TERRORISTS AND THE GENEVA CONVENTION

Following much debate, President Bush lost the battle with Congressional Republicans in his effort to clarify our country’s responsibilities regarding detainees under the Geneva Convention. Former secretary of state Colin Powell and Senator John McCain formed part of the opposition.

President Bush wants the CIA to have wide latitude in the use of methods of interrogation with confirmed or suspected terrorists. The opposition cites a couple of reasons for maintaining our commitment to the Geneva Convention. First, extreme methods of interrogation go against American moral principles. The world will not support our war against terrorism, if we violate those principles. Second, our enemies will feel entitled to abuse our soldiers when captured. The risk of the use of torture on U.S. prisoners of war will be greater.

I am with President Bush on this issue. American moral principles must be pragmatic. The war against terrorism is unlike any previous wars. The rules are different. I have always said, "Cruel and unusual treatment is proper for those who are unusually cruel.” I do not believe in “Let us not go down to their level.” I believe in going below their level, so that they fear us instead of us fearing them. Whatever they do to terrify us, we should duplicate, as long as we are dealing with terrorists, and not with innocent civilians. Our first duty is to protect our people and our nation. Refined moral attitudes will not help us one bit, if we are conquered for failure to use due force. We will all be at the mercy of our invaders. If you do not think it can happen, read some history books.

Powell and McCain think that by being nice in our treatment of terrorists, our soldiers will fare better when captured. In some cases, maybe they are right. Perhaps our prisoners of war can come across a terrorist group with a conscience every now and then. However, you have seen the beheadings on TV. Do you think people with that kind of mentality abide by standards of fairness? Do you think they consult the articles of the Geneva Convention when treating prisoners?

Why should the Geneva Convention apply to terrorists? Those international agreements governing the treatment of prisoners of war came at a time when wars were different. The same rules should not apply.

First, in previous wars, soldiers wore uniforms identifying the country for which they were fighting. Terrorists do not wear uniforms. One cannot easily identify them. Thus, there are no “moral” or “fair” rules of engagement in terrorist manuals.

Second, because countries fought other countries, there was always the opportunity to negotiate and reach agreements with one’s adversary or adversaries. With whom can we negotiate as regards terrorists? There are states like Syria and Iran fomenting terrorism, but they will not acknowledge it. Therefore, unless we wipe out all the terrorist networks—an unlikely scenario right now—this war will never end. We do not have even the opportunity to talk with our enemies to try to end it.

Third, on previous wars, the fight was mainly among soldiers. Terrorists attack civilians. It is their preferred method of operation. They killed over three thousand of our people in one single blow on Nine Eleven. In dealing with these kinds of monsters, are we to be concerned with Article 3 of the Geneva Convention? Are we supposed to worry about their “personal dignity”? Where—if not in Hell—is that dignity? They do not flinch before sending our people to horrible deaths, but we should avoid conduct that is “humiliating or degrading.” Give me a break.

In summary, it is the first duty of the President and Congress to ensure our safety. Our lives and the health of our nation are at stake. Terrorists are Namuh*. They belong in Hell, while humans belong in Heaven. To give the CIA wide latitude in handling detainees is an act of self-defense. Those who think otherwise are wrong. They will not be able to help us when disaster strikes again. Therefore, let the strong-minded lead the way.

*Namuh: the word “namuh” is the inverse of the word “human.” A namuh is a being that has a human body but does not have a human soul, someone without a conscience.

Recommended reading: Ercian Testament - Part Three, chapter 25 “Heaven for Humans, Hell for the Namuh.”