, and no other, takes place. I take Andrew’s purist position to be close to that of Judge Richard Posner. Unlike what I believe Andrew thinks, Judge Posner accepts that torture may sometimes be necessary under dire circumstances. Yet, he argues, with great force, that we should nevertheless maintain a categorical ban with no exceptions.

Posner’s theory, explicated in his invaluable book, Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency, is that (a) government inevitably tends to push the limits of any license we give it (such that torture, even if tightly controlled at the start, would progressively be extended to scenarios beyond the types of exigencies originally contemplated); and (b) we can trust that those sworn to protect national security would know enough to ignore the categorical ban in a true emergency, such that we would only have torture in a true emergency, which is the best we can hope to do in terms of minimizing it. (The latter, interestingly, is a position also taken by no less an anti-torture absolutist than Senator John McCain in an op-ed he wrote during the torture debate.)

I think this is a very reasonable argument; I just disagree that it is the best way to minimize torture. It is simply not the case that government always pushes the envelope, especially when personal liberties are implicated. The infamous intelligence “wall” between national-security agents and criminal investigators is one prominent example (there are several others) of government harnessing itself to ensure that it did much less than the law would have permitted (in gathering intelligence against foreign agents).

A lack of realism, clarity, and accountability in the law, such as we have now, is in my mind more likely to lead to unacceptable torture and other prisoner abuse. Consequently, my position — which is not shared by my “beloved administration” — has long been that we should have an honest debate about torture and coercive tactics short of torture; we should decide what situations and what methods are acceptable; we should require an accountable sign-off by a high-ranking executive-branch official before any forcible interrogation; we should require oversight by at least one of the other branches; and we should subject to aggressive discipline or prosecution any forcible interrogation that occurs outside these protocols.

For what it’s worth, I think such measures for regulating interrogation would result in less torture than would otherwise occur (and it defies human experience to think we can eliminate torture). Moreover, bear in mind that the vast majority of interrogation has nothing to do with torture or anything close to it. Giving al Qaeda terrorists the status of honorable POWs under Geneva would mean, among other things, they’d be privileged to tell us nothing but their names and — however unlikely — their ranks and serial numbers. That would shut down interrogation completely, which would be utterly irresponsible in a war where intelligence is our only defense.

The intelligence we have obtained from interrogating hundreds of detainees has saved countless American lives — civilian and military. It has saved countless non-American lives as well. I don’t like the fact that our inevitable screw-ups and excesses have given our enemies propaganda points, seized on in the Islamic world and, regrettably, by people like Andrew who should know better. Still, I was at the World Trade Center right after it was bombed in 1993 and destroyed in 2001. The horror defies description. I was at the embassy in Kenya where over 200 people were killed, and I spent countless hours there interviewing survivors whose lives were wrecked by rubble and flying glass. If I have to endure enemy propaganda or enemy terror strikes, I’ll take the propaganda.

None of this, though, has much to do with the 15 Britons. Iran does not have arguable, theoretical Geneva obligations to them; its obligations are, instead, indisputable and ironclad. It is apples to Andrew’s overripe Abu Ghraib oranges. Truth be told, I was moved to write about it because I sensed a good deal of hypocrisy. It seemed to me that critics who’d been apoplectic over America’s non-violation of Geneva were being awfully quiet about the Iranian regime’s undeniable violations of Geneva. I ended up not making the hypocrisy point because I decided it wasn’t fair. But fairness, I guess, is in the eye of the beholder.[/quote]

article.nationalreview.com/?q=Zj … Q4MDAwYWE=

Of course the Iranians are the greater scumbags. However, did no one in the Bush admin consider when torture was authorized that a scenario like this might arise? To ask the question is to answer it: no!

The Iranians score a massive propaganda victory but our fearless reporter shrugs it off. Oh well, so much for the lessons of Vietnam and every other war in history. As we all know, wars are only won on the battlefield.

As for the GC, well, there are several things to say. First, few people claim that enemy combattants should be treated as POWs. However, most of the prisoners in guantanamo are not enemy combattants, as their tribunals determined. Even those that are, are entitled to some protections both from the GC and more importantly domestic law as the NR article correctly states. None should have been subjected to torture and abuse.

Second, GC protections most certainly applied to prisoners in Iraq and they were beaten and tortured without reservations, too. It is disingenuous to try to limit the debate to Guantanamo as the status of prisoners has not mattered a bit during this war. When discussing torture, the GC rights of Guantanamo prisoners is moot. They could have been school children for all the Bush admin cared. Oh, right, well, we do have documented cases of children being kidnapped and brought into Abu Ghraib to try and force their parents to talk.

But once again we get the stoic reporter who is willing to accept that bad things have to happen in this world to make it safe. What shit. Find me one experienced interrogator who agrees that torture works.

Hugh Hewitt had a great interview with a retired Army interrogator:

[quote]HH: Now an e-mail. Mr. Hewitt, can you ask the Colonel if we would authorize torture regarding someone who knows of a nuke about to go off in minutes or hours.

SH: Yeah, that’s the so-called ticking time bomb scenario. The difficulty with that is that that question poses a hypothetical which in my experience, I never ran into a hypothetical like that. If you pose the rectitude, or lack thereof, of torture based upon that hypothetical, you’re not really dealing in the real world. That’s my answer to that. [/quote]

hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcri … 3127f6eed7

In your sentence above Bush is mentioned three times……But in Pham Binh’s article Bush is only mentioned once…. How can this be considered Bush Bashing? Blair is mentioned nine times….Did you read the article? Or were you too busy doing research?

Is it also wrong when western forces parade detainees?

We can all agree that the regime in Tehran is brutal the facts speak for themselves but at the same time the brutality of the west must also be acknowledged. If I was given the choice I would still choose Tehran because they generally torture their own. America on the other hand tortures everybody….including there own……God bless America….

Iraqis
Iranians
Guatemalans
Chileans
Nicaraguans
Brits
Pakistanis
Australian
Afghanis
Vietnamese
Hondurans
Mexicans
Peruvians
Haitians
Indonesians
East Timorese….please feel free to add more nationalities……Perhaps you need to do a little research…….

BTW, who taught the Iranians the finer points of torture? Something for you to research perhaps……
Iran
For over two decades, Iran under the Shah was a key outpost of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East. The Shah’s brutal secret police, the Savak, was originally formed by the CIA and Mossad (Israeli intelligence agency) (1957-1979). In Tortured Confessions: Prisons and Public Recantations in Modern Iran,Ervand Abrahamian describes the techniques used by Savak against thousands of prisoners: “Brute force was supplemented with the bastinado; sleep deprivation; extensive solitary confinement; glaring searchlights; standing in one place for hours on end; nail extractions; snakes (favored for use with women); electrical shocks with cattle prods, often into the rectum; cigarette burns; sitting on hot grills; acid dripped into nostrils; near-drownings; mock executions; and an electric chair with a large metal mask to muffle screams while amplifying them for the victim. This latter contraption was dubbed the Apollo–an allusion to the American space capsules. Prisoners were also humiliated by being raped, urinated on, and forced to stand naked.”

revcom.us/a/1241/ustorture.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_R … Revolution
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK

Sounds just like Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo Bay……


Ahmadinejad and the British Lion [The Telegraph, U.K.]

[quote=“Muzha Man”]Of course the Iranians are the greater scumbags. However, did no one in the Bush admin consider when torture was authorized that a scenario like this might arise? To ask the question is to answer it: no!

The Iranians score a massive propaganda victory but our fearless reporter shrugs it off. Oh well, so much for the lessons of Vietnam and every other war in history. As we all know, wars are only won on the battlefield.[/quote]

Can you stop posting things like that? Fred is as yet not ready for something like that. 60 years down the raod at best he may get a clue (if that).

The only PR blunder of the Bush administration he so far can name was “could not find WMDs”. :unamused:

Coincidence?

[quote]Iranian Diplomat Abducted in Iraq Arrives in Tehran after Release

Sharafi was abducted on February 4 by armed men wearing Iraqi military uniforms and with official identification.
Iranian diplomat Jalal Sharafi has been released after two months of detention in Iraq and returned home Tuesday.

Upon arrival at Mehrabad international airport, Mr. Sharafi, the second secretary of Iranian embassy in Baghdad, was welcomed by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and other ministry officials.

Sharafi was abducted on February 4 by armed men wearing Iraqi military uniforms and with official identification.

No detail is yet available on the circumstances of his release or who were behind the abduction. Some five other Iranians have been kidnapped by the US marines in Erbil, northern Iraq, and no information is available on their whereabouts or destiny except that they are held under US detention. Some reports indicated that they might have been transferred to Guantanamo Bay, the notorious US detention center.

The associated Press quoted a senior Iraqi foreign ministry official as saying that the Iraqi government was “intensively” seeking the release of the five other Iranian detainees in Iraq.

BAZTAB – April 03, 2007
en.baztab.com/content/?cid=1469
[/quote]

I wonder if he was tortured…and his colleagues…


Tehran…no Orange jumpsuits!


Special Advisor Chavez?


Guantanamo

Orange jumpsuits are now considered torture?

Someone has been reading zmag again… tsk tsk tsk…

[quote]We can all agree that the regime in Tehran is brutal the facts speak for themselves but at the same time the brutality of the west must also be acknowledged. If I was given the choice I would still choose Tehran because they generally torture their own. America on the other hand tortures everybody….including there own……God bless America….

Iraqis
Iranians
Guatemalans
Chileans
Nicaraguans
Brits
Pakistanis
Australian
Afghanis
Vietnamese
Hondurans
Mexicans
Peruvians
Haitians
Indonesians
East Timorese….please feel free to add more nationalities……Perhaps you need to do a little research…….

BTW, who taught the Iranians the finer points of torture? Something for you to research perhaps…… [/quote]

First, let’s have the numbers on all those groups above… how many were tortured or killed by Americans and under what circumstances. I suppose then you would be against the US and French led effort in Haiti now? Because I sure as hell cannot tell the difference between this the latest effort and all those that preceded it over the past 100 years. Maybe you can help. Ditto for some of the cases with Central America.

Finally, if you and any others of your ilk cannot tell the difference between the US and Iran, might I point you to the Freedom House index which lists Iran very low and the US nearly perfect. Why do you suppose that would be? No doubt the US controls this effort and there is absolutely no basis for Iran’s low scores and the US’s high ones?

Oh, I pray, to Allah, Buddha, Christ and Yahweh that some day an idiot such as yourself will find him in one of those countries that he so adamantly defends to see how you would fare when left to your abilities in a nation that does not even adhere to the basic concepts of respect for human rights.

[quote]Can you stop posting things like that? Fred is as yet not ready for something like that. 60 years down the raod at best he may get a clue (if that).

The only PR blunder of the Bush administration he so far can name was “could not find WMDs”. [/quote]

Oh no Games. I AGREED with you regarding all the PR blunders. I agreed that the failure to find wmds was not the only one. I was particularly keen to point to the fact that your nation Germany sold Saddam most of his nuclear, chemical and missile technology and equipment hence Iran’s government was suing only one nation on this subject and it is yours. Funny how that does not get the “press” it deserves. I also thought it fascinating that Germany has had a national debate for five to six years about how and when to use torture. Seems that a great many of your top politicial leaders were in support of torture why just a few years ago and there are public records of them making very clear their stance on this issue. Strange then that the collective German will (deliberate) has gone rather silent on the subject of the domestic propensity to support torture now that they are faced with a few isolated incidents at Abu Ghraib and no proof whatsoever of any such events in Guantanamo. Most allegations to my knowledge have been disproved. I am also happy to point to the previous German administration’s complicity along with the French in maintaining the corrupt Oil for Food program that resulted in $69 billion being funneled to Iraq where most of it ended either in corrupt UN or European officials’ hands and/or weapons and palace-building programs for Saddam while 500,000 to 1 million women and children in Iraq died due to lack of sufficient medical care and/or food. But back to you. I am sure that you will have so much more to say about PR blunders, eh? I am all ears.

[quote=“fred smith”]
I also thought it fascinating that Germany has had a national debate for five to six years about how and when to use torture. Seems that a great many of your top politicial leaders were in support of torture why just a few years ago and there are public records of them making very clear their stance on this issue. [/quote]

I am all ears here too. When did that happen?

No, jumpsuits of any color can not commit torture. Now that, for your benefit, is clarified…
The infamous [color=orange]Orange Jumpsuit[/color] is recognised across the world as a symbol of American oppression and a precursor to torture………the inhuman way America treats it’s prisoners makes it easy for Tehran, a brutal regime by anyone’s standard, to look vastly more civilized than the world’s greatest deMOCKrocy, simply by supplying the British aggressors with civilian clothing……100s of millions of dollars worth of good PR for the cost 14 suits and 1 dress!..…. Now that’s sound economic management……


Uncle Sam explaining the situation to the next group of detainees…oh look a child visiting its father…who has a bag on his head…God Bless America
Children held at Guantanamo Bay guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1 … 48,00.html

The fact that you are still surprised just proves how little you actually understood about the PR dimension of this kind of conflict.

Nice you figured out though the current U.S. government has a huge PR problem. Including back at home. Any clue why? Aware of the implications for your project Iraq 2063 too?

The Geneva Conventions were purposedly written with set-piece warfare in mind. Insurgency, revolution (and their counterparts) were not part of the convention. Perhaps rightly so, as it’s a tricky biscuit indeed.
It might be opined that some combatants in such a noble endeavor as the American Revolutionary War would also not have qualified for protection under the GC, were it in effect then. Partisans, indeed…