Posted on 04/08/2008 12:36:49 PM PDT by mdittmar
I have noted the source. And I emphatically disagree with its official characterization of terrorists as "criminals". That is why I reacted.
The use of "criminals" was either an inadvertent embracing of PC language or a calculated one. Either way, I maintain it strengthens our enemies while weakening us.
Simply; "criminals" are caught, tried, convicted, and punished while "terrorists" are killed. Officially characterizing terrorists as "criminals" gives them rights while severely weakening our Armed Forces by reducing them to a law enforcement organization.
Just because the source of this release is "official" doesn't mean it is correct. I maintain the source is making a serious mistake. And we, The People, should reject it.
The point is understood. But the source of the terrorists is not relevant to their characterization. What is relevant is their actions, and that is terrorism.
When engaged in terrorism, these scum are terrorists. As such they are illegal enemy combatants
Illegal enemy combatants have no rights under the Geneva Convention. Because they are illegally bearing arms against the United States, they have no recourse to the courts. Terrorists are only subject to military action and whatever considerations our Armed Forces chooses to provide.
If we allow these terrorists to be commonly characterized as "criminals", they will gain rights. And that is exactly what the enemy desires.
So do not fall into the enemy's semantic/legal trap. Terrorists are terrorists no matter what segment of society they come from.
One second it’s Hellfire ...
The next it’s brimstone ...
I’d pay big money to be able to control my own UAV from my home. Home cool would that be?
I noticed it in another thread yesterday.
It seems that now that the Iraqi government and police force are regaining control, and since all militia groups have been ordered to stand down by the government, that means those who won’t lay their weapons down...are criminals.
A year ago, I would've agreed with you. But, after the past year's progress, I understand the change in language.
Besides our enemies and us, recall that there is a third audience for these releases: The Iraqi Public. And it is their attitudes that are of the most vital importance at this time.
That raised my eyebrow as well. So we’re no longer in a counterinsurgency?
Can we get some Predators to deal with the idiots who insist on forcing high speed police chases?
“I joined the jihad, but all I got was this lousy guts-stained t-shirt.”
I understand this. I also understand that Arabs will wrap you around a semantic axle in a heartbeat if you are not careful.
Again, words have meaning. In this case the words have huge weight with the Law of War. This is not a scrabble. I do not budge from my opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.