Posted by
Amicus on Sunday, October 01, 2006 6:10:43 PM
I've puzzled over Senator McCain's position and reasoning for extending Geneva Convention protections to captured terrorist enemy-combatants. He says, along with Colin Powell and others, that doing so will assure humane treatment of our own servicemen and women.
Will it? As Senator McCain witnessed first-hand, the Geneva Conventions aren't even a guarantee of humane treatment when we are engaged in war with another Geneva Convention signatory. Did Senator McCain receive appropriately humane treatment at the hands of North Vietnamese? Not even close.
Why then should we expect that treating terrorists well would have any bearing whatsoever on how they treat our troops when captured? Remember, they are non-uniformed combatants unafilliated with any recognized state who intentionally target civillians, and then hide amidst civillian populations (endangering them) to avoid reprisals by uniformed militaries.
Daniel Pearl, a non-military journalist was beheaded by none other than Khalid Sheik Mohammend, the 9/11 mastermind, and current Guantanamo Bay detainee. Is it reasonable to expect that if only we treat Khalid with kid-gloves, he'll abstain from future beheadings after being freed by an ACLU defense attorney?
Senator McCain may well have additional reasons for his position. If so, he owes his constituents, and our nation, a fully articulated argument for his position. What he has offered so far is not convincing.