Blogs for Bush: The White House Of The Blogosphere: A death wish borne of ignorance

ANNOUNCEMENT: Matt Margolis & Mark Noonan get a book deal!

« The Morality of Cluster Bombs | Main | Sunni Tribal Leaders Back Shi'ite Prime Minister »

September 27, 2006

A death wish borne of ignorance

As the Detainee Bill works its way through the House and Senate, the democrats (and some RINOs) continue to be stuck on stupid, with regard to what they think is the intent and the spirit of the Geneva Convention when applied to un-uniformed, illegal enemy combatants. According to Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, the following is the definition of a "legal combatant."

Article 4
Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Now consider the terrorist scum who are currently being held in Gitmo and elsewhere.

They wear no recognizable uniform or insignia.
They hide among the civilian population, and hide their armaments.
Their operations are not conducted in accordance with the laws and customs of war (Unless, of course, your laws and customs include targeting civilians and beheading infidels).

Remember, Article 3 and 4 of the Geneva Convention was not set up primarily as a bill of rights for prisoners, as much as it was an incentive for hostile forces to abide by the laws and customs of war. The purposes of these articles of the Convention were twofold. First, as is evident on face value, these articles of the Convention were set up to provide humane treatment to detained lawful combatants of hostile forces. The second, and over-riding function of the Convention was to protect the civilian population, by giving combatants the incentives to abide by the laws and customs of war. These guidelines were not set up so much to protect soldiers as they were to protect the civilian population against accidental targeting by military forces. By following the rules and customs of warfare, collateral damage and civilian deaths are necessarily kept to a minimum.

It is when a hostile force refuses to follow the rules and customs of warfare that the innocent civilian population is held at undue risk. Therefore, applying the protections afforded by the Geneva Convention to unlawful enemy combatants has the net effect of removing the incentive for hostile forces to abide by the laws and customs of war. This strips the Geneva Convention of its most important function--the protection of the civilian population.

Of course, this is lost on the likes of Pelosi and even Carl Levin, who proclaims:

Sen. Carl Levin, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, objected, saying that the measure would be "used by our terrorist enemies as evidence of U.S. hypocrisy when it comes to proclamations of human rights."

First of all, being lectured to by Al Qaeda with regard to human rights is nothing less than laughable. Second, giving Al Qaeda and other terrorist detainees rights under the Geneva Convention and/or the U.S. Constitution gives the terrorists absolutely no incentive to cease their practices of targeting civilians and perpetrating outright atrocities unseen since the Stalinist purges.

By insisting that we give terrorists due process under the Geneva Convention, the democrats and RINOs are not protecting our citizens or soldiers--they are in actuality putting them in greater danger.

But then again, regarding that crowd, what else is new?

Posted by leo at September 27, 2006 11:36 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/crawford.cgi/7850

Comments

Stupid is as stupid does, better to stop now and have people think you are, rather than continue and eliminate all doubts.

I guess you in your cherry picking haste missed the part in the convention that states that even unlawful combatants (Geneva IV) must be treated in the same manner as a POW, including fair and prompt due process as well as being free from torture. Also, in the case where their status is in question, they MUST be treated as a POW until a tribunal decides otherwise.

Posted by: axis

at September 28, 2006 12:31 AM

I guess you missed the part where your democrat brethren are whining about even the possibility of military tribunals, thus again rendering the incentive for Al Qaeda (and other terrrorists) to act in accordance with the customs of war moot.

But screw the built-in protection for civilians, right? The dems just want to make things easier for the terrorists.

After all--what's the targeting of a few civilians--big deal, right? Especially when your primary goal is to obstruct our war effort.

Posted by: Psycmeistr

at September 28, 2006 12:43 AM

And btw Axis (geeze...is the name anything to do with an affinity to those we fought in WWII?)...

This "torture" thing is such a straw man--put it to rest already, will you?

Nobody is asking for the right to "torture".

Posted by: Psycmeistr

at September 28, 2006 12:48 AM

I suppose if the terrorist think tickling or smearing their faces with red ink is torture we must bow down to that. But sawing heads off isn't torture, according to the Islamofascists.

So what's the plan, DemoRATs? Surrender?

Posted by: Bob Arctor

at September 28, 2006 01:26 AM

"These guidelines were not set up so much to protect soldiers as they were to protect the civilian population against accidental targeting by military forces."

Absolute nonsense. The Geneva Convention is more for civilians you think, Mark? That's completely insane.

Are you trying to argue that because they aren't wearing uniforms the Geneva Convention doesn't apply? Though I guess you already know your wanna-be arguement is blown out of the water by Category 1 of Artice 4.

You think we are nuts, but you can't even read, and make insane conclusions. You don't have the ability to be in any sort of power. For god sakes!...You don't have an adult reading level. Are all Republicans like you Mark?

Posted by: USA at September 28, 2006 01:40 AM

And btw Axis (geeze...is the name anything to do with an affinity to those we fought in WWII?)...

Maybe, and he certainly supports the axis of evil. But then he's a worthless Canadian. Who really cares what Abcess thinks?

Posted by: Bob Arctor

at September 28, 2006 01:50 AM

Axis and other libs...question for you. Do you think it would be wise to give these enemy combatants knives?

just curious

Answer the question and I'll tell you why I asked.

Posted by: Warriornation

at September 28, 2006 02:14 AM

Please report any inappropriate comments to abuse (at) blogsforbush (dot) com. Be sure to include the title of the blog entry, the name of the commenter, and the text of the offending comment.