From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war)

Quote 1:
Specifically, Chapter II of the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention covered the treatment of prisoners of war in detail. These were further expanded in the Third Geneva Convention of 1929, and its revision of 1949. Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters and certain civilians. It applies from the moment a prisoner is captured until he or she is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners and states that a prisoner can only be required to give their name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable).

and quote 2:
To be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, captured service members must be lawful combatants entitled to combatant’s privilege—which gives them immunity from punishment for crimes constituting lawful acts of war, e.g., killing enemy troops. To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a “fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance” and bear arms openly. Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner-of-war status; and francs-tireurs, “terrorists”, saboteurs, mercenaries and spies do not qualify.

perlhaqr is absolutely correct.

No one should be surprised by that. The Big O told everyone, right up front, within minutes of taking office that he is a pragmatist:

“The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address/

Not to draw this out, but who wrote the rules you’re referring to? Heinrich Himmler?

I’m no expert on international law or the rules of war, but I don’t think your argument holds water.

Fighting the Taliban in Pakistan/Afghanistan is war – the idea is to kill the enemy. I’ve never heard a president criticized for doing that. Though certainly one could question the original idea to go to war in some cases, like Iraq, once the war begins, I and other “liberals” have never criticized a president for using the military to kill enemy soldiers as the war is fought.

However, once we capture prisoners on the battlefield, we’re supposed to follow the rules set out by the Geneva Conventions, or else we risk descending into the same trough as our enemies. I’m all for being tough on dangerous prisoners to get information, but from what I can tell (and I’ve read articles by experienced interrogators at the CIA who support this), torture such as water-boarding was never needed. In fact, most of the information we got from the prisoners was achieved before such methods took effect.

*****
I used to think Obama was just passive aggressive conniving. Now I know he’s a devious scumbag. He shouldn’t get elected … he’s dangerous. The following is revealing about Obama’s character and Axelrod’s methods.

There was an open fight for the Illinois Senate seat in 2004 because the incumbent Republican had dropped out. An unknown guy named Barack Obama got the Democratic nomination after the Chicago Tribune published ugly details about the leading Democrat’s divorce. David Axelrod — Obama’s campaign manager then and now — had been the head political reporter for the Tribune.

Obama’s Republican opponent was Jack Ryan, a golden boy who had left Goldman Sachs to teach in the inner city. His ex-wife was Jeri Ryan — the hot chick on Star Trek with the big knockers who played ex-Borg Seven of Nine. She was Miss Illinois and a National Merit Scholar — quite a package. The couple had grown apart and divorced years before — it didn’t help that she was strapping the producer of Star Trek. They were both from Illinois, but the divorce was in Hollywood.

Axelrod stirred up the Jeri Ryan divorce story with Chicago reporters. You can see the angle for the reporters — putting pictures of Jeri on the front page sells papers. Her pictures even made the front page of the New York Post, all the way from fly-over Illinois. Axelrod got the Tribune to send a reporter to Hollywood to unseal the child custody proceedings … and a friendly Democratic judge accommodated them, over the objections of both Jack and Jeri.

In their 1999 custody battle, Jeri had claimed that Jack took her to sex clubs so he could show her off and pressed her to have sex with him in front of these strangers. She said this in response to her admitting affairs, including with her Star Trek producer.

Jeri Ryan made the following statement at the time:

“We maintain a good relationship and I consider Jack a friend. In response to the rumors that have been circulating, there was never any physical abuse in our marriage–either to myself or to our son–nor, to my knowledge, was he ever unfaithful to me. Jack is a good man, a loving father, and he shares a strong bond with our son. I wish him all the best, both in his life and career. I have no doubt that he will make an excellent senator.”

The month before, Obama had said “This is going to be a contest of ideas.”

As it came out: “On April 2, 2004, Barack Obama changed his position about the Ryans’ soon-to-be-released divorce records, and called on Democrats to not inject them into the campaign. The Ryan campaign characterized Obama’s shift as hypocritical, because Obama’s backers had been emailing reports about the divorce records prior to Judge Schnider’s decision.”

Ryan dropped out … he was vulnerable because he had developed a squeaky clean image … which didn’t fit with claims that he had asked his wife to perform fellatio on him in front of strangers … and Obama got to run against a last-minute lame Republican replacement. The rest is history.

After Ryan dropped out, Obama said: “What happened to him over the last three days was unfortunate,” Obama said. “It’s not something I certainly would wish on anybody. And having said that, from this point forward, I think we will be continuing to talk about the issues.”

So much for a new kind of politics.

Riddle me this…Obama has no problem firing missles at al Qaeda operatives from Predator drones without due process of law while he, you and legions of liberals in this country continue to recoil at GWB’s decision to waterboard a few mass murderers in the hopes of saving lives…Help me out with the logic here.

Plus, they’re virtually untouchable.

Time for what Wall Street money is left to do the smoke-filled room thing and get some rabid lawyers out there and go after these fools.