Do terrorists abide by the Geneva Convention?

No?

Then why the hell are we willing to offer them those protections?

Actually, we're not. Not exactly. But that's not what you'll hear from the MSM (unless, of course, they change their headline. Like ABC, who had claimed "High-Value Detainees Will Be Given Prisoner-of-War Status" but now says "High-Value Detainees Transferred to Guantanamo").

President Bush seems to have caved in to the touchy-feely bleeding hearts who think the cushy treatment at Guantanamo is too harsh for those sensitive Muslim terrorists. And that we should only interrogate jihadists with cushy pillows and Beanie Babies.

But there's more here than meets the eye.

Do I think we should use drills and blowtorches to extract information from them? Nope. That truly does descend to their level. But I think our military needs to be given a wide latitude in methods used to cause discomfort and force the terrorists to reveal what they know. When al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorist organizations decide they want to stop using terrorist tactics against civilians and agree to carry out combat against uniformed soldiers only, then we can talk about conferring "prisoner of war" status on them.

It pisses me off that we dance around this. Terrorists who torture and murder without compunction or compassion don't deserve sympathy and mercy. Yeah, yeah, I know. We're supposed to be better than them. But that'll be small comfort when they murder additional thousands of our fellow Americans in one of their heinous plots.

We need to be able to interrogate terrorists and stop future attacks before they happen.

And I totally don't agree with the assertion that we're "making them hate us" by keeping enemy combatants in our prisons. That overlooks the fact that these people hate us already. They've hated us previously and they'd hate us even if we released every terrorist. Even if we waved a magic wand and withdrew every American soldier from every Muslim county around the globe, there would still be Muslims who want all Americans dead anyway and will act to make that happen. And would be emboldened by our cowardice. So why grovel to these people?

Now, it seems we're willing to offer "some legal protections consistent with the Geneva Conventions." At first, I was pretty pissed off about that. But the more I look into it, the more it looks like we're setting ourselves up to be able to successfully navigate the minefield of political correctness erected by Liberals and our enemies around the world (ironic, eh?).

And maybe, just maybe, we'll finally get to execute a few of these cockroaches who murdered Americans on 9/11 and in other attacks.

Some good things may come out of President Bush's speech. He's put the ball in Congress' court to define the specifics of the Geneva Convention's Common Article 3, making it clear what can and can't be done. Politically, the Democrats will be forced to either stand with the American people against the terrorists or take a stand coddling the "dignity" of these killers in a public forum by granting full Bill of Rights protections to foreign combatants. And Congress will also be forced to list the "specific, recognizable offenses" that will invoke a War Crimes prosecution against interrogators.

President Bush also called on Congress to authorize the creation of military commissions to try terrorists for war crimes, and announced the transfer of Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and several other terrorist hemmorhoids from secret CIA prisons to Guantanamo where they will held pending trial.

These are all good things. It's time to stop playing political games and fight this war to win it.

---
Others blogging:
Ace of Spades HQ, Church and State, Hot Air, The Jawa Report, Michelle Malkin, Stop The ACLU