The Democrats' death wish?

As the Detainee Bill works its way through the House and Senate, the democrats (and some RINOs) continue to be stuck on stupid, with regard to what they think is the intent and the spirit of the Geneva Convention when applied to un-uniformed, illegal enemy combatants. According to Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, the following is the definition of a "legal combatant."

Article 4

Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
   • that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
   • that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
   • that of carrying arms openly;
   • that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Now consider the terrorist scum who are currently being held in Gitmo and elsewhere.

1. They wear no recognizable uniform or insignia.
2. They hide among the civilian population, and hide their armaments.
3. Their operations are not conducted in accordance with the laws and customs of war (Unless, of course, your laws and customs include targeting civilians and beheading infidels).
   

Remember, Article 3 and 4 of the Geneva Convention was not set up primarily as a bill of rights for prisoners, as much as it was an incentive for hostile forces to abide by the laws and customs of war. The purposes of these articles of the Convention were twofold. First, as is evident on face value, these articles of the Convention were set up to provide humane treatment to detained lawful combatants of hostile forces. The second, and over-riding function of the Convention was to protect the civilian population, by giving combatants the incentives to abide by the laws and customs of war. These guidelines were not set up so much to protect soldiers as they were to protect the civilian population against accidental targeting by military forces. By following the rules and customs of warfare, collateral damage and civilian deaths are necessarily kept to a minimum.

It is when a hostile force refuses to follows the rules and customs of warfare that the innocent civilian population is held at undue risk. Therefore, applying the protections afforded by the Geneva Convention to unlawful enemy combatants has the net effect removing the incentive for hostile forces to abide by the laws and customs of war. This strips the Geneva Convention of its most important function--the protection of the civilian population.

Of course, this is lost on the likes of Pelosi and even Carl Levin, who proclaims:

Sen. Carl Levin, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, objected, saying that the measure would be "used by our terrorist enemies as evidence of U.S. hypocrisy when it comes to proclamations of human rights."

First of all, being lectured to by Al Qaeda with regard to human rights is nothing less than laughable. Second, giving Al Qaeda and other terrorist detainees rights under the Geneva Convention and/or the U.S. Constitution gives the terrorists absolutely no incentive to cease their practices of targeting civilians and perpetrating outright atrocities unseen since the Stalinist purges.

By insisting that we give terrorists due process under the Geneva Convention, the democrats and RINOs are not protecting our citizens or soldiers--they are putting them in further danger.

But then again, what else is new?