Posted by on 8 August, 2007 at 7:30 pm. 2 comments already!


I came across this article from “General” Wesley Clark in the New York Times. As a quick aside, the New York Times should serve as daily bulletin board fodder in the conservative blogosphere.

Quick digression aside, the former Democratic presidential hopeful pontificated over the distinction between criminal and combatant in today’s war on terror. Despite on his views here and just about on any subject, I’ll admit that at least he admits a terror war exists.

“THE line between soldier and civilian has long been central to the law of war. Today that line is being blurred in the struggle against transnational terrorists. Since 9/11 the Bush administration has sought to categorize members of Al Qaeda and other jihadists as “unlawful combatants” rather than treat them as criminals.

The federal courts are increasingly wary of this approach, and rightly so. In a stinging rebuke, this summer a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., struck down the government’s indefinite detention of a civilian, Ali al-Marri, by the military. The case illustrates once again the pitfalls of our current approach.“

And “rightly so…” Absolutely incorrectly, the Wesley Clark/Democrat crowd wishes to charge terrorists as criminals. What does this mean? That these terrorists would be granted rights given to American citizens, granted access to lawyers familiar with “working” the judicial system, and the right to key evidence the government possesses in the war on terror.

Big mistake…

“Treating terrorists as combatants is a mistake for two reasons. First, it dignifies criminality by according terrorist killers the status of soldiers. Under the law of war, military service members receive several privileges. They are permitted to kill the enemy and are immune from prosecution for doing so. They must, however, carefully distinguish between combatant and civilian and ensure that harm to civilians is limited.”

Perhaps Clark should synchronize his views with his Leftist brethren. The same banner to which he adheres wishes to grant these “combatants” rights in American courts. What the Left fails to understand is that the terrorist bow to no flag, ruler, or country. Rather, regardless of their location in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Morocco, Pakistan, or Indonesia, they follow the rule of one Osama bin Laden.

“By treating such terrorists as combatants, however, we accord them a mark of respect and dignify their acts. And we undercut our own efforts against them in the process. Al Qaeda represents no state, nor does it carry out any of a state’s responsibilities for the welfare of its citizens. Labeling its members as combatants elevates its cause and gives Al Qaeda an undeserved status.

“If we are to defeat terrorists across the globe, we must do everything possible to deny legitimacy to their aims and means, and gain legitimacy for ourselves. As a result, terrorism should be fought first with information exchanges and law enforcement, then with more effective domestic security measures. Only as a last resort should we call on the military and label such activities “war.” The formula for defeating terrorism is well known and time-proven.”

Unfortunately, Clark can’t “think outside the box.” He and his ilk on the Left fail to realize that this IS a war, not a matter MERELY for cops and federal agents to handle.

Labeling terrorists as combatants also leads to this paradox: while the deliberate killing of civilians is never permitted in war, it is legal to target a military installation or asset. Thus the attack by Al Qaeda on the destroyer Cole in Yemen in 2000 would be allowed, as well as attacks on command and control centers like the Pentagon. For all these reasons, the more appropriate designation for terrorists is not “unlawful combatant” but the one long used by the United States: criminal.

“The second major problem with the approach of the Bush administration is that it endangers our political traditions and our commitment to liberty, and further damages America’s legitimacy in the eyes of others. Almost 50 years ago, at the height of the cold war, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the “deeply rooted and ancient opposition in this country to the extension of military control over civilians.”

Herein lies another problem that the collective feeble minds of the Left fail to wrap their brains. They think in one dimension. For all of their utterance that they are the party of “progressives,” their knowledge and understanding of warfare has failed to evolve. They can’t fathom that this country, this CIVILIZATION, is embroiled in a new war, one in which the very fabric of our existence is in question as the hands of global terrorists.

“We train our soldiers to respect the line between combatant and civilian. Our political leaders must also respect this distinction, lest we unwittingly endanger the values for which we are fighting, and further compromise our efforts to strengthen our security.”

What’s sickening to those of us who truly believe that al Qaeda and its terrorist brethren are a threat are the LABELS the Left applies to terrorists: insurgents, freedom fighters, combatants, but never “terrorists.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x