Geneva Conventions

Well, it looks like a lot of international pressure is being brought to bear in the upcoming election. First, we've got the missing explosives. NBC had reporters embedded in the units that first secured Al Qaqaa. They reported that the explosives the explosives were already gone when we got there in April of 2003. Missing explosives is a huge problem. But it's not clear that we failed to secure these explosives yet, and jumping on the President for a possible failure is premature at best.

Now there are speculations that imply that this was a fake story, deliberately leaked to influence the election. If that turns out to be the case, that's got to be a final nail in the MSM coffin.

Now, Reuters is reporting that some prisoners are considered as exceptions to the Geneva Conventions. That is, for some prisoners that we've taken in Iraq, the administration feels that the Geneva conventions do not apply.

It's my understanding that this is absolutely right. The Geneva conventions are a treaty. They determine how countries who are signatories (participants) in the treaty will treat each other's people when they're taken as POWs. If you're in a war with another signatory to the Geneva Conventions, and you're a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, then both of you are bound to honor them. It's an agreement between the two countries. If, however, you're in a war with someone who is not a signatory to the treaty, there's no "agreement" to be broken.

And again, this isn't the first time it's been brought up. Very soon after the 9/11 attacks, the administration decided that terrorists caught on the ground were not going to be considered POW's, but rather "unlawful combatants", because terrorists don't wear uniforms, or follow other rules of war.

The media is throwing everything they can at the President. Unfortunately, all they can throw is old news. There's no mention of elections in Afghanistan, no suggestion that most of Iraq is pacified and moving toward elections, no reminders that there are new jobs.

Meanwhile, not much mention of this. This won't see the light of day, except maybe on Fox. And I'm not saying that these are any more true than the assertion that the President is responsible for missing explosives. What I am saying is that in no way, shape, or form are we seeing the media pile on Kerry the way they've piled on Bush, and I'm frankly getting sick of it. Is impartial, disinterested reporting a pipe dream? Maybe so. But if that's the case, it sure seems that one side has a lot more advocates than the other.