David Online

A reader of my recent post, “Terrorists With Geneva Convention Protection”, suggests that I believe the war on terrorism should be fought on an “eye for an eye” basis. The reader states that we are a civilized nation and should conduct ourselves as such. The reader also states that under no circumstances would we, as a civilized nation, allow or condone inhumane treatment of captured terrorists. He says that both John McCain, who “has a true pulse on the nation”, and General Colin Powell are aware of this fact and that we should not compromise our integrity and morals regardless of how callous and depraved the enemy acts.

If the reader will read my post again, he will find that I never suggested or even hinted that the U.S. fight the war on terror with an eye for an eye. What I did say was that to provide captured terrorists with the protections provided for under the Geneva Convention was ridiculous and dangerous. Senators McCain, Warner, Graham, the reader, and an unfortunate number of Americans must all believe that America tortures the Gitmo detainees. They must have forgotten all about the taxpayer-funded, culturally correct meals of 4,200 calories per day, library books translated into Arabic (including the Harry Potter series), extensive worship with painted arrows on the floors and walls pointing to Mecca, exercise facilities Bally’s would be proud of, daily recreation, and 24-hour dental and medical care. They don’t jokingly refer to it as “Club Gitmo” for no reason.

Aggressive interrogation, not torture as the reader seems to believe I advocate, however, does make terrorists talk. The war on terror is primarily based on intelligence. Aggressive interrogation is how the U.S. encouraged Khalid Sheik Mohammed to detail how he masterminded the al-Qaeda 9/11 attack. He then ratted out Hambali, the man behind the October 2002 Bali bombing that killed 202, and “dirty bomber” Jose Padilla. Both are now safely in custody.

Al Qaeda honcho Abu Zubaida stayed quiet until interrogators stuck him in a cold room and blasted the corrosive music of the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Zubaida cried uncle and began to talk. He helped America find terrorist Ramzi bin-al-Shibh in Pakistan, Amar-al-Faruq in Indonesia, Rahim al-Nashiri in Kuwait, and Muhammad al Darbi in Yemen.

These interrogations help America connect the dots. Stopping them, as McCain and company would do, disconnects the dots. This likely will blow more Americans to smithereens.

If my reader wants to worry about torture, he should ponder the daily agony of the loved ones of the 1,151 people who were killed on September 11 and never even recovered from Ground Zero. Assuring that Islamic fanatics never again vaporize Americans is why we must squeeze captured terrorists until they sing.

The detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are not prisoners or war, nor have they ever been. If anyone actually bothered to read the Geneva Convention, they would discover that these jihadists don’t come the least bit close to prisoner of war status. We owe them nothing. It is only through our generosity that we’re allowing them to live much less give them a military tribunal.

Throwing olive branches at Islamofascists is beyond futile. This is the War on Terror, not the Summer Olympics on Terror. If America won’t fight this like a war — and win — we might as well cut our losses, hand out the Korans, and start the mass conversions.

It is well past the time for America to learn that the war on terrorism is unlike any war this nation has ever waged. The enemy we face today has no national borders, no government, no territory, and no recognizable armed forces. And yet we have Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John W. Warner who wish to provide protections to these terrorists as if they were uniformed soldiers of a civilized nation engaged in war.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell, wrote the following in a letter to Sen. John McCain, “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 [of the Geneva conventions] would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.” Is the General implying that what the world thinks of our moral basis in fighting terrorism is more important than whether we win this war against terrorism?

“To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk,” Powell continued. Does the General actually believe that by applying Geneva Convention protections to terrorists will actually persuade them to apply those same protections to captured U.S. forces? That is so totally unrealistic that it borders on the absurd. If al Qaeda or any other terrorist group captures an American soldier that soldier will be lucky if his head remains attached to his body for any length of time. Our solders already know this.

The rules of the Geneva Convention were written by civilized nations that when they do fight wars they will do so in accordance with some civilized rules. We are not fighting a civilized nation. We are not fighting a nation at all. We are fighting radical Islalamofacists who will stop at nothing to kill all of us. They could care less about the Geneva Convention.

Senator John McCain should know this more than anyone. He spent five and half years as a prisoner of North Vietnam. He was tortured by Vietnamese soldiers who stabbed him with bayonets and beat him with rifle butts. He was placed in solitary confinement and interrogated daily. When he refused to talk, he was beaten until he lost consciousness. North Vietnam was a signatory to the Geneva Convention. It did not protect John McCain.

Andrew C. McCarthy, senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, may have said it best.

“Let’s not mince words here: Our soldiers, if captured by Islamic terrorists, will be tortured and killed. That’s what Islamic terrorists do. That’s why awed admiration is the only proper response to the bravery of our men and women in uniform. They fight for us despite knowing, as we should all by now know, that nothing we do affects the jihadists’ behavior.

On the other hand, if we were to fight another conventional war against the honorable combatants of a nation-state, that country’s forces — like our own — would be solemnly bound to (as well as self-interested in) compliance with their Geneva Convention obligations regarding prisoners of war. Again, how we deal with al Qaeda now is irrelevant to the treatment our forces will receive in any future conflict.

So, no, we don’t owe jihadists the same trial rights we owe any honorable combatants, much less our own troops. The very notion is an insult to those putting their lives on the line in our defense. That aside, though, the incentives these senators would create are perverse. It is an elementary rule of human nature that when behavior is rewarded, it begets more of the same. Rewarding terrorists with rights to which they have no legal entitlement can only encourage their methods — a cost McCain, Graham, and Warner would apparently have us bear despite the absence of any discernible benefit.”

 The way we treat or interrogate Islamo terrorists will not have any effect on how they will treat an American soldier unfortunately captured. We are talking about a culture that beheads its prisoners, tortures and mutilates its own citizens, and thinks nothing of sacrificing their sons and daughters by strapping an explosive bomb in their backpack and sending them into a crowded pizza parlor. These terrorists use the Geneva Convention and our own Constitution as protection so than can kill us. Like Cal Thomas says, “ We want to live and they want us dead. Any questions?”

More often than not, war is the only answer. Throughout history, appeasement has never worked. Neither has diplomacy when dealing with dictatorships, fanatical Islamists, or mentally incompetent heads of state. If it were not for war, those who now foolishly carry their signs protesting war, and in particular, “George Bush’s war on terror”, would not be free to carry those signs.

As Mark Steyn recently said in reply to a letter he received, “Presumably if war is “never” the answer, those wrinkly Vietnam love-in types would be happy for the British Crown to have its rebel colonies back.”

Don Feder, former Boston Hearld columnist, writes that if it wasn’t for war we would have no country because America was born on the battlefield. If it wasn’t for war, half the world would be singing the German national anthem and the other half would be bowing to the honorable emperor of Japan.

“And now, let us say a few good words for warfare and violence. Those whose mantra is violence-never-solved-anything, are dogma-blinded, historical illiterates who would lead us down the soft path to national suicide.

Without warfare and violence, we would have no country. America was born on the battlefield. (George III would never have let us go without a fight.)

The Declaration of Independence was noble words penned on paper. It was the sword that gave them a reality. In this instance, the perpetrators of revolutionary violence included John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington – men of learning and ability all.

Without warfare and violence the 11 states of the Confederacy would have successfully seceded in 1861, leaving us with two truncated nations. And the slaves would have been pickin’ cotton for ‘ole massah for at least a few decades more.

Without warfare and violence in 1939-1945, today, half the world would be singing “Deutschland uber Alles,” while the other half bowed to the honorable emperor of Japan.

And without warfare and violence during the Cold War, the world would have been swallowed up by a monstrous ideology responsible for 100 million deaths in the 20th century.

Today, the choice is warfare and violence or total submission to Islamofascism – the annihilation of the Jewish people, the subjugation of women, dhimmi status for those infidels still alive and a world governed by a barbaric desert ethos.”

It is time to face the hard cold fact that Militant Islam wants to kill us. They want to kill us for the simple reason we do not believe as they do. You can not negotiate with people whose minds are that sick. How do you negotiate with an enemy who think nothing of strapping a bomb-laden backpack to their nine year-old daughter and have her walk into a crowded pizza parlor to to blow herself up with as many Jews as possible? How do you negotiate with an enemy whose interpretation of the Geneva Convention in regard to prisoners of war is to saw the prisoner’s head off in front of television cameras?