Fascinating response to Armed Services Committee article
Yesterday I wrote an article about the Senate Armed Service Committee's decision to pass a bill giving more protection and rights to terrorist captives than I believe they deserve.
The article was picked up by RealClearPolitics.com which does not (probably wisely on their part) allow comments.
It was also picked up in the Op-Ed section of Yahoo News at this link:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/realclearpolitics/20060915/cm_rcp/armed_services_committee_makes_1
What fascinated me was all the comments received there on my post.
Of the 40 or so comments, I can count on one hand the number that agreed with my position.
I can take the criticism, and I am actually glad to see so many people interested in these issues. But still the balance of the comments leads me to wonder whether I am truly in that small a minority of the country or whether I have just learned a lot about the demographic that reads the Yahoo News Op-Ed section. My guess is that it's more of the latter.
Now, many of the critical comments were thoughtful and intelligent; they represented some fundamental disagreement between me and a few others who were really concerned and really thinking about things. Others, however, were simply people who hate George Bush and reflexively oppose anything he supports.
Although I don't love reading so many negative comments and insults, it is nevertheless an interesting education into part of the American political psyche. Despite being massively outnumbered in that particular forum, my hunch is that the country is much more evenly balanced than the comments represent, and are probably closer to my position when push comes to shove. The fact that the betting (on tradesports.com) on the GOP keeping control of the House of Representatives has gone from about 41% to about 52% in just a week probably shows the same thing since most of the news since that time has been about homeland security.
I posted my last comment to the Yahoo thread, offering to post a thoughtful rebuttal by someone who disagrees with me. We'll see if anyone takes me up on it.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Rossputin on 09/16/06 at 03:10:33 am . Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. |
Yours truly
-
Following Obama's Economic Policies
Facebook NetworkedBlogs
XML Feeds
09/16/06 @ 10:04:41 am
This is my reply on Yahoo.
I am stunned and amazed at the willingness of the commentors in this discussion to show their illiteracy. Perhaps double down should actually READ the Geneva Convention before presuming to show his ignorance of the subject.
The actual document, as opposed to the interpretations by car-wash magnate and congressman John Murtha define the protected combatants as uniformed soldiers operating as a part of an army belonging to nation states. The convention is clear on this point.
Perhaps the well informed commentators on this site could clarify the uniforms of terrorists for the rest of us. It seems we can't see it. Or perhaps they could tell for which army the terrorist fight? That would be helpful too.
Combatants caught behind the lines out of uniform are allowed to be treated as spies and tried, by military tribunal and executed. That applies to soldiers, perhaps it should apply to terrorists too!
The convention also prohibits the willful targeting of civilian populations while recognizing that collateral damage is often unavoidable. Terrorist tend to prefer targeting civilians as opposed to military targets. Shooting a civilian in the back is preferable to them to approaching a Marine to his face.
It is distressing that the volume of the political noise, generated by the painfully ignorant causes the democrat, and now republican party to avoid rational clear thinking. Instead, to silence the criticisms of the people least likely to know what they are talking about, clear thinking is avoided.
I know that you all have the freedom to write your ignorant posts. I also know that you have the freedom to not inflict your ignorance on the rest of us. As the old axiom goes in my paraphrased version, it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool and to write a post and remove all doubt.
09/17/06 @ 11:00:00 am
It is stunning beyond belief that there are walking/talking individuals who believe that the Geneva conventions should apply to those who (a)are not signatories and who (b) completely reject the principles of the Geneva conventions. As a poor analogy consider two boxers: "A" fights according to the rules while "B" fights with a horseshoe in one glove and a contact bomb in the other. Bookmakers would have no trouble determining the odds on this one - but our politicians apparently do. To limit our interrogators to the niceties of a cuppa tea and pleading requests to share information is to doom the USA. And where is the patriotism in that? And yes, I am questioning the patriotism as well and the intellect of those who would grant Geneva conventions to terrorists. So there! I've said it and I won't take it back.