The growing legion of proud liberal attorneys, rushing to represent the assorted killers and murderers cooling their heels in their cells at Gitmo, are now claiming that the military authorities are hiding their mail — oh, the horror.
and this calamity befalls these precious lads after their rooms were "rearranged" to their personal detriment after searches, after which their toothbrushes were found facing away from Mecca while their bristles lay in contact with the sink; their original toilet paper was replaced with some of a decidedly higher pulp content; the hours of darkness and light have varied due to concerns about suicide, wreaking havoc their internal clocks; music of an inflammatory nature, most notably "ahab, the arab," has been overhead issuing from the MP's Victrolas; while the odor of cooking bacon, a no-no, has permeated the cell-blocks with the sudden fluky wind changes in the early morning.
One need but remember the Sepoy Rebellion to understand potential chaos emanating from the smell of bacon in the morning.
Survivors of the Nazi camp system must be laughing out loud at the feigned horrors that these coddled and cozened "prisoners' are forced to endure in their captivity, while being led to clean showers, three squares a day, kept from committing suicide, given regular medication for assorted ills, while their Korans are tendered the highest respect by the MP's after lengthy classes on their handling.
Yes sir, it is a long way from andersonville to Guantanamo Bay, in both time and treatment. and the differences are becoming more sublimely ridiculous and costly all the time.
Even the UN, that band of outright frauds, flim-flam artists, and ne'er-do-wells, have been offered a free tour of the facilities and have declined out of fear, no doubt, that they might find the incarceration acceptable. after all, even the photos distributed indicate far better conditions at Gitmo than those experienced in North Korea, Zimbabwe, China, Cuba, Iran, Syria and the other sunny free and open worker's paradises where the UN's fabled rapporteurs vacation.
There is a scene in the movie "Breaker Morant" where The Breaker explains the rule under which he killed his prisoners in the field — Rule .303 — the caliber of his rifle.
Today we are faced with an implacable foe of the same archetype of Japanese infantryman of World War II, except for the uniform and the religion, of course. But a willingness to die and to take as many of foe into death unites the two in time.
The Islamist terrorist is imbued with a vast reservoir of hatred, believes in a religion which sanctifies his murderous ways and offers him a better eternity than the all too meager life he or she scrabbles away at on earth, and a willingness to die, violently, for the cause - be it the new caliphate, Mr. bin-Laden, or the deaths of a few US Marines in a Humvee.
and now that these terrorists have been accorded greater rights in our court systems, under our rule of law, they are receiving legal values which they view as anathema and as an abomination before God.
Our system, you see, is their joke. and if you haven't seen the Stooges performing in their classic send up "Disorder in the Court," run the tape of the Moussaoui trial for a bit of Schadenfreud and a few nyuks.
as a retired cop, I believe in the rule of law, but I also realize that it has boundaries, which end at the limits of enforcement and with the edge of belief.
We cannot attach our rule of law to the behavior of al-Qaeda, because we end up with the old apples and oranges example from B-School. and when we inject these same implacable killers into our prison system, we're merely injecting another set of individuals proselytizing murder into a willing and adept audience.
In the end we have a series of stark moral choices — we can keep these highly volatile and dangerous terrorists in the same kind of limbo which we have created in Gitmo, we can dump them into our legal and prison systems, or we can employ Rule .223, the caliber of our rifles, on the battlefield.
It is the Fourth of July, our Nation's Birthday, we fighting for our lives and are enjoying the lull between the battles at home in a new kind of war with a dangerous neoteric threat — international terror.
Overseas our soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen are fighting terror in its lair, one on one, demonstrating our ability to take the fight to the enemy.
But he will get through someday, and destroy another part of our nation.
We cannot stop them all, not with our porous borders, our lackadaisical approach to governance, and our solons' total failure to recognize this as total war.
Is it not better for our survival, then, to allow our soldiers to employ Rule 223 so the can US Senate can continue to live in its dream world of complete indolence, so the borders can remain their precious golden sieve, and we can dither away for just a little bit longer?
In the end, Rule 223 spells an end to a file before it is written, cancels a ticket before it's purchased, stops future bloodshed, negates a roadside bomb, saves an allied serviceman or woman, and may cause the enemy to pause.
Sadly, we can no more authorize Rule 223 than we can vote to use overwhelming force to win the war. They are one and the same.
B-52s carpet bombing downtown Teheran and Damascus, burning out the nests of the purveyors of the terror we face in Iraq and much of the world, is Rule 223 writ large and is found unacceptable by the white livers and recreants who determine our current way of warfare. We can fight, they say, but not too hard, for too long, or with too much military power.
In the end, however, there'd be no Guantanamo Bay and all the sobbing, hand wringing, worthless UN reportage, and Supreme Court balderdash, if we'd employed Rule 223 from the very beginning.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement