Gitmo III

It seems I've struck a chord with this series. Even the die-hard Liberals and Democrats can't seem to come up with any arguments that hold water. So, being on a roll, I'll finish the series with this article. Again, I'll be quoting extensively from Mr. Peter Worthington, who recently visited Guantanamo Bay and reported his findings.

Mr. W says that the US should abandon the Geneva Convention and makes some valid points to back him up. He writes that the Convention was "originally an agreement on how wars should be fought and prisoners treated, but the terms are meaningless today and inhibit the war against terrorists who not only don't abide by them, but mock them. What country is the U.S., Canada, Britain or any European country likely to go to war against that subscribes to the conventions? The answer: None." He goes on to say, "America's main enemies - Iran, Syria, North Korea - don't honour the conventions. And America (and most Western countries) don't require the Geneva Conventions to assure basic humane treatment of most prisoners." Surely the Dems can't argue that fact, although their are enough nut cases around who try.

The Americans are too aware of having the eyes of the world upon them and so, when irregularities do pop up, they are dealt with swiftly and justly. The shenanigans at Abu Gharib were inexcusable and properly dealt with. The sword of justice should have held those in charge to a higher degree of responsibility, but at least those on the front lines who committed the outrage were punished. And please, try to remember that humiliation is not pulling out fingernails, or thumb screws, or genital electric shocks. That sort of nonsense would have caused outrage in all English-speaking countries. Yet there seems to be a great silence when the terrorists do it to our troops. Why? Can you imagine the screaming that would be heard far and wide if the Americans beheaded anyone and then sent the videotapes world-wide? Where are the likes of Alec Baldwin, the Dixie Chicks, Bono or Bob Geldof ? Busy buying into the Democratic spin I suppose.

Mr. W says that if America backed out of the Geneva Conventions there would be no need to provide every Gitmo detainee with a Koran, which in many cases is their only reading matter. Let's face it, al-Qaida doesn't provide Bibles to American (and other) prisoners before cutting off their heads as video cameras roll. "The Geneva Conventions didn't apply to the Canadian military in Somalia - it wasn't necessary. When a Somali prisoner was tortured to death, the Canadian media arose in outrage and a regiment was ultimately disbanded - unnecessarily, in the view of many, but it illustrated our revulsion to cruelty." I guess that revulsion translates into our being civilized. "It's similar with the Americans - and British and Aussies. None of us go in for torture or endorse it, and none of our countries are likely to go to war against other countries that abide by Geneva," Mr. W writes, and he is right. Quit imposing restraints us. History has many examples of terror movements quelled only by greater violence and few examples of fanatics or terrorists being persuaded to amend their extremism by discussions or gentle persuasion as the Dems would lead us to believe.

If America were to withdraw from the Geneva Convention it would be freer to use whatever means it takes to win this war. And as Mr. W says, "At Guantanamo, the Americans would be able to find better ways to persuade hardcore detainees to talk than by taking away their pillows, or bribing them with ice cream."

Hopefully this gets through to some Democrats who are too thick to have an open mind and see another side to the story.