As I wrote in a previous post, I don’t believe there should be a set-in-stone policy regarding treatment of all prisoners we take in Iraq and elsewhere in the course of the War on Terror.

To be a little more specific, there are two general factions we are fighting in Iraq, the Sunnis who are themselves Iraqis and are, therefore, attempting to regain their former status in their own country, and the so-called “foreign fighters,” al-Qaeda members and others whose presence in Iraq is strictly to disrupt the democratization of a country that is not even theirs.

Arguably, then, while the latter group can only be called terrorists, the former might rightly be called insurrectionists. Both groups are the enemies of the overwhelming majority of Iraqis who want their new democracy to flourish, therefore members of both groups must be captured or killed until their respective forces have been broken.

While we may consider rules of conduct for blanket humane treatment to the insurgents we capture, this should not apply to terrorists nor to anyone else who has been involved in the murder of innocent civilians or the beheadings of abductees — al-Qaeda members are mass murderers who deserve no consideration as human beings. Some speak of a moral high ground, that’s all well and good, but when applying such concepts to fighting terrorists, we are doing so at our own peril and that of our troops and of civilians. I don’t believe that a terrorist’s rights, comforts or life should even be a consideration if the life of a single U.S. or Iraqi soldier or citizen might instead be saved.

In today’s Washington Times:

President Bush yesterday abandoned his opposition to expanding a ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terror suspects, but only after winning legal protections for CIA interrogators.
The agreement was a victory for Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, who for months has pushed for an expansion of the ban in spite of strong opposition from the White House, including threats of a veto.
“It’s a done deal,” Mr. McCain said after meeting with the president at the White House. He said the legislation would protect “all people, no matter how evil or bad they are.”

Well, Senator McCain, that last part definitely disqualified you from my list of possible candidates to vote for in the next Presidential election.

Conservatives were not impressed.
Legal scholar Mark Levin of the Landmark Legal Foundation called the McCain proposal “the al Qaeda Bill of Rights.” He predicted it would subject U.S. soldiers to civilian courts.
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said the proposal would harm Mr. McCain’s expected run for the White House in 2008, but he acknowledged the Arizona Republican was relentless in pressuring the Bush administration.
“He wasn’t going to back down,” Mr. Limbaugh told his audience. “He’s attached this to the defense appropriations bill, and the president, really, I think was up against a wall because money for the military runs out at the end of the year.”

Read the rest here.