As others have observed, if we can’t be tougher than a 3rd-grade teacher on mass murderers in order to prevent the next mass murder they may be planning, no reason exists to feed and house these detainees. Since re-patriating them already has been shown to be lethal, that is not – or should not be – an option.
Let’s use a little logic here:
1. We have not been successfully attacked during the period in which we have interrogated the bad guys.
2. To believe this is coincidental requires Mrs Clinton’s “suspension of disbelief.”
2. But we no longer can ask them hard questions
3. Detaining them is costly
4. We don’t want them killing our warriors – or our civilians.
5. We capture them on the battlefield, then, for what reason?
Using the logic of the anti-interrogators leads to only one conclusion: take no prisoners.
Is this really what Liberals want?
Let’s also look at the underlying logic and argumentation on the Geneva Conventions. They were written as deterrent policies to ensure humane treatment of prisoners – you don’t whack our guys and we won’t whack yours. These never have been applied successfully outside of European-on-European conflicts, of course. (Japanse soldiers routinely beheaded American and British POWs.)
Our current enemies not only are not signatories, they routinely treat prisoners inhumanely – warrior or civilian, Muslim or infidel.
No deterrent or moral or logical reason to apply the Conventions to terrorists exists.
I understand full well that Liberals don’t like or understand the real world since the passing of Truman, Scoop Jackson, and drumming Joe Lieberman out of the party.
Perhaps the adults, however, ought to take charge here? At least in educating the voters in reality.