Reprisals are prohibited unless *explicitly* authorised.

I believe the Law of Reciprocity does this.

It's a damn sight easier to hold the high moral ground, than it is to
fight in the foggy valleys.

I agree.

It's much easier and more convincing to
simply say "we do not torture detainees" than to argue "shoving Cyalumes
up a prisoner's arse isn't *technically* torture so we're just
interrogating with extreme prejudice, what are you complaining about?".

Uhh, I'm not making *any* kind of argument to support or defend the prisoner
abuses. I already said, if it were up to me, those guards would serve as
infantry in the hottest spots in Iraq until their court martial. What I'm
arguing (and how we even got on the subject I'll never know) is that there are
provisions in the Geneva Convention that permit the lawful violation of the
articles. I think this was brought up because someone said that under *no*
circumstances could a signatory violate any of the articles.

Meanwhile, *unauthorised* reprisals are war crimes pure and simple.

Absolutely.

Under what circumstance can an individual soldier / sailor / airman
decide that the GCs are no longer relevant?

None that I know of and I'm not arguing that individuals have that right.

If "any servicebeing" can't make that call, what's the minimum rank for
the decision to be made?

You'll have to quote where I said that "any servicebeing" can decide to envoke
the Law of Reciprocity.

There are many bad and misguided reasons to be brutal in pursuing the
current scandal up the ranks as possible.

Uhh, where did I say otherwise?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"