Subject Areas


Islamist Terrorists

Don't view terrorists as civilized people

Terrorists are not soldiers and are not due civil treatment

There is much muddled thought being published about the Geneva conventions and their applicability to terrorists. The various conventions were agreed to as way to lessen the horrors of war that had been inflicted on civilians and other non-combatants. As it applies to prisoners of war, it is a gentleman’s agreement between counties that both sides will treat POWs responsibly. There are several conditions that determine the effectiveness of the conventions.

One is that both sides must be willing to comply with the conventions. This factor has been absent more often than not. In WWII, Germany, Britain, and the US generally dealt reasonably with each others captives. On the other hand, Germany and the Soviets treated each others’ captives and civilians horribly. Japan also showed absolutely no regard for enemy captives or civilians. As a consequence, it is probably true that some of the few Japanese who surrendered to our forces later died “while trying to escape” and those who managed to reach the US were treated harshly. Both the Korean and Vietnam wars showed again that one side abiding by the conventions had no beneficial effect on the actions of the other side.

Another condition necessary for the conventions to be effective is that each side must have a responsible government. Usually this means two countries, but it some circumstances, it could include civil wars with recognized leadership and organization. The point here is that where there is no governing authority, there can be no mutual agreement about captives.

This brings us to captives of the war on terrorists. These captives meet none of the conditions prescribed by the conventions. They are not civilians because they carry arms in combat; they are not recognized as soldiers because they hide among civilians and do not identify themselves as combatants; they have no responsible government that can control treatment of their POWs or that the Red Cross/Red Crescent can contact. Most critical of all, they are beasts in men’s disguise and contravene every concept embodied in the conventions. They make war on civilians, and anyone they capture (military or civilian) is tortured, mutilated, and murdered.

The Supreme Court ruling that terrorists are covered by the conventions might be legally correct, but is absolutely insane in the real world. Nothing we do to help or harm captive terrorists will have any effect on how our soldiers or civilians are treated in return. The worry by some former military leaders that what we do now will affect how our POWs are treated in future wars seems groundless. Status at that time will be determined by the mutual respect for the conventions of the countries involved, not based conditions of the past.

Our government refuses to describe Islamic barbarism as it is. This is insane: Muslim leaders are fully aware of the true situation and have no cause to be offended. The barbarians welcome our political cowardice as a sign of a feeble resolve to resist their assault. Somehow, we must retain our personal and religious freedoms, while mustering the national moral consensus to defend ourselves from the barbarian attack

Terrorists religious and sectarian beast