The argument filed to the Supreme Court by Mr Guter and other former military lawyers said: “The lives of American military forces may well be endangered by the United States’ failure to grant foreign prisoners in its custody the same rights that the United States insists be accorded to American prisoners held by foreigners.”
That view was backed by ex-prisoners-of-war, some of whom told the Supreme Court they believed they owed their lives to the fact that their captors abided by the Geneva Conventions designed to protect captured soldiers.
This is the point I wanted to raise with my Dad, an ex-Navy man, when he tried to justify the Guantanamo bay affair as a case of the need for different rules in war time. I wonder what he would have felt had he been captured at see? Would he consider it appropriate to be held in a legal no-mans land with no rights?