Maybe a few people here should read this. The Geneva Conventions
cover civilians around a war and soldiers. This part with references is in Wikipedia then they can read what's in the constitution.
The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish the standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of war. The singular term Geneva Convention usually denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–45), which updated the terms of the first three treaties (1864, 1906, 1929), and added a fourth treaty. The Geneva Conventions extensively defined the basic, wartime rights of prisoners (civil and military); established protections for the wounded; and established protections for the civilians in and around a war-zone. The treaties of 1949 were ratified, in whole or with reservations, by 196 countries.[1] Moreover, the Geneva Convention also defines the rights and protections afforded to non-combatants, yet, because the Geneva Conventions are about people in war, the articles do not address warfare proper — the use of weapons of war — which is the subject of the Hague Conventions (First Hague Conference, 1899; Second Hague Conference 1907), and the bio-chemical warfare Geneva Protocol (Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, 1925).
= new reply since forum marked as read
laws we have (specifically, the War Crimes Act and the Torture Act). You do understand, I hope, that because vague terms (e.g., "prolonged mental harm"
were used in these statutes, wiggle-room was created and that enabled Bybee and Yoo to argue that the waterboarding done by the CIA did not violate the law. Do I agree with their arguments? No, but less ambiguous laws would have made those arguments impossible.
