Sep 18 2006
Protecting Terrorists, Not Americans
Rush Limbaugh was having a field day with this idiocy over the idea the Geneva Conventions, which have been usesless for the nearly 60 years they have been in existence. The prime point he made is similar to the ones I have made over the days on this enormous political win for Bush and most Reps (the exceptions being Warner, McCaing, Graham, and Snowe). Rush’s point is the war is not about protecting terrorists, it is about protecting Americans. Those who naively hide behind the idea the Geneva Conventions are more important that any American’s life are not going to survive this debate. They will be rightfully ruined. The wording of the Geneva Convention in this one case are so vague as to make just about anything beyond “please” and “pretty please” demeaning to someone’s ‘dignity’. In fact, one clear way to clearly ‘humiliate and demean’ someone is to capture them and hold them. There is nothing more humiliating or demeaning than being under the control of another human being against your will.
What these people are saying is they think we common Americans, us little folks without top dollar security, should die for their ideas of a perfect world, enshrined in the pure and perfect words of the Geneva Conventions. We are not lowering ourselves one iota if we use agressive questioning that does not injure or kill someone, but instead saves lives. We know the EU bans sleep deprivation, loud music and cold temperatures as methods of aggressive interrogation. They have decided they would rather treat these terrorists animals with kidd-gloves than protect the people they have taken an oath to protect. The choices are clear this fall and they are more striking than whether we should cut and run like cowards in Iraq or not. The question is deeper than whether we should monitor terrorists overseas and pass leads detected regarding possible compatriots here in the US to the FBI without a warrant. It now includes the superceding question of whether Americans will die so terrorists will not have to be subject to loud rock music, which offends them.
As I wrote before, the conventions were meant to protect innocents and non-combatants from the horrors of war. It seems some people are so illogical that they now see the conventions as protecting those who wage the horrors of war on innocents. Americans are not stupid and we will not die for Article 3. We will not die for Article 3 – it is very simple and not complicated. The only sad thing is we have to have this discussion. It should be obvious innocent American lives are worth more than conventions that have been ignored the entire time they have been in existence.
Addendum: By the way, I need to point out to McCain and others who are demagoguing this issue and playing with our lives that the vageuness of that language in Article 3 allows cultural differences to be an excuse to torture our soldiers. As my brother pointed out yesterday, it is common practice in many Muslim countries to cut off the hand of a thief. This is not considered inhumane or unreasonable. By enacting clear legal guidelines of Article 3, we are actually defining what we, America, deem off limits in interrogation. Contrary to the ‘logic’ we hear from McCain and Graham (who both agree we defined Article 3 for the military interrogation efforts, just not the CIA’s) the current vagueness actually puts are soldiers at risk to more sadistic interpretations. These folks are obviously posturing for 2008 (and losing from the start in my opinion) because they have not thought out clearly what they are saying. When pols use poll tested phrases to frame an issue, logical debate can pretty much shred them if they have not been ‘logically’ tested. This seems to be happening here. Those calling for more rights for terrorists, even if it means Americans dying in terrorist attacks, are not thinking clearly on too many levels to point out.
Roberto: a polite suggestion:
http://www.truthout.org
http://www.democraticunderground.com
http://www.dailykos.com
http://www.leftwingnutbags.net
I think you’ll feel more at home…..
Roberto: you know what, I’ll waste 2 more min of my time!
The fact is, it is literally just NOT worth it, to get into these types of back-forth discussions, with Leftists, Liberals, Jacobins, or whatever you’re calling yourselves these day; it goes no where, it drags on forever, and it’s a collosal waste of time, and effort.
Before there were “Blogs”, I used to get into email “exchanges” with Leftists; and since the advent of Blogs, I’ve been down this path, a hundred times.
First, the Leftist make a “charge” , i.e. “Bush lied”!
Then, you give them some FACTS!
Then, they make another Democratic talking point “charge” : “Bush outted Plame, to get at Wilson”.
Then, you give them some more FACTS!
Back and forth, back, and forth.
It never ends…
I just ended a one week long “exchange” on another blog, with another Leftist like yourself.
Smart person, passionate about their believes, no FACTS; the sole arguing method, is to pull a Clinton, and get down to defining “is”!
Bottomline, after a week, we were down to what the difference was, between “impluasible” and “possible”!
It’s tiring….it’s labor intensive, and it’s just a waste of time.
Person to person, face to face, it’s easier; I’ve had to, over the past 2 years, CRUSH all the little leftists at my workplace!
Face to face, in the lunch room, when they start their Democratic Talking points, and they don’t have the luxery of “Google”, and going to Truthout.org, to find out what they should say, they just wilt under the pressure…
It goes like this:
“Rove outed Plame, to LIE us into War…”
Okay, but Plame was in a billet in Langley, and hadn’t been overseas within five years, and she was not a NOC, and her identity had already been exposed to the Russians, and the Cubans, by Aldrich Ames, so, therefore she cannot have possibly fit the definition of a NOC, therefore, she cannot have possibly been “outted”!
“But, but, BUSH LIED…”
Okay, tell me what Bush said, that was a lie?
“He said, Saddam did 9/11!”
I’ll give you ten minutes, to go back to your desk, and use Google, and find me ONE quote, where the President said that “Saddam was responsible for 9/11”
But I can show you a dozen, where Bush said Saddam did NOT do 9/11!
“But, But, But…..BUSH LIED, and Rove outted Plame, and mememememeblahblahblahyaddayaddayaddaClinton’spenismememeemmemememyouguysarefocusedonClintongettingaBlowjobmemememeyaddayaddayaddablahblahblahmemememememeNoWMD’smemememeyaddayaddayaddablahblahblahyourallabunchofrightwingchristiantalibannazilovinggayhatingnutsmmemememememblahblahyaddayaddayaddaClinton’spenisandIwishIhadgottenablowjobfromMonicaLewinskythat’swhatmymajorproblemisandwhyIadmirethatguyHell50’ssomethingPresidentknockingthebottomoutofa21yearoldinternthat’severyLeftistsdreambesidesHillaryisuglyassinsoyoucan’tblamehimyadddayaddablahblahWMD’sClinton’spenismemememememem….
It just gets old after while, and it’s NOT worth the effort…
Why do you think such a large majority of americans (> 1% is too large, but I’ve heard as many as 45%) think Saddam was tied to 9/11?
Just curious.
BTW,
Clinton: terrible President. Not GW terrible, but terrible nonetheless
(and don’t get me started on Reagan).
Also, the NYT did NOT hurt the War on terror by calling out the NSA program.
I’ll gladly debate you on that face-to-face.
The right must feel there is someone w/in the Justice dept. telling terrorists there is a warrant out to eavesdrop on them.
Facts?