Meet the Press from Sunday

Really....take 20 minutes and listen to this debacle that would more than likely call itself “Open Political Debate”.

Bill Bennett does well, but is basically shouted down by four liberal members of the press. The people in the press cannot understand that they are arrogant, self-important policy-pushers.

There is a lot to remember in this, even as you listen to this, but here are three quick points.

1. Bill Safire said that the Founding Fathers are the people that ‘...elected the media to decide what is secret and what is not secret’. That is so f-ing arrogant, it made my left arm tingle. The press can act as a conduit for information, but they have no right, except in their own eyes, to compromise national security. This is the press taking a role in pushing a political agenda. This leads to the next point.

2. The New York Times, the LA Times, and the rest of the pits and MSM haunts that these farcical bastards inhabit are trying to make money. The NYT sells to liberals and leftists....that is their bread and butter. So does the LAT. They are in the business of making money, not policy. That is why they hire the people they do, and why they print the editorials they do. They are trying to raise revenue and increase subscriptions. Failures to do so are failures of marketing...something that they are failing at, if one looks at their subscription rates.

3. Journalists are not in the business of reporting the news these days as much as they are about editorializing about it. The information we would like to consider as news is plugged into their personal and/or institutional filters, and it comes out reflecting their biases. The AP,. Reuters, CNN, and the aforementioned newspapers are so outrageously and obviously canted to the left that they themselves cannot effectively deny shows in their reporting.

Listen at the 5:30 mark to the crack that Dana Priest makes against Bill Bennett. In fact, listen to the distain for the POTUS and for the Republicans as a whole during the exchanges. You can’t miss their arrogance and their feeling that they are the true leaders and that the formation of public opinion of the government is their responsibility.

Listen and comment freely.

So what - exactly - are the Geneva Conventions?

I’ll be providing links to the entire text at the end, but I’m gonna rant a bit…

I just heard some talking head rambling about what the Geneva Conventions do and do not contain, and he made assertions that just aren’t true, but your average person might not know.

So let’s chat a bit.

So what are the Geneva Conventions? They are an agreement between the various signatories to wage war (when diplomacy has failed) using a gentleman’s code of honor on the battlefield. Being willing to accept a surrender from a beaten opponent, treating the wounded, not abusing the prisoners, protecting the non-combatants, the works.

One other thing, though. It is clearly spelled out that these are voluntary guidelines, and once one side has violated them, they no longer apply to either side for the duration of that conflict. These are what people mean when they speak of the “laws of war”.

But there is a lot of verbosity, because the signatories wanted to make sure that everyone was singing from the same hymn book (so to speak).

They spelled out exactly what a combatant was and how to identify one. They spelled out which classes of person were to be protected (diplomats, Red Cross, medical personnel, clergy, etc.). They spelled out exactly what kind of Live sex chat treatment any prisoners were to receive, including receiving mail and packages from home, necessary medical care, religious opportunities, diet, and specific working conditions for the enlisted ranks.

They were quite thorough.

You can read Convention One (for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field), Convention Two (the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea), Convention Three (relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War), or Convention Four (relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War), or any of the Three Additional Protocols (links to all three of them are there).

But let’s take a look at the First Convention for a minute. A couple of things need to be made clear at the outset - primarily a few definitions that we will be using.

No matter whether or not the terrorist forces qualify as “soldiers” (a matter we will come to in a moment), they qualify as a “Party to the conflict”. How many times have they deliberately carried out any of those acts “prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons”? It’s almost a “gimme” that any hostages taken by the terrorists are executed in the most horrific manner their eleventh century minds can conceive.

But let’s see what else the Geneva Conventions say about what a soldier is defined as (so as to distinguish between a soldier and a civilian noncombatant), shall we?

Did you catch that? It explicitly spells out specifically which persons are protected as Prisoners of War under these Conventions, and how they were to be identified.

Why take the time to spell out what a soldier is? Two things. One of them was spelled out in Bill Whittle’s masterpiece Sanctuary (Part 2):

Let’s speak to the Perennially Outraged as if they were the fully grown, post-pubescent children they pride themselves on being.

What is the obvious difference between an enemy Prisoner of War, and an Unlawful Combatant? Suppose two of them were standing in a line-up. What one glaringly obvious thing sets them apart?

That’s right! One is wearing a uniform, and the other isn’t.

And why do soldiers wear uniforms?

It certainly is not to protect the soldier. As a matter of fact, a soldier’s uniform is actually a big flashing neon arrow pointing to some kid that says to the enemy, SHOOT ME!

And that’s exactly what a uniform is for. It makes the soldier into a target to be killed.

Now if that’s all there was to it, you might say that the whole uniform thing is not such a groovy idea. BUT! What a uniform also does—the corollary to the whole idea of a uniformed person – is to say that if the individual wearing a uniform is a legitimate target, then the person standing next to him in civilian clothes is not.

By wearing uniforms, soldiers differentiate themselves to the enemy. They assume additional risk in order to protect the civilian population. In other words, by identifying themselves as targets with their uniforms, the fighters provide a Sanctuary to the unarmed civilian population.

The other part is the correlary of that Sanctuary - how to punish the violators. Those would be the ones who are combatants disguised among the protected civilians, in case anyone wasn’t following along…

If they are military personnel trying to escape detection by hiding among civilians, they can be executed as a spy without even the formality of a drumhead court-martial. In fact, that is what happened to this guy, summarily executed for being caught in a warzone out of uniform.

And the reason is because of those Conventions.

One last bit from the First Convention…

‘Nuff said.

Now that we have spelled out exactly why the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to any of these quasi-military forces claiming to be conducting a jihad against us, I want to explain why they don’t apply to our treatment of them.

The Conventions (and associated Protocols) are a TREATY, with Signatories and everything.

If a group or nation is not a signatory to these Conventions, they will STILL apply so long as that group or nation follows them while in a conflict with a signatory nation. All it takes is that they follow the Conventions.

Terrorists don’t. Thus, the Conventions do not apply, no matter how you want to spin it.

Legally, the United States is under absolutely no obligation to apply the provisions of a treaty to which our opponents are not bound. However, from an ethical standpoint, we do so because of our own personal self-image and the image we have as a nation.

I’ll be the first to admit that we are far from perfect in this regard - there have been offenses against the other side in every war from the fall of Jericho to Abu Ghraib. But we take care to identify and punish those rare individuals who break those rules, when and as they occur.

How do the terrorists handle those violators? They praise them as a lion of holy war and the mass media defends them.

It’s time to start realizing that those who are advocating putting limitations on one side while defending the total lack of any such limitations on the other are not being fair and balanced (to coin a phrase).

Next question would logically be, “Okay, which side are they actually on? Who are they actually cheering for? Which side are they trying to help win?”

But we’re not allowed to question their patriotism, are we?

Congress shall make no law...

I agree with JimK.

So we will be doing the same thing here. I am willing to put up a free ad for any politician of any stripe or political bent, listed in the left column of the index page - ABSOLUTELY FREE. If you have a small logo (not wider than about 100 pixels), we’ll include that, too, and for FREE.

As Jim says:

Why am I doing this? For one very simple reason.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

McCain/Feingold silences any and all advertising by candidates until the election as of today. This leave ONLY special interest groups with the ability to manipulate and flood the airwaves with whatever message they decide voters should hear. Groups like MoveOn, America Coming Together, The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, and yes, even the NRA has a 527. Whatever side you are on, you cannot want these groups to be the sole voices in the media for the next two months straight.

We, along with candidates for office, are The People, and we are peaceably assembling. I think it goes without saying that each of us has a grievance against the government for one thing or another. We have the right to speak about candidates and to have candidates speak to us. This is where left and right, Republican and Democrat, Conservative and Liberal, gay & straight, men & women, we all come together and say “No. You will not destroy our right to share ideas and talk in the public square so that we may determine who we wish to choose as a leader.”

If you have a website, I urge you to do the same. Spread the word…

This will be stay at the top for several days, just to get the word out.