By Regis H. Murphy, Jr.
GKO Contributing Writer
Every notice, while watching news of the war on terrorism on television, those shadowy figures moving around in the background? How about when a newscaster reports violations of the Geneva Convention or a ceasefire? See how those found guilty of the infraction are forced to withdraw? After watching football on Sunday, I finally realized who those strange folks on battlefields really were. They are umpires! They enforce the "Rules of War" and insure the 'game' is played fairly! Of course, without saying it, they are usually prejudicial toward one side or the other and show it by the amount and severity of the calls they make.
The qualifications for being an 'umpire' in this arena are quite severe, indeed. It appears that one must be a 'liberal' in good standing with the ACLU and lack both combat experience and common sense. Although each one of these qualifications is not difficult to achieve in itself, it's the combination of the requirements that make achieving this position as 'war umpire' so hard to achieve. Ted Kennedy surely would have made a good 'war umpire,' for even though staying miles away from every act of war during the last forty years he calls every violation of the 'rules', especially those 'suspected' of being committed by 'our team'! He does that to insure he is thought of as being 'fair' to both sides. What about Hillary as a candidate for 'war umpire'? Now there's a 'Nightmare'?
That brings us to one question that I have for our 'war umpires':
"Are the rules the same for both sides during war, or are the standards of behavior different depending on which side you believe in? The use of torture, as I have already spoken of, is one of many examples for the case of each side having different standards of behavior to adhere to."
My other question is:
"Who makes up the rules?"
You would think it would be the sides in conflict who agree on the rules, but it looks like the rules are made up by those who are just watching, yet have some personal, hidden agenda for who wins.
Just like, there is no such thing as 'friendly fire' during combat, or 'fighting nice' for your children there should be no such thing as 'rules of war'. It just does not compute! There is only one rule of war, and that is there are absolutely no rules. War is defined as, "open armed conflict between countries or factions within the same country; any active hostility, contention, or struggle."
War crime is defined as, "any crime in violation of International law or accepted laws of war or of assumed norms of human behavior committed in connection with a war as by a member of a belligerent nation's military forces or government."
Certainly those responsible for the intentional killing of nonparticipating innocents during a conflict are in violation of "assumed norms of human behavior" and they should be found guilty of murder in the first degree. But, where are these 'umpires' when they are needed?
Rules of war are enforced by the victor--[not the onlookers or the vanquished]. Other than used in that context, rules of war are non existent and we should consider that when the 'umpires', for example, penalize our troops for using bad language or 'torturing' an enemy by firing a weapon close to them, and charge us with a loss of down and fifteen yards.
Rules of war… bahaa humbug!!
That's my opinion, and "This Is Still America!"
| Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in Romeo 47 are that of the author and not necessarily that of Al Colombo or others who appear in the GKO publication. Direct inquiries regarding it's content to the author. Thank you. |
