Foreign terrorists should not be given Geneva Treaty protection until they conform to it

I gave three arguments as to why the Geneva conventions should not be applied to foreign terrorists: 1. The Court erred in applying it to non-signatory terrorists, and that error ought to be corrected. > Con made no argument that the Supreme Court applied the Treaty correctly. 2. It restores the incentive for foreign powers to sign the Treaty and thereby provide mutual humane treatment of POWs. > Con made no argument that it would do otherwise. 3. It will restore democracy by placing foreign policy and international military affairs in the hands of elected officials. > Con made no argument that foreign policy ought to be made the Supreme Court rather than the elected representatives of the people. Con offered counter-arguments: A. "SO if the united states had not signed the Geneva convention, It would be removed from alot of international organizations such as the WTO ,UN etc. Also, a lot of international organizations would cease to assist you." I did not assert that the US should not have signed the treaty, and I specifically offered three remedies by which the unilateral extension of the treaty to terrorists could be revoked without renouncing the treaty: the Treaty being amended to make it clear it does not apply to non-signatory terrorists, the Supreme Court reversing itself, and the Supreme Court being stripped of foreign policy powers. Moreover, the alternative I offered that involved renunciation was to only renounce the separate article that applied, not the whole treaty. Even doing that is extremely unlikely to provoke any international reaction. Iran, a signatory of the Treaty, is actively supporting terrorists, and yet there is little effective international cooperation in apply trade sanctions to Iran in retaliation for its support. If the world does assert minimal authority in the face of explicit endorsement and support of violating the Geneva conventions, it is not conceivable they would act on so minor a matter. There is long list of signatory countries that routinely torture captured dissidents, none of whom receive sanctions, or even bad press as a consequence. In fact, the theory that the US would be excluded from world organizations has been tested. Prior to the Supreme Court decision, neither the Republican Bush Administration nor the Democratic Congress believed the Treaty applied, and the US was not excluded from anything. B. "would vastly damage Americas Image and at a time like now, we need to vastly improve our image." In setting up the debate I said that the issue of this debate was not foreign or military policy. Perhaps terrorists ought to be waterboarded, or perhaps they ought to afforded greater rights than US citizens. That's a separate question. The current Administration now says they should be afforded greater rights than US citizens; I am not questioning their authority to adopt that policy. The topic of the debate is whether Treaty *obligations* ought to be afforded to terrorists, not whether they might be voluntarily given. C. Con says that terrorists cannot sign the Treaty. I ask Con specifically if he thinks that if Al Qaeda asked to subscribe to the Treaty they would be refused? Not a chance. Moreover, they could alternatively approach the United States with an offer for a separate treaty in which they pledged to be bound Geneva Convention provisions in return for mutual consideration. That would satisfy the resolution's demand for conformance. D. Con makes another irrelevant argument: "Yes, some people may attempt to block that right, however, doing the same to them makes you no better then they are, especially when it comes down to such a bsaic human rights issue as the Geneva convention. We are all Human, some Kinder then Others, but never the less, all Human, and should all be treated as such. That will distinguish the righteous actors from the Wrong doers." Will bringing terrorists milk and cookies and offering comfy chairs actually produce a net benefit to the security of the United States? We will find out, as new Administration policy prohibits anything causing discomfort. I am asserting that it is entirely the prerogative of the Administration and the Congress to try that experiment, not the prerogative of the Supreme Court and not a treaty obligation. I can't resist noting, however, that Con's doctrine of moral equivalence is wrong. Can we imprison kidnappers as punishment for kidnapping? Both kidnapping and legal imprisonment are the physical acts of holding someone against their will, so are they morally equivalent? No, that's nonsense. The asymmetry derives from intent. The Geneva Convention was conceived without terrorism in mind. It should be updated to make abundantly clear that terrorists are not afforded the treatment due to signatories. The Supreme Court should not extend the Treaty unilaterally to protect terrorists.