I have learned many things watching the documentaries on Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo etc...
What astounds me is as a group, the filmmakers find it easy to gloss over fact and spin this war with their own political agendas.
Apparently Americans can only learn by being told what to think (based on my own conversations with Americans, this rings true)

I watched "New Rules of War", a documentary that is up for several awards. Apparently, accuracy is not something required to be considered a great documentary. The following is an excerpt to the producers regarding that film:

As a veteran of the current war, I found your film very informative. The insight given into the memos by president Bush and the carrying out of the new interrogation rules by General Miller and his screwing up of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib detainment centers was great. I think there was more story there.
The main reason I am writing you is that there is a serious flaw with the premise of "New Rules of War" substantiated by the supposed twisting of the Geneva Conventions and the creation of a new category of prisoner, the "unlawful combatant."
The term unlawful combatant is not a new word, introduced by Bush's administration, it has been used in the Rules of War, which are derived from the Geneva Conventions, for decades. Unfortunately, the unlawful combatants held in Guantanamo Bay don't have certain rights as would be implied by your film.
The problem is that your running roughshod over international law does not lend credibility to your film.
Please pass the following information on to your film makers. Maybe their cohorts will think better about the consequences of their actions, not being covered by the Geneva conventions as you would have one to believe. The inaccurate reporting would also lead Americans to believe the United States is violating the Conventions in so many ways. I would like to be clear that many individuals were unjustly tortured, especially at Abu Ghraib. I have first hand experience with detainees that were mere common criminals and exposed to torture.

During conflict, punishment for violating the laws of war may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisal .

Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war but only after facing a "competent tribunal" (GC III Art 5). At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5. For example in 1976 foreign soldiers fighting for FNLA were captured by the MPLA in the civil war that broke out when Angola gained independence from Portugal. After "a regularly constituted court" found them guilty of being mercinaries, three Britons and an American were shot by a firing squad on July 10, 1976. Nine others were imprisoned for terms of 16 to 30 years.

Spies and terrorists may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope. However, nations that have signed the UN Convention on Torture have committed themselves not to use torture on anyone for any reason. Citizens and soldiers of nations which have not signed the Fourth Geneva Convention are also not protected by it (Article 4: "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it".), whether they are spies or terrorists. Also, citizens and soldiers of nations which have not signed and do not abide by the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions are not protected by them. (Article 2, of both Conventions: "[The High Contracting Parties] shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to [a Power which is not a contracting party], if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof".


Unfortunately, people who decide to engage in spying, terrorism or acts of war against any country may find themselves on the receiving end of torture or a firing squad, especially if they belong to an organization which does not recognize international treaties.

The Geneva Conventions and Law of War are meant to protect innocent people and prevent armed conflict from degenerating into chaos. It purposefully pushes the criminal, dangerous elements (ie. unlawful combatants and terrorists) to the fringe of society, where they belong, not able to hide behind the skirt of justice.
(END)
My personal opinions of the current administration is that they have ignored the reality of what is happening on the ground in Iraq,and and this has led to many unnecessary casualties. I also think that many people who are now against the war (read: fair weather fans)are not really pacifists, but they are using our failures to act as a mouth piece for their cause (liberal agenda). They are selling a bill of goods similar to the one our government sold us to go into this war (half truths, propaganda etc.)
One thing I do know, the lack of cohesiveness and support for our government in the time of war (Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq...) has led our government from one half hearted campaign to another. Americans are out of touch with the world.