Are we fighting a war or not? Sometimes I wonder. Wars are generally all-out efforts to kill the enemy and destroy their ability to fight. The goal is to win, and to do that it’s necessary to kill people and break things.

However, there are some rules, although not everyone observes them. The most widely accepted are The Geneva Conventions, which Wikipedia describes as follows:

The Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties and three additional protocols that set the standards in international law for humanitarian treatment of the victims of war. The singular term Geneva Convention refers to the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of World War II, updating the terms of the first three treaties and adding a fourth treaty. The language is extensive, with articles defining the basic rights of those captured during a military conflict, establishing protections for the wounded, and addressing protections for civilians in and around a war zone. The treaties of 1949 have been ratified, in whole or with reservations, by 194 countries.

Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.

Unfortunately, as terrorism has appeared on the scene, the generally accepted standards of The Geneva Conventions have fallen by the wayside. Terrorist combatants wear no uniforms, represent no specific nation and observe no rules, including attacking and killing women and children, even those in their own societies.

Furthermore, the forces of Political Correctness have influenced our military mindset to the point that the United States has exceeded the basic standards of The Geneva Conventions by imposing extraordinary Rules of Engagement (ROE) on our military, which can jeopardize their safety in combat zones.

Based on individual soldier accounts, WorldNetDaily reports that current ROE restrictions include:

• No night of surprise searches.
• Villagers are to be warned prior to searches.
• Afghan National Army or Afghan National Police must accompany U.S. units or searches.
• U.S. soldiers may not fire at insurgents unless they are preparing to fire first.
• U.S. forces cannot engage insurgents if civilians are present.
• Only women can search women.
• Troops can fire on insurgents if they catch them placing an IED but not if they walk away from where the explosives are.

In addition, the ROE often require varying levels of approvals before action can be taken.

One company commander has been quoted as saying, “We can’t do anything if we don’t have the ANA or [the Afghan National Police]… We have to follow the Karzai 12 rules. But the Taliban has no rules…Our soldiers have to juggle all these rules and regulations and they do it without hesitation despite everything. It’s not easy for anyone out here.”

Imposing restrictive ROE’s is not just some theoretical exercise in winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans, that they have caused the loss of life is well documented. For example, in one case, four U.S. Marines (fighting in Kunar Province) twice radioed for artillery support during a combat action, which was refused. As a result, they were killed. Who knows why those in command would not or could not give their authorization?

So, while we are supposed to fight with one hand tied behind our backs by observing PC Rules of Engagement, our enemies are free to engage in the most heinous actions, torturing and beheading people, hiding among the local population, using them as shields, committing the most violent acts against both our military forces and civilians alike.

Under the circumstances, my conclusion is that we should be less concerned about the constraints of The Geneva Conventions than taking the fight to the terrorists without hesitation. The idea that we can fight a war in which we hamstring our military because of some PC notion that we are morally superior to our enemies is counterproductive. My sense is that they also believe they are better than their enemy, us, which permits them to win by any means possible, no matter how despicable.

© 2009 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved

Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at www.opinionfest.com

The short answer to the question, “Does dissent make us weaker?” is no. But, the issue is far more complex than the short answer implies.

For one thing, just how far should Americans be able to go in exercising their right to dissent? That is, where do their rights stop? Or do they? A popular saying holds that they stop at the end of the next person’s nose. And, judging from the never ending stream of demands that assault us every day, it appears that everything on our personal or collective wish lists has now become a right, without limit, including the right to say almost anything we want, to anyone, at any time.

Limiting Dissent
That we have a right to dissent and that doing so does not make us (America) weaker seems obvious, but does it also mean that we have a right to say and do anything we want or to force our opinions or beliefs on others (as in Christian, Muslim, atheist, hedonist, or environmentalist)? Dissent may be part and parcel of the right to the freedom of speech that’s enshrined in our Constitution, but there are or should be limits.

If our rights stop at the end of the next person’s nose, does that include their pocketbook? Stealing may be illegal and immoral, but whether or not it is acceptable seems to depend on who does it and why, and sometimes how. For example, some people may consider it acceptable to steal food to feed one’s family but unacceptable to steal money to keep from losing their home in foreclosure?

And, although taking money from others by force or at gunpoint, or by embezzling it from one’s employer, may be a crime, how many people condone appropriating someone else’s dollars through taxation? Probably everyone, to some degree. But, isn’t that the problem? That is, the degree? Too often, in matters of taxation, right and wrong depend on who has the power to tax or whose ox is being gored. So, if we feel our tax laws are unfair and confiscatory, should our right to dissent include refusing to pay them?

Political Correctness vs Dissent
When did we move from the freedom of speech guaranteed by our Constitution to freedom of speech only if it’s politically correct according to some particular group, such as African-Americans, Hispanics, women, gays, liberals, conservatives, Christians, Muslims, Jews…..you name it? Our treasured freedom of speech seems to be acceptable only so long as it conforms to some special interest group’s interpretation of what they consider “correct.”

Dissent or Treason
Dissent may be a good thing, but when does it become more than simply expressing one’s point of view and morph into “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” or worse yet, treason, in time of war?

Consider the case of Lynne Stewart, a lawyer who represented a blind Egyptian Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, convicted in 1996 of plotting terrorist attacks in the U.S., for which he received a “life” sentence. Ms. Stewart was herself convicted of conspiracy and sentenced to 28 months in prison for providing material support to terrorists by participating in passing messages between the Sheikh and his terrorist followers on the outside, while serving as one of his attorneys. Her actions have been described as dissent from U.S. policies in the conduct of the War on Terror.

Another aspect of the question, “Does dissent make us weaker?” is the matter of where and when we have the right to dissent. Although our cherished right of “free speech” may guarantee us the right to speak out about issues, that doesn’t guarantee the right to do so everywhere and anywhere. There appears to be a lot of confusion about this. Many Americans seem to have the idea that their right to dissent obligates others to provide them with a forum for expressing their views, such as on radio and TV broadcasts. In fact, you may have the right to dissent, but you normally have to provide your own soapbox.

Right To Dissent
There always seem to be good and sufficient reasons for imposing our individual or collective will on others. Both sides of the political spectrum find plenty of justification for pressing their values on everyone else. Abortion is about a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body or it’s murder, depending on one’s personal beliefs. Those on the left say the Boy Scouts are wrong to prevent gays from being scout leaders, notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution guarantees their right to make such a determination. But, that hasn’t stopped the ACLU and others who oppose the Boy Scouts’ policies from attempting to force communities around the nation to punish them in various ways, such as pressuring donors, including local governments, to stop giving them money or to cancel long standing privileges to use certain community facilities, such as parks and school grounds.

Dissent In The Schools
Schools have always defined the types of organizations that are permitted to organize or hold meetings on their premises. But now, under the guise of keeping church and state separated, they go to such extremes as permitting clubs to organize celebrations like Kwanzaa or Voodoo rituals while preventing Christian students from protesting such policies on school property.

Do students have an unrestricted right to use vile language toward others, including teachers, on school grounds? Our confusion about whether there can or should be any limits on the right to dissent is vividly demonstrated by the fact that vulgar language is acceptable in some settings, such as the movies and on TV, but is unacceptable in churches and public meetings. And, although our right to dissent may include being able to curse teachers in school, prayer is considered unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the right to dissent goes beyond words. It is also interpreted as including such things as how people dress and look or such actions as burning the American flag. Some is acceptable, some not.

Dissent vs License
All rights, including the right to dissent, can be measured on a continuum, ranging from not having any rights to absolute, unrestricted and uncontrolled rights to do or say anything to anyone, anytime, anywhere. But, unlimited rights eventually reach the point where they become license, that is, the unrestricted freedom to say or do anything we please, regardless of whose “nose’ gets in the way. Is that what we want? In the final analysis, the right to dissent is really more about self-control than it is about laws or regulation or the Constitution. You may have, or think you have, the right to say or do whatever you please, but that doesn’t always mean you should, law or no law.

Dissent is an important and necessary escape valve for society, but that doesn’t mean the right to do so should be unrestricted. And, although dissent in general may not make us weaker, unbridled dissent can, especially in times of war. The problem is recognizing when it becomes treasonous or actionable (i.e., lawsuit). As with pornography, we may not be able to define dissent, but we generally know it when we see it. Dissent may not make us weaker, and sometimes it’s a little like taking medicine: we may hate the taste, but it’s good for us – however, that doesn’t mean it should be unlimited.

© 2007 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved