http://www.dailyint
<http://www.dailyinterlake.com/articles/2006/09/17/columns/columns01.txt>
erlake.com/articles/2006/09/17/columns/columns01.txt
 

Will we fight terrorism or not?

 
By FRANK MIELE 
Thank God for Jack Bauer.
The fictional hero of the television series "24" may be the only true
defense we have against terrorism in this country. We just have to hope and
pray that Osama and the other cave-dwelling Muslim terror rats get Fox on
their satellite service.
If they do, and they watch counter-terrorism agent Bauer interrogating
murderous vermin using any means necessary, they may actually start to worry
that the American people have the will and strength to defend themselves
against any enemy using whatever means is necessary.
On the other hand, if they are watching cable TV news, we are doomed because
they will discover that we are quivering neurotic feel-good do-nothing
pansies who would rather make friends with terrorists than make them talk.
Never mind the 3,000 dead Americans from September 11. Or worse yet, never
mind the 3 million dead Americans the first time we don't stop Jihad Jim
from blowing up his nuke bomb in the middle of Manhattan.
All that matters - if you get your world view from the politically correct
folks at CNN, FNC and MSNBC - is acting by the "rules" and behaving yourself
like proper gentlemen. It kind of reminds me of the battles between France
and England in the 17th century where the commanders would enjoy a tea
behind the lines while sending their troops forward in neat, orderly rows to
"engage" the enemy and die.
That gentlemanly form of slaughter worked fine until one side decided not to
play by the rules. But the bloody French and Indian War on our own continent
established that one man playing by his own rules could kill a dozen playing
by gentlemen's rules. Within a few years, the British had learned their
lesson and stopped marching men to their deaths.
Nowadays, we have one side that doesn't play by any rules - the terrorists
whose only goal is to kill as many of us as possible - and one side which
still thinks it is more important HOW you fight the war than whether you WIN
it. Yeah, that's us, the guys with the sign on our back that says, "Blow Me
Up!"
How could this be? Are we so morally clouded that we honestly do not
recognize the difference between a U.S. victory and an al-Qaida victory in
the War on Terror? Do we really think we will win the world's accolades
because we are "nice" to our enemy while he cuts our heads off?
Unfortunately, many of our most influential citizens do think that way.
Rosie O'Donnell does. Keith Olbermann of MSNBC does. David Gregory of NBC
does. Howard Dean does. So if the terrorists are watching cable news or talk
shows, they are probably not at all worried about being caught by us.
And this week, the terrorists found out that many U.S. senators are trying
to protect terrorists from the indignity of being interrogated (in the
unlikely event that the under-manned American military or the depredated
U.S. intelligence agencies should get ahold of them in the first place).
John McCain, Lindsay Graham, John Warner and Susan Collins are four
Republican senators who decided to put international law (and feel-good
moral superiority) above American law and down-home, no-terror-tolerated
homeland security. As leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee, they
teamed up with Democrats to try to stop the CIA and other agencies from
interrogating terrorists. Oh sure, we can still bribe them to talk, and we
can feed them three-course dinners to fatten them up, so that they may
decide to spill the beans while smoking cigars over snifters full of brandy
afterwards.
But heaven forbid we dunk these vermin in water and try to scare them into
talking about where the next bomb attack is planned! That would be an
"outrage upon human dignity."
Thanks a lot, Sen. McCain. I mean, thanks a lot for looking out for the
human rights of Osama bin Laden. We wouldn't want to upset the world's top
terror madman in the unlikely event that we captured him - we wouldn't want
to deprive him of sleep by playing heavy metal music! We wouldn't want him
to get the idea that we were so dedicated to our own survival that we would
sink to that level!
The "outrage upon human dignity" line comes from so-called Common Article 3
of the Geneva Convention of 1949 where civilized nations came together to
try to prevent war crimes and atrocities in future conflicts. That noble
goal is obviously very dear to the people of the United States, and anyone
who does not think so is a fool.
But the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties should not be
used for something other than what they were intended - which for the most
part is to establish civilized rules for the treatment of uniformed soldiers
in armed combat. They were not meant to be loopholes to permit murderers to
go unpunished. And they were not meant as a way to ensure that future
murders could go forward as intended by the bad guys.
In fact, they were not even intended to be applied to a war like the current
War on Terror - at least not in the way that the Gang of Four on the Armed
Services Committee would have you believe.
First of all, the Geneva Conventions apply only to signatories of the
treaties. Article 2 of the 1949 treaty says plainly that the provisions
apply only when two or more of the "High Contracting Parties" are in
conflict against each other. So far as I know al-Qaidastan is not a nation
yet, and even if it were, I don't think President Osama would sign a
document that would forbid al-Qaida from torturing women and children or
cutting heads off of innocent American contractors like Nick Berg.
So the Geneva Conventions don't even apply.
But let's say that they did, as former Secretary of State Colin Powell and
McCain's Gang of Four claim. If that were true, then Common Article 3 would
have to apply in our dealings with Osama, wouldn't it?
Uh, no. Actually just the opposite if anyone were to read the actual
document instead of listening to the talking heads on cable TV. Article 3
applies specifically to "armed conflict not of international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties."
Can you think of a more international war than the War on Terror?
Article 3 is relevant only in internal wars, civil wars or rebellions - not
the kind of conflict which we are engaged in now, a conflict of
civilizations that stretches from a field in Pennsylvania to the caves of
Afghanistan.
So Article 3 is only a club used by anti-American forces to try to sway
worldwide public opinion against us as we work to defend ourselves from a
brutal enemy. Congress and the president should in reality not be wasting
our time with such a debate in the first place, but since they are, let's
consider the crux of the argument - whether or not the United States has a
right to define "outrages upon personal dignity."
As used in the document, the phrase merely encompasses "humiliating and
degrading treatment." Since this is vague and unclear, the president has
asked that the language be amplified with America's understanding of what
kind of treatment of terror prisoners is "humiliating and degrading." Thus
everyone will know what can and can't be done.
Short of that definition being put into place, the military has informed the
president that interrogation of prisoners of war will need to cease
immediately because of the risk to military personnel of being put on trial
for war crimes.
Well, Sen. McCain, what say you? To paraphrase Sen. Kerry's infamous quote
of the 2004 campaign, were you "for" the war on terror before you were
"against" it? You can't have it both ways. You are either in favor of
interrogating terrorists, or you are against it.
And don't try to confuse the issue by saying that if America uses
waterboarding on its prisoners, then the same thing may happen to our
soldiers when they are captured. Our soldiers would be relieved and
delighted to know that if they were captured in Iraq, the worst that would
happen to them is they would be dunked in water until they were coughing and
frightened and paralyzed with fear. Instead, they face mutilation, burning,
electrification and beheading. I'll say it once again - al-Qaida does not
honor the Geneva Conventions. Period.
Which brings us back to Jack Bauer.
He doesn't follow the Geneva Conventions either. If he catches a terrorist,
and he thinks there is even a chance the guy will be able to provide
information that will save innocent American lives, he doesn't mess around
by calling Sen. McCain for permission to interrogate - he shoots the
terrorist in the leg. After that "warning shot," he puts the gun to the
terrorist's head. Every once in a while the gun goes off. Usually, Bauer
feels bad about it, but not as bad as the terrorist.
And you know what? Bauer usually wins. Maybe HE will run for president in
2008. We could sure use him.
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
  Subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to