There seems to be a debate within the Administration, let alone on AP, about cruelty and torture. Should any new rules concerning detainees contain words from the Geneva conventions or any words to the like effect?

What is this argument about? Doesn't the 8th Amendment provide that "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,nor cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted" ? So how does this fit in with the idea that words such as 'cruel' or 'inhumane' or 'torture' should not figure as prohibitions in rules concerning the detention or interrogation of detainees?

The Bill of Rights is evidently directed both at those holding and those punishing.

Is this right? We should not expressly forbid cruelty towards those we detain a) in general or b)in times of conflict or c) whilst terrorism is about. We should not, in any case, forbid it in interrogation. However we must forbid it in the case of those who we are punishing. So if we punish somebody by jailing him but then go back to him and torture him or treat him cruelly with the intention of getting him to say more about his crimes or those, real or potential, of others, or to provide other information that is legal and proper ? Or isn't it ?

I think it would be constructive to create a seperate body of international standards that apply to international criminals.

The groups we are at war with do not fall within the definitions of the Geneva Conventions, since they don't belong to a nation.

But international criminal organizations will always be around, and we need an effective way of dealing with them. Part of that is a standard that we and many of our allies can agree upon, so that when the caca hits the fan, we won't be so engaged in debate that we can't adequately and decisively deal with the problem.