Liberalism Is Destroying The Geneva Convention
By Christopher Adamo (09/22/06)
Pick your issue, from the environment to “sexual harassment,” to the
treatment of captured terrorists, and the liberal take on it is guaranteed
to be wrong on every front. First, the concerns expressed by the left are
invariably only a facade, intended to exploit the situation in an effort to
advance the cause of liberalism. Secondly, and more significantly, liberal
involvement will almost exclusively worsen the problem about which the left
claims to be concerned.
On the topic of “sexual harassment,” the left incessantly lauded itself as a
champion of the plight of women at the hands of brutish men, until the
brutish “man” in question was the sniveling philandering Democrat President
whom they believed to be their secular messiah.
Suddenly, “sex” was no longer sex, and “harassment,” even to the point of
criminal assault and intimidation, was no longer any indictment of the
perpetrator. In essence, liberals were proving that these issues were of
concern to them only insofar as they could be used to bludgeon their
political opposition into compliance and retreat.
Otherwise, whether the issue is that of an innocent receptionist who is
affronted by the then governor of Arkansas exposing himself to her and
thereafter seeking to bully her into silence, or the genocide of hundreds of
thousands of helpless refugees in sub-Saharan Africa, liberals are
absolutely indifferent to it. Yet such indifference may be the far lesser of
two evils.
Consider all of their recent caterwauling over the “plight” of the Islamist
monsters being detained at Guantanamo, and how liberal Democrats from both
parties contend that the present controversy might ostensibly yield an
adverse effect on the Geneva Convention.
Just as with every other issue they embrace, the actual result promises to
be incalculable damage to the significance of that treaty. Yet in truth the
left is no more concerned with the fate of the terrorists or the treaty than
it is with the entirely predictable fallout that will negatively impact
American servicemen in present and future conflicts.
What must first be understood is the manner in which the Geneva Convention
was constructed and ratified, and what mechanisms must be in place in order
for it to be upheld. In the wake of atrocities against military prisoners
taken captive during the First World War, nations that held a concern for
their own soldiers, when captured, agreed to set standards of reasonable
treatment.
Yet despite the juvenile beliefs of liberal utopians, no beneficent and
all-powerful authority exists that could enforce such provisions. Neither
The Hague nor the United Nations qualifies. Experience has shown them to be
little more than miserable and pathetic caricatures of such.
Ultimately, the participating nations recognized that the only manner in
which the Convention could be upheld was to diligently grant such
protections to the prisoners from those nations who were themselves
signatories and therefore in agreement with the provisions of the
convention. It is this promise of reciprocity, both positive and negative,
that undergirds the Convention.
During World War II, an American captive could expect superior treatment in
a German prisoner of war camp to that received by a Russian, owing in part
to the fact that although both America and Germany signed the treaty, the
Soviet Union had not. Thus, in the wake of the war, the Soviets became
official signatories to the pact.
Recently, the United States Supreme Court bestowed upon al Qaeda terrorists
(Hardly an organized or accountable military entity) the “rights” of
prisoners under the Geneva Convention. In doing so, the Court committed an
act of blatant and unconstitutional activism that makes a mockery of the
Convention, and in a former era would have resulted in their impeachment and
removal from the bench.
Despite the fact that the terrorist-prisoners were already being treated
with a level of civility vastly exceeding anything Americans might ever
expect at their hands, the Court essentially codified their status as
legitimate members of a foreign “army” that at some future date could
conceivably enter into a treaty with the United States Government.
To justify this outrage, the court invoked a phony premise that it was
somehow ensuring that Americans, captured by al Qaeda members or their
allies, would receive reciprocal consideration. Yet it is beyond absurd to
expect that people who clearly intend to wage and win their wars through
wanton brutality and cruelty would ever defer to such behavior.
Worse yet, those countries that might be wavering in their commitment to
participation within the rules of the Convention suddenly have no incentive
to abide by any provision of it. If their own military members are now
guaranteed, by order of the United States Supreme Court, to be treated with
utmost consideration, regardless of their own actions towards Americans, why
should they then be willing to accept the constraints of the treaty if so
doing accrues no further benefit to them?
In short, the ability of the American government to protect the interests of
its own citizenry and military personnel is directly tied to its willingness
to use its power as leverage against those nations who seek to do harm to
it.
With every effort to restrict and undermine that ability, the American left
(A cabal that now undeniably includes the likes of Arizona Senator John
McCain) increases the likelihood that America’s enemies will abuse and kill
captured American servicemen and women with impunity.
McCain and his cohorts certainly know this. Thus they cannot be excused, on
the basis of ignorance, from such seditious collaboration with the enemies
of America.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Christopher Adamo
