I would argue that the Geneva Conventions don’t just help define our values, they define the values of all countries that sign them. The Geneva Conventions, in other words, lay out the rules of war for countries that think it’s important to play by the rules. Rules such as wearing an identifiable uniform, not targeting civilians or using civilians as human sheilds. Presumably the countries that sign realize that losing a war while playing by the rules is less bad than fighting a war with no rules. However, there are advantages to not playing by the rules. If you cheat, it often increases your chances of winning. So what is a signatory country to do when fighting a country or organization that doesn’t play by the rules? I would argue that the signatory country is under no obligation to abide by the Geneva Convention when fighting a non signatory country or terrorist group. If signatory countries have to follow the rules and non signatory terrorists do not, then this gives the terrorists an advantage. This advantage in turn makes it a logical move for other signatory countries to renounce the conventions in order to “level the playing field.” The result is a race to the bottom regarding mores and behavior, and war becomes even more barbaric. The only way to prevent this “race to the bottom” is to demonstrate to the non signatory terrorist groups that there are benefits to fighting by the rules and disadvantages to breaking the rules. Unfortunately this means we need to fight as dirty as the terrorists in order to show them that losing a war while playing by the rules is far less bad than fighting a war with no rules at all. At the moment the terrorists believe fighting with no rules gives them an advantage. We have no choice but to show them they are very, very wrong.

Isn't it simpler to state that those who don't fight by the rules are criminals and treat them as such. Even though terrorists are heavily armed criminals that is no reason to go to war against them unless they are being protected by a nation as was the case in Afganistan. Law enforcement against these groups may require special forces assistance but large-scale war fighting operations do more harm than good.

Also, when a conventional war gets desperate, all the rules go out the window anyway. Thats how we got away with firebombing cities like Dresden and Tokyo where the rules against targeting civilians were obviously ignored.

Geneva conventions aside, the question of the article was about what to do with captured terrorists and suspected terrorists. The answer - put them on trial - is obvious, but surprisingly elusive to many, president Bush included.

Terrorists will never be threatened by fear of dirtier tactics being used against them.

In regards to prisoners of war, the Geneva conventions are only applicable (in practice) to wars involving uniformed armies. Under the conventions, you couldn't put an enemy soldier on trial for attacking the US army, because its allowed by the rules of war. We can and should put anyone who plans to attack our soldiers or civilians on trial for the criminal charge of terrorism or sedition against the state - not for the Geneva Con defenitions of "war crimes", because terrorists are not soldiers.

But the ultimate point is that, in every case, it is not difficult to bring charges against terrorists and put them on trial. Habeas corpus, due process, and evidence of guilt are not at all antithetical to the "war" on terror.

To sum up, then: in order to avert a "barbaric" "race to the bottom regarding mores and behavior," the U.S. should "fight as dirty as the terrorists." Escalating barbarity will prevent further barbarity?!

Terrorists and terrorist organizations should be treated differently from "combatants" not because they don't "play by the rules," but because they do not qualify for those "rules." Their "rules" are those of the criminal justice system. Read General Wesley Clark's New York Times piece (cited in the Slate article), in which he points out that, among other ills, treating terrorists like combatants is a mistake because "it dignifies criminality by according terrorist killers the status of soldiers."

Maybe therein we have stumbled upon the actual TRUTH of why IRAQ has become (all but?) a LOST War due to the current thinking of our National Leadership?

Orion,

Are you Alberto Gonzales?