Mark Steyn writes:
There are several ways to fight a war. On the one hand, you can put on a uniform, climb into a tank, rumble across a field and fire on the other fellows' tank. On the other, you can find a 12-year-old girl, persuade her to try on your new suicide-bomber belt and send her waddling off into the nearest pizza parlor.
The Geneva Conventions were designed to encourage the former and discourage the latter. The thinking behind them was that, if one had to have wars, it's best if they're fought by soldiers and armies. In return for having a rank and serial number and dressing the part, you'll be treated as a lawful combatant should you fall into the hands of the other side. There'll always be a bit of skulking around in street garb among civilian populations, but the idea was to ensure that it would not be rewarded --that there would, in fact, be a downside for going that route.
The U.S. Supreme Court has now blown a hole in the animating principle behind the Geneva Conventions by choosing to elevate an enemy that disdains the laws of war in order to facilitate the bombing of civilian targets and the beheading of individuals. The argument made by Justice John Paul Stevens is an Alice-In-Jihadland ruling that stands the Conventions on their head in order to give words the precise opposite of their plain meaning and intent. The same kind of inspired jurisprudence conjuring trick that detected in the emanations of the penumbra how the Framers of the U..S Constitution cannily anticipated a need for partial-birth abortion and gay marriage has now effectively found a right to jihad -- or, if you're a female suicide bomber about to board an Israeli bus, a woman's right to Jews.
Perhaps this is another right that falls under that vague constitutional privacy right.
These scum that find the Supreme Court getting their six do not abide by the characteristics of lawful combatants:
Individuals who took up arms, or joined an armed force, that did not meet these criteria, were considered to be unlawful belligerents, and were subject to a severe legal regime. Unlawful belligerents were considered to be a threat to every civilized state and individuals falling into this category, including spies, saboteurs, and "guerillas" could be summarily punished, up to and including the death penalty. This rule can be traced well back into the 17th century and before.
On the bright side, under the Supreme Court's ruling, now that our jihadi enemies are assumed to be signatories to the Geneva Convention and thus allowed the protections of lawful, uniformed combatants, will their failure to abide by the rules of war be highlighted by the press and so-called human rights organizations?
These scum deserve nothing from us under international law and anything we grant them is purely based on our determination to act according to our ideals while fighting effectively.
Truly, it is a funny Bushtatorship when the highest court comes out with drivel like this. I'm sure Kos can explain all.
