Says the editorial board of the New York Times this morning:

The bills now before Congress don’t meet the test. The White House’s measure endorses the practice of picking up any foreign citizens the United States wants, abusing and even torturing them, and then trying them on the basis of secret evidence. It effectively repudiates the Geneva Conventions, putting American soldiers at risk. (Emphasis added)

Of all the idiotic talking points that the American left has chosen to clutch to its collective bosom over the past five years, this one has to be the most moronic – that America’s failure to follow the Geneva Conventions will ensure worse treatment for our own captured soldiers. The thinking represents not just tortured logic, but inhumanely and cruelly tortured logic; the logic probably would have loved to have received just a belly slap or an attention grab.

The premise that supports the Geneva Conventions is that fealty to them must be reciprocal. I know the Times editorial board doesn’t escape its cocoon very often, but our enemies in the Islamic world have no interest in following anything like the Geneva Conventions. This obvious point eludes the Times.

The heart of the Geneva Conventions is that there can be rules in warfare. This presumes that both sides have at least a modicum of honor. It is not unusual in the annals of warfare to find soldiers developing a respect, sometimes grudging, sometimes wholehearted, for their enemies. That’s not possible this time around – our enemy’s viciousness is matched only by his cowardice.

But the American left, as personified by the Times editorial board, tenaciously clings to its prior worldview. They feel that if they just tell themselves the lie that there’s nothing new this time around, it will eventually become the truth.

It won’t.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.