Two interesting things are discussed in the news:
A court in the home country of the terrorist group which holds hundreds of hostages in Guantanamo Bay ruled that this is against the law. But well, do terrorists care about the law?
Former good friend with Saddam Hussein Donald Rumsfeld explains that his former friend would not be tortured, they would use more subtle methods (isn't that what all torturers also say?). Also Saddam would not get the status of a POW, well, of course, the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War demands that POWs must be protected against public curiosity and forbids "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment"; probably showing a person in such a manner on TV is covered by that description, at least the US complained about such incidents when their soldiers have been affected. Furthermore, the convention says "Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information"; questioning using "subtle methods" is not really compatible to that, so it is consequent that the status is denied, but on which legal grounds?
