Something that pisses me off...

AG A$$hat, er Holder, opening his mouth.  It almost never fails that when he does that, I get angry.

In testy exchanges with House Republicans, the attorney general compared terrorists to mass murderer Charles Manson and predicted that events would ensure "we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden" not to the al-Qaida leader as a captive.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around why we would be reading him Miranda rights in the first place.  He is not an American citizen, he will not be captured on American soil.  He is responsible for an act of war that took place on American soil, and so were some Germans back in WWII (well, attempted anyway), would we have had to read them their rights if they had been around then? (They've only been around since 1966)

Well, according to the Supreme Court, and the letter of the law and whatnot, yeah, we would have.

However, these were non-uniformed operatives working to commit an act of war.  They were tried in a military court as such and shot.  Foreign saboteurs trying to kill Americans aren't looked upon kindly.  The Supreme Court even backed it then.

The Geneva Convention notes that uniforms are not necessary, just that any organized militia or such needs to have something that identifies them as such from a distance, an obvious commanding officer, and be openly displaying weapons.  However these are pretty much the last thing Al Queda wants to do, and on top of that,  they don't follow any of the rules anyway. Those giant red crosses on a medical helicopter are nothing but a giant target identifier to them.

The Germans knew it back in WWII, after dressing up as civilians to get behind enemy lines, they'd make damn sure to get back in uniform before attacking, otherwise they would be granted no rights as POWs.  When OSS agents and the like dropped into France, they knew damn well that the had none of the rights that the soldiers of the 82nd would have when they jumped in.  They knew if they were caught they'd be tortured and killed and nobody could complain.

As I see it, Al Queda and  the like terrorists essentially have no rights under the GC and the Laws of Land Warfare.  Essentially, by participating in non-uniformed actions, committing numerous atrocities, and breaking truckloads of other international laws, they have given up their rights, as far as international laws are concerned, as human beings.  You could shoot them on sight without much worry.

Then again, I'm not a lawyer.  I'm a line grunt at heart, and my view of things can be pretty simple at times.  I almost fully support the shoot on sight concept, if it weren't for enough exposure to the intelligence aspect of things to know that some good intel can do wonders.

So what I can't figure out, is why these wastes of organic matter (remember, I don't think of them as people anymore) that have no rights as far as international laws are concerned, suddenly are afforded the rights of an American citizen?  Granted, the way the Bill of Rights reads is "all men," not just Americans, and those rights should extend to all people, even illegal immigrants or anybody arrested and tried in the United States.  But Al Queda operatives technically have as many rights as a rabid wolf.  It's quite dangerous, but it's still a living thing, and should be put out of it's misery quickly, but we're not gonna hold a dang trial over it, let alone make sure to treat the wolf nicely while we get it set up.

The apparent difference with current terrorists and the Germans back in 1942 is that back then, there was an "official" war going on.  Congress had passed a law the title "Declaration of War" making things all pretty and by the book.  The current administration doesn't think that we are at war with terrorists.  "The  Global War on Terror," that damn thing I have two freakin' medals from, isn't a war, and even calling it that is no longer allowed.  (On another note, I've been out for a bit, can you still earn a GWOT?  Or is there some new name equivalent?  Not the Iraq or Afghan Campaign medals, but something for guys in Kuwait or Qutar and the like?)

But the best reasoning I've been able to find as to why we're giving them rights, is a chunk of the Geneva Convention along the lines of:

An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.

That's out of the Geneva Convention, a set of rules governing warfare.  I thought we weren't at war with them, why are we following rules of warfare?

The only thing I agree with Holder on is the fact that his "rights," if read, will be read over his corps.  If the guys that do finally get him find him alive, given what some SEALS are going through, I'm sure he'll be combative right up till a round makes it's way right between his beady eyes, and then we can all congratulate the soldiers fantastic marksmanship in combat, being able to place such a precision shot under such strenuous conditions.  At least that's how the report will read.

Hmm... the sun disappeared behind the neighbor's house, so the porch is a cold shadow now... Guess we'll call this one.