But they're still treated to 'torture lite'
"It is not fair to our troops fighting in the war on terror to be sued in every court in the land by our enemies based on every possible complaint," Mr. Graham said. "We have done nothing today but return to the basics of the law of armed conflict where we are dealing with enemy combatants, not common criminals."
Yes, that's right - the troops themselves would be sued. By every court, on every possible complaint. Just a wee bit of hyperbole there, Mr. Graham, yes?
It's infuriating to hear one of these neocon tools talking about "the basics of the law of armed conflict" - get your damn "laws" straight, and, like all the social conservatives writing raunchy novels these days, stop trying to have it both ways. They keep calling it the "war on terror," yet they refuse to abide by any conventions of war. If it's a "war," then the detainees are "prisoners of war," and have to be treated accordingly. But that would entail not torturing them and giving them some possible means of proving they should not be there.
So instead, they made up that fancy little "enemy combatant" designation so the government can still do anything and lock up anyone without recourse in fricking prison camps to help those brave troops fighting to protect our freedom do their jobs. Which they wouldn't even have to do without this idiotic war spawning more terrorists - if this business with Zarqawi's movement expanding out of Iraq doesn't prove that nation was nowhere near the center of the "war on terror" until Bush invaded it, I don't know what does. But I suppose, as our gallant leader has said, at least we can fight them over there instead of over here. After all, other people don't matter. Especially when they're poor, brown and non-Christian.
<< Home