[insuffi]

Perhaps I am confusing the ends with the means. But international law? Several ex US presidents can't even fly to certain countries in Europe because they'd be jailed right away.

International law - indefinite detention, torture; or killing with drones without due process? Doesn't seem like international law is held in high esteem in the US.

[mpyne]

Neither indefinite detention nor drones are contrary to international law per se. German combatants were detained indefinitely during WWII, and a drone is no different from any other aircraft as far as international law is concerned.

Torture is against international law. Even if you want to quibble about whether Geneva Conventions apply to "unlawful combatants" I think that even non-treaty customary international law would forbid torture.

So I suppose that's why the U.S. abrogated Bush's policies on torture as soon as Obama took office in 2009.

[dragonwriter]

> Torture is against international law.

True.

> Even if you want to quibble about whether Geneva Conventions apply to "unlawful combatants" I think that even non-treaty customary international law would forbid torture.

More importantly, it would be against treaty-based international law even if you ignored the Geneva Conventions completely, since it is prohibited by the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.