More for the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same file?: This appeared on the first day here:

ONE-SIDED GENEVA: [Rich Lowry]Good e-mail on the Geneva Convention. An argument of administration critics is that we are putting American soldiers at risk by treating al Qaeda as outside the Convention. A reader asks: “Why doesn’t anyone mention the obvious? NO American adversary in war has followed the Geneva Convention in 84 years! Last night I watched Jonathan Turley portentously tell Jeff Greenfield that we dare not be legalistic in our interpretation of the Convention–after all, we needed it, our soldiers depended on it, so we should not really be too assertive or argumentative about our rights.“But can Jonathan Turley or anyone else name one enemy of the United States in a war since 1918 (declared or not) that has followed the Geneva convention? The answer is no, because there aren’t any–not Nazi Germany (see the Battle of the Bulge for starters), not Japan (which didn’t even sign it), not North Korea or Red China (real undiluted torture), not the Vietcong or North Vietnam (the same), not Iran in the hostage crisis, and certainly not Iraq. Everyone of these countries egregiously violated the Convention in dealing with our soldiers and diplomats. OUR ENEMIES HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THE GENEVA CONVENTION SINCE THE KAISER. How is it possible to overlook this while piously genuflecting in the direction of Switzerland?”