There has been a lot of huffing and puffing about the Geneva Convention with regard to the Iraqi prisoner abuse cases in particular and suspected terrorists in general. Peter Robinson over at The Corner makes this interesting observation:
To qualify as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, detainees must satisfy all four of the following criteria (the quotations here come from the Convention itself):
***The detainees in question must have been "commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates"
***They must have worn "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance"
***They must have carried their arms "openly"
***And they must have conducted their operations "in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
When the detainees in question are terrorists, they might satisfy the first criterion, but they certainly do not satisfy the remaining three.
While I don't condone the behavior of some of our troops, I do grow weary of the lawless attempting to use our laws against us.
Why is it we never hear the words "Geneva Convention" when discussing Palestinian animals (apologies to animals) blowing themselves up in buses full of children, or when they break into a house and murder defenseless women and children?
Does the Geneva convention only apply to Christians and Jews, or does it apply to Muslims as well? If it does apply then Arafat and the entire Palestinian leadership should be tried and hung in downtown Jerusalem as war criminals, just as a start. Much of what passes for "war" in the Muslim world is no more than wanton murder and destruction. To call Islamic jihad "war" is simply an attempt to cast grossly dishonorable and dispicable actions in an honorable light.