When Will the American Leftinistra Actually Read the Geneva Conventions?

It never ceases to amaze me how our own home-grown enemies within constantly harp on the sins of the United States in regards to the Geneva Conventions. I would be willing to wager that most of them don’t even know that there are four, one more than three and one less than five, Geneva Conventions. The most recent is “GENEVA CONVENTION (IV) RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS IN WAR (GENEVA CONVENTION IV)”.

---

What amazes me further is the griping of the basic American Leftinistra when they grovel and whine about “when will the experts remember the Geneva Conventions?” The first order of business would be to first and foremost read, know and get familiar with the Conventions before rambling off into some tirade, thereby exposing their own ignorance. However, our Leftinistra are the most intelligent people on the planet - just ask one of them. You will usually get a response that goes thusly, “Oh. You are a Bushie”, like that means you are dumb or something. Your basic Leftinistra is incapable of rational debate or discussion. Such is the case here. In the references tab below, I have linked to an article at Fire Dog Lake, a publication I continuously refer to as Smoldering Mutt Wadis. I have yet to find one entry at that web site that was posted by a sane or a reasonable or rational individual. In most cases, President Bush, the “dumbest man on earth” is personally responsible for every WOE IS ME upon the globe we call Earth. If he was such a dummy, how then could he orchestrate all of this doom and gloom? However, in this particular piece, the author, Siun, is very upset about a “Progressive” organization that is in favor of the Obama Doctrine in Afghanistan. In case anyone hasn’t noticed, the Obama Doctrine in the GWOT, so far, is identical to the Bush Doctrine in the GWOT - even in relation to Club Gitmo. President Bush wanted to close it as well. I would also like to point out at this time that the Obama Doctrine has changed a bit and it is being kept out of the news…he approves of and had a hand in reigning in Shari’a Law in seven States of Pakistan and an Al Qaeda operative in Somalia that will now become the President of that country. And, there’s the rub. Obama is sending in Troops to fight an enemy that he himself approves of. They call it Shari ‘a for Peace. Scary thought, that. Alas! I digress. Siun whines: Last week, the National Security Network – which describes itself as “the progressive national security community” – released a statement on Afghanistan. Our friend Spencer Ackerman reported on its release in the Washington Independent. […] Incredible, a “progressive” not liking a “progressive” that agrees with or supports the “progressive” in the White House Marxist House. How many sects of progressivism are there and which one is the good one? […] Hurlburt said that she wanted to work out a sense from the “expert community” of what was achievable and realistic for Afghanistan before taking the document to “progressive advocacy” organizations like Get Afghanistan Right to secure buy in. She conceded that there would be disagreements that probably can’t be fully resolved. […] Progressives v progressives v progressives. Simply mind boggling. Perhaps these “progressives” should see whether or not the Taliban actually care about the Geneva Conventions and if they do, get their fighters and their war gear out of the neighborhoods, carry their weapons in the open and have clearly distinguished “markings” as the Geneva Conventions so state. If they do not, all bets are off. Also, if one “warring” side is not a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, what good is it to debate and argue about it? The GC IV clearly states in Article 2: […] Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. [END] “If the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof”. Case closed. Then we have Article 4 which, in part, defines enemy combatants. […] 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, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. [END] Checkmate.  Perhaps someone would care to take the time and have Geneva Convention 101 for the Leftinistra?  Progressives… educated beyond their intelligence.