March 16, 2009
A Kindler, Gentler War on Terror
I didn't comment on this the other day because frankly I couldn't stop laughing:
"The Justice Department was right to recognize that it should not be holding prisoners as `enemy combatants.' But the new definition of persons who may be held without charge does not differ in any fundamental respects from the old one, and it significantly distorts important traditional Law of War distinctions between international and non-international armed conflict. The concept of indefinite detention without criminal charge continues, and the class of persons to be detained remains ill-defined and overly broad.''
• Elisa Massimino, executive director of Human Rights First
Next up - the President closes Gitmo and unveils a much hoped-for change: Sandals, Guantanamo Bay. An all inclusive hideaway for undocumented freedom fighters.
Posted by Cassandra at March 16, 2009 10:47 PM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
I was waiting for you to mention this... =8^} So now what do we call em? Oppositional opposers who might have perpetrated naughty stuff forcefully?
Welcome to Oceania.
Posted by: bthun at March 16, 2009 10:59 PM
"Undocumented freedom fighters."
Yeah, sounds like lib-speak t'me...
Posted by: camojack at March 17, 2009 01:25 AM
"...it significantly distorts important traditional Law of War distinctions between international and non-international armed conflict."
The traditional Laws of War don't even *address* the situation of a multinational force, non-uniformed and recognizing no rules of war, assembled to commit acts of terror under the banner of a religion. Rather than trying to manipulate the terms and nit-pick definitions, roll them up into the term "mercenary" -- problem solved.
"The concept of indefinite detention without criminal charge continues, and the class of persons to be detained remains ill-defined and overly broad."
That's already addressed in Fourth Geneva, which the Libs steadfastly refuse to acknowledge -- they keep citing *Third* Geneva, because *Fourth* Geneva says, in essence, "Hold 'em for as long as you deem necessary, not to exceed the duration of the conflict, or try them for crimes -- your choice."
As with all other existing laws under the sun, the Libs only acknowledge the legitimacy of those they happen to *feel* good about.
Posted by: BillT at March 17, 2009 05:07 AM
We had the so-called "twinky defense" and "I wasn't breast-fed as a child" defense, why not the "dung beetle" defense?
Using logic against Libs is an exercise in futility. One thing for certain, it provides a super-highway of access for the lazy jihadist to turn any-town USA into club Kaboom.
Posted by: vet66 at March 17, 2009 10:17 AM
Dennis Miller had me rolling about this very subject last night. He said that rather than going to war with bullets, we were now going to "vernacular" the enemy to death.
Posted by: airforcewife at March 17, 2009 02:32 PM
Back when the whole "Kinder, Gentler" stuff started, I was conducting a hangar tour for some visiting NATO pilots and explaining what the new PC buzzwords (e.g., "servicing the targets" vice "blowing them up" and "target-rich environment" vice "we're outnumbered") meant.
After a bit, one of the Dutch guys said, "So, the enemy will be establishing kinder, gentler POW camps, right?"
Libs don't understand why that line was hilarious.
Posted by: BillT at March 18, 2009 03:13 AM