Being Politically Correct in the War on Terror
29 Sep 2006
Listening to Democrats, as well as to some Republicans on Capital Hill, one would conclude that the war on terror is no war at all, but a mere police action in which criminals are being rounded up and prosecuted. According to some Capital Hill politicians, captured terrorists, like arrested shoplifters, are to be afforded all of the rights guaranteed our citizenry by our Constitution. Such humane treatment of inhumane jihadists is seen by liberals as a safeguard to our nation’s impeccable principles. Funny, these same liberals are completely without scruples when it comes to the inhumane killing of unborn children or partially born babies. I guess it’s just bloodthirsty terrorists, not innocent children, who liberals deem deserving of humane treatment.
While yesterday’s passage of new rules to try and interrogate terrorists was touted by Senator John McCain as preserving the Geneva Conventions, the Geneva Conventions are neither applicable to unconventional wars, like our nation’s current war against terrorism, or signed by terrorist organizations, against whom our current war is being fought. In other words, there is no such thing as a uniform code of justice when it comes to a clandestine enemy who wears no uniforms. Furthermore, there is no obligation on our part to honor a previous agreement made with others in a current conflict against a terrorist foe who disdains such agreements. Anyone believing that our kind treatment of captured terrorists will have any bearing on al-Qaeda’s treatment of captured Americans is the “naivest” of ninnies.
The passage of yesterday’s legislation was precipitated by a Supreme Court decision that struck down military tribunals for captured terrorists as a violation of our Constitution and international law. It has apparently escaped the notice of both our judicial and legislative branches of government that enemy combatants are not citizens of our country and that our sovereign nation is not subject to international law. Granted, liberals are always concerned about how we’re perceived by the backstabbing French, Chinese and Russians, not to mention whether or not we’re winning any brownie points in the Muslim world. If you ask me, however, we ought to be far less concerned about world opinion and far more concerned about our country’s survival.
Although Hillary Clinton voted against yesterday’s legislation, as did the vast majority of her party, it was not because of any qualms about kinder and gentler treatment of enemy combatants. Instead, it was because Hillary and her fellow-Democrats felt like yesterday’s legislation did not go far enough to assure leniency toward captured terrorists. According to Senator Clinton, we need “to hold on to our values” and treat detained jihadists in a way “that we can point to with pride, not shame.” Pardon me if I find this a little hard to take from a woman whose husband shamed our whole nation by mistreating a White House intern and turning our nation’s Oval Office into his personal brothel.
It does not bode well for our nation’s future that so many of its judges and politicians are more concerned with how well we are treating terrorists who are out to kill us than with how well we are protecting and defending ourselves against them. While we may be fighting politically correct and able to pat ourselves on the back for being morally superior to our mortal enemy, our mortal enemy is concerned with one thing alone, namely, which one of us will be left standing once the smoke of war clears. He doesn’t care about Geneva Conventions, international law, political correctness, or world opinion. He only cares about winning, and he’ll do whatever it takes to do so! Will we?
Don Walton
|
