Geneva Doesn't Apply to Terrorists Part III

In my hungry search for a steaming pile of dung, Meaty Fly found its way to this site. And now, I see that I must defend myself against the ass whose shit brought me there in the first place. Proggressive at Cal says the attack on Yoo's brief is

not about liberals and conservatives. It's not about whether the Republican or the Democratic team gets more points. It's about good and evil, right and wrong, and how a professor allowed evil things to happen.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. "It" is about opponents of the removal of Saddam ("peace" activists) who are eager to create new rights for terrorists where none existed before.

Stretching the Geneva Convention blanket over the bodies of murderous terrorists is contrary to the spirit of the Geneva Convention, which is based on reciprocity of treatment:

Yoo: The reasons to deny Geneva status to terrorists extend beyond pure legal obligation. The primary enforcer of the laws of war has been reciprocal treatment: We obey the Geneva Conventions because our opponent does the same with American POWs. That is impossible with al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda's intent is to target civilians, decapitate prisoners, and violate all accepted rules of war. In return, "peace" activists would like to reward Al Qaeda with Geneva protection.

1. Geneva only applies to conflicts between signatory nations.
2. Al Qaeda is not a nation, nor has it signed the convention

End of argument.