So, does the Geneva convention apply to thugs?

   Okay, political pushback in Congress is successful in taking away Presidential powers in the prosecution of terrorists, forcing the trials to be denied in civilian courts and held instead in military courts in Guantanamo.
    Question: Does this mean that the defendants have won the right to be recognized and tried as soldiers, instead of terrorist thugs?  Do they get the respect and protections of prisoners of war?
     Maybe that doesn't matter, compared to the opportunity to make the Obama administration back down. Party comes first, re-election comes second -- well, maybe the two are interchangeable. When it comes to politics, the country comes third.
    
     The war closer to home is the one between reasonable people who really do want to provide leadership and the wing-nuts who insist on shutting down the government, if that's the only way to cut, cut, cut.
     Oh, excuse me; I just used a derogatory term for people with whom I disagree.  Perhaps I should apologize.     
     Nah.
     If anything, we need more people to stand up to the bullying of extremists, and right now, the worst bullies are right-wingers.
     I remember when it was the Left that was throwing its weight around, and I spoke out against them at the time, too. Remember the hey-day of Political Correctness?  You still have it, but not like it was, because more rational people stood up to the argument that if you said one thing, you meant another. The same tactics have been used by the extreme Right and the extreme Left for years. It isn't dialog, or debate, or even a valid argument. It's a war of ideologies, fought with the ammunition of words.
     When I was a kid, the bully for the Right was Sen. Joe McCarthy. "Bombardier Joe," the anti-commie, the slayer of socialism, the 1950s version of later so-called "patriots" who were more American than the rest of us. He was relentless in seeking out those who had shown even curiosity about socialism or communism when the world was in foment, moving from totalitarian kings and emperors to various experiments in more populist and citizen-centered government.
     But like any patriotic movement, ostensibly protecting "The People", extremism on the right, even in the name of patriotism, begins to feed on its' young. Those who stray from the light shed by the leadership are persecuted, and eventually, it becomes apparent to anyone capable of rational thought that diligence can easily slide into fanaticism.
     "Have you no shame, Senator?" was the challenge that brought down McCarthy during hearings that turned over most of the rocks from Washington, D. C. to Hollywood. McCarthy had shown himself to be ruthless, reckless and vindictive, but he still had the power of his senate committee to use, and he wielded that power until one of the oppressed had enough and said, on open microphone, on camera, in a hearing, "Have you no shame, Senator?"
     It was a good question, and timely. I cannot remember who the person was who spoke that line, but in a way, that's the point. Pride, fame and power was counter-attacked, finally, that day. Then others began to ask the same question, and McCarthy was finished.
     It's about time we asked the same questions again in the face of extremism.
     When is patriotism not patriotic?  When it abandons all reason, ignores the patriotism of others, and becomes jingoism.
     When is conservatism not conservative?  When it wastes time, resources  and money. 
















d