I think you mean the Geneva Conventions, not the Geneva Accords. Two completely different things.

You wouldn't allow a US citizen terrorist to be tortured but you would a non-US citizen... funny how place of birth makes such a difference... and there was me thinking all men were created equal. Clearly, some are still more equal than others.

Here's to spreading a little more 'freedom, democracy, and the rule of law'. ;)

You are correct: I meant Geneva Conventions. Brain got the wrong term; fingers kept typing.

It's not place of birth, because that is neither a requirement for US citizenship nor certainly a likely condition for those captured enemies whose countries are signatories of the Geneva Conventions. Those are specific legal requirements that the US is signatory to, or constituted from, and thus cannot under any circumstance (as far as I am concerned, anyway) be abridged. That is what "rule of law" means, in part.

Neither freedom nor democracy are at issue in the case that I outlined: the case of unlawful combatants who give no quarter. This does not always apply even against combatants who are not from nations signatory to the Geneva Conventions, or even against all unlawful combatants. For example, the Taliban, while vicious in some ways, don't fall into the category of "would give no quarter" and should therefore not be subject to torture even if the executive powers would deem it useful. (I believe that the executive could, but has not chosen to, decide to subject those groups to torture today, and to that extent at least I think the current law gives too much latitude to the executive to torture.)

It should also be noted that even as things stand, the United States does not apparently torture captives of any kind, by any definition most people would think to use for the word. We do tend to put people under psychological and physical stress, in some cases painful but more often simply exhausting, because it is far harder to keep a story straight when you are exhausted and afraid and without hope than when you know you are safe. But torture as most people would define it, the deliberate causing of pain, maiming, and so forth, does not (thankfully) seem to be in our arsenal of techniques. Some particularly unthinking advocates would define torture to include things that are legal and common in any given police station in any free country; that in my opinion goes too far.

It is a tough question, though, and I certainly think it's one where legislative clarity would be helpful. As I noted, even though I set the bar such that pirates, terrorists and other "no quarter" type illegal combatants might be subject to torture if the executive so decides, I would certainly not object if the legislature were to promulgate more limited rules. What I was trying to do was to narrowly define the conditions where it might be appropriate, and I believe that I did exactly that.

I'm not sure whether you've simply misread my statements, or if you simply wish to believe the worst of Americans as a general rule, or if you're trying to make me personally feel guilty, or if it's something else. Given your tone, it's hard to tell.

I'm curious, though: to what extent should, say, Britain be able to use physical and mental pressure, or actual torture, and does it matter what might be the nature and identity of the particular person about whom the decision is being made, in your opinion?