Do I hear an echo?
One Angry Christian
Sometimes after going off about a subject I begin to wonder if I'm alone in my assessments of a particular situation. I know I'm not alone in my assessment of Gitmo, and the Geneva Convention especially in how it applies to captured terrorists. Yet, I had found little to no direct commentary on how wrong the administration and the pentagon are on this particular subject (caving to the demands of the leftist "let the terrorists sue our government using tax payer money" movement). This morning I woke up and started reading my usual blog lists, and I found that ... apparently I'm not alone.
Apparently most of the entire world has forgotten just who is in Gitmo, how they got there and how we have actually treated them. Other than subjecting a few of them to aggressive interrogation techniques that fall far below any reasonable definition of torture, we have treated them well. We have treated them in accordance with the Geneva Conventions in relation to their standing as illegal combatants as defined by the Conventions. Actually, we have treated them better than the Conventions mandate, since under the definitions we could have considered every single member of al Qaeda a spy caught out of uniform and shot on the spot of capture.
That's almost verbatim what I posted yesterday. Ok, well that's a bit of an exaggeration, but Bryan hits most of my major points from the grand treatment we dish out to these genocidal maniacs to the fact that we DON'T shoot them on sight as spies he dishes up what is a common sense interpretation of the Geneva Convention and why it DOES NOT apply to the Gitmo detainees.
Someone (USMC Kurt 03) pointed out yesterday that the Supreme Court ruled on the Gitmo detainees rights based upon section two of the Geneva Convention. That section WELL defines how "prisoners of war" are to be treated. It gets detailed enough to say that "prisoners of war shall not be intimidated". How's that for hysterical. You can't intimidate a captured enemy combatant? So you're saying that our public schools break the standards of how we should treat people who are trying to kill our soldiers every day? Interesting.
The problem with the Supreme Court ruling that no one is talking about is the fact that a prisoner of war is defined as I previously posted, and terrorists do not fit that description. They fit PART of the Geneva Convention definition, but they do not adhere to the so-called "rules of war", nor do they wear any identifying mark. The Geneva Convention as it is written does not apply to terrorists. Did I say that enough? Is anyone hearing me here? It does NOT apply to TERRORISTS.
It is interesting to see that Bush and our legislators are already scrambling to draft legislation that will deal with trying (read: spending tax payer money to hand over our national defense to high paid lawyers and civil rights activists) terrorists we apprehend. My assessment? This is bad, very VERY bad, and frankly, I think the Bush Administration rolled over on this way too quickly. This was a fight worth having, and worth taking the extra mile on because this situation will be used by the terrorists to their advantage at every turn. Mark my words on that.
Of course, I'm far from alone in that assessment as well. I might be in the minority among some circles in my opinion of this situation, but at least I'm in good company.
-One Angry Christian