Geez, I am sure am glad that the US Supreme Court essentially said that we have to give all the al-Qaeda boyos, like the former Mr. al-Zarqawi, the old one, two, and chapter three out of the Geneva Convention handbook. and they sure deserve every accepted courtesy, too, being such good lads and all.
But my hackles get sort of ruffled when I think about the killers, torturers and outright murderers on the other side, and the fact that nothing applies to them in all of this foolishness.
Sure our boys will put the kid gloves right on after a fire-fight, especially after seeing their comrades beheaded, or dragged through the streets dead and naked, set fire to, or torn to pieces, or whatever the willing tools of international terror decide to do after our soldiers, alive or dead, fall into their hands.
But my question is this: what thought's been given to the quid pro quo?
I would've used tit for tat. But you know how easily the puritan sensibilities of the liberals are trampled and I sure don't want to end up like ann Coulter — hounded forever, chased from every college campus, accused of inflating her sales figures, blunting her appetite with non-traditional herbal mixtures, failing to appreciate the innate talent of Barbra Streisand, looking too sleek in black, and branded some sort of anti-feminist heretic or is it harridan, just for speaking out.
anyway, what about the other side?
How will this new ruling in Hamdan v. Us all, every darned one of us, affect the operations of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the rest of the merry pranksters who operate in mufti, hector us with IEDs, car bombs, suicide belts, outlandish bits of torture, and always act way outside the commonly accepted bounds of warfare?
Nope, al-Qaeda will just be spurred on to ever greater outlays of terror, now that they know, KNOW, that if they're captured, the Marquess of Queensbury Rules apply, Geneva kicks in, the lawyers arrive, the aCLU appears, Ted Kennedy'll sob publicly for their welfare, Russ Feingold will demand fair treatment for them, Jimmy Carter will count their votes for Key Lime Pie, and all the rest of the sad sorry liberal voices will chime in for outright coddling of the murderers among us.
But who will now demand that terror, in every iteration, with and without the Clorox clean white turbans and Keffiyehs, now treat their captives, our GIs, Iraqi citizens, Israeli soldiers, British Tommies, Christian missionaries, innocent tourists, consular employees, Canadian soldiers, and all those other innocents terror preys on with the same prudence which we are now required to display toward their civilian attired bandits?
When can we expect that finely tailored hollow huckster and leader of that vast criminal family from the rarefied high rise on Turtle Bay, Kofi annan, rise to the podium in the General assembly and beseech the wayward members of the major international terror cartels to follow suit and adhere to the same mashed potato soft guidelines that now direct our treatment of our captives?
Is Mr. Malloch-Brown, Mr. annan's handpicked successor, parrot, and dog by the fire, capable of calling for an end to the daily atrocities committed by these same bands of brigands on the innocent and get them to knuckle under?
Can the great liberal toothless lions who sit on the progressive side in the US Senate muster the courage, call upon their brethren in terror and beseech them to follow the same simple set of rules we have now willingly handcuffed ourselves to?
Will our pitiable Fourth Estate, led by such honest and open brokers of the truth as the New York Times, who have had their wildest petulant dreams delivered to them in this outright hobbling of our war on terror, now ask the purveyors of terror to offer some tiny evidence of decent behavior towards a small number of captives, toward non-americans, to begin with? and if they did, wouldn't it appear on page D-27, after sufficient pleading for due consideration and an examination of their true feelings?
Will our former Presidents, the hagiographer of Yasser arafat, Jimmy Carter, and the pardon peddling nuveau riche, Bill Clinton, find time in their busy schedules dedicated to the belittling and humiliating of our current President and country, the praising of our mortal enemies, and the genuflecting before noxious dictators, long enough to beg our enemies to behave in a civil fashion towards their benighted captives?
No. You won't find a single one of these brazen caitiffs and rabbits speaking against the horrific behavior of Islamist terror.
Nor will the majority of the US Supreme Court ever rule on the madness practiced in the illicit death dens of al-Qaeda by the mad adherents on their helpless victims. They may find the most obscure foreign laws to saddle us with when peddling progressive thought, but they'll never speak out about twelfth century torture.
There'll be no qui pro quo issuing from any of these scurvy heroes in the war on terror.
and the sounds of silence about the behavior of the terrorists will continue regardless of their dreadful activities.
The rules, as many as can be written by the no accounts, only apply to our soldiers.
That's the law of quid pro quo.
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