Entitlements for terrorist

Rusty Shakleford:

Since the Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Seriously. In fact, by treating terrorists humanely we undermine the Geneva Conventions.

The idea behind the Conventions is that if you agree to abide by their rules, your captured combatants will be treated humanely. Human treatment is an inducement to follow the rules of war.

That is called a carrot.

But there is also a negative inducement. If you do not agree to abide by their rules, your captured combatants will not be treated humanely. At least, there is no legal guarantee that they will. The prospect that you will have no legal protections against pain and suffering if you get captured is an inducement to follow the rules of war.

That is called a stick.

So, by giving terrorists the same protections as those offered under the Geneva Conventions aren't we, in fact, undermining those same Conventions? All carrot and no stick if you will?

Worse than that, it is no carrot and no stick. An inducement, by definition, only works when there is an if/then relationship. If you do this, then you get that.

If you follow the Geneva Conventions, then you will receive their protections.

What the Democrats and some Republicans are offering to terrorists is no inducement at all to follow the rules of war.

They are, in fact, creating an entitlement for terrorists.

...

The terrorist rights crowd is endangering civilians everywhere by making a gift of Ceneva Conventions protections to those who are not entitled to them. They make it easier for terrorist to kill non combatants in this country and other countries and they make it easier for terrorist to hide among civilians and endanger them when the forces of justice come to get them. They are removing teh consequences intended by the Conventions for those who do not comply. They are in effect making them a unilateral contract that by all common sense is not enforcible.