So---The White House has declared that such creatures as we hold at Guantanamo Bay and like individuals are no longer "Enemy Combatants" but something else.
This is a prime example of medieval, pre-scientific, superstitious and magical thinking where naming something changes its nature and makes it what we wish it to be. It is also a denial-of-reality.
Since we have to call those critters something special, why not "TERRORISTS"?
For the faint-of-heart or the under-educated I will define that term as: Persons not in the uniform of the armed forces of a recognized nation (Or one of its political sub-divisions) who attack or plan/attempt to attack the uniformed armed forces of a recognized government or the civilians under their protection.
In a saner age such persons were given very summary (To determine that status), field, courts-martial and shot or hung. Any lesser punishment-or-treatment (eg Today's "water boarding" and even strict, no-nonsence, imprisonment so unlike the country club at "Gitmo") were considered an acts-of-grace well beyond what was required by the Laws-Of-War. The same treatment was legally and properly given to pirates, such as those now infesting the East coast of Africa who are a sub-class of "terrorists".
In fact, the same definition and dispositions should be applied to the Mexican Drug Lords and their troops now combating the army of Mexico and already raiding into the USA.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Sir,
While I agree with the general tone of what you wrote, I have to ask why you use the term medieval.
I doubt very much that the medievals would have dealt kindly with terrorists.
Dean Steinlage
Dear Mr. Steinlage:
As most terrorists are and were followers of Mohammed of Mecca, I suspect they would have gotten short shrift from the men of those days, more used to "striking blows for Christ" than reasoning with the enemies of humanity.
MECCA DELENDA EST!
Post a Comment