True...they don't have uniforms...although I'm sure they'd wear 'em if they could afford 'em
. Seriously though, that's what I mean about finding loopholes and splitting hairs. They fall under the
spirit of the convention, if not the letter of it. Anyone can look at it and understand it's meaning and being in the position we're in, I don't think we should try and skirt that idea. Trust me, I would like nothing more than information that could protect people at home as well as our troops abroad even if I don't agree with the job they have to do, but as Chris said, it becomes tricky when people will tell you just what you want to hear to get out of hell. Legally I'm sure there's an army of lawyers ready to throw depositions and briefs all over the place to quickly label these people non-members of the Geneva Convention but once again I would hope we don't go looking for holes or spelling errors to make us feel better. Like I said...it's a slippery downhill slope. If it's ok to torture them in detainment, does it become of to torture them on the battlefield? Does it make that one guy (Marine, was he?) innocent of killing that Iraqi "insurgent" because the guy wasn't fighting to the letter of Geneva? This is one of those cases where legality and morality are hard to seperate.