One of the problems with the current battlefield on which we find ourselves engaged is that we’re treating it with police action rather than combat operations. The battle against Islamist terrorists is not a law enforcement endeavor. Combat troops on this battlefield don’t have the time to read anyone their Miranda rights or collect evidence. Furthermore, our rules of engagement (ROE) are giving away the initiative to the enemy. Consider the recent testimony of the Afghanistan operational theater commander, General Campbell, before the House Armed Services Committee. When asked by Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), a Navy fighter pilot, if he’s authorized to attack the Taliban simply for being the Taliban, Gen. Campbell responded, no. That means, the enemy who seeks to kill our men and women deployed in Afghanistan cannot be attacked — our troops have to sit back and wait to be engaged.
And folks, if you’ve ever been in a firefight, that ain’t right. Just wanna remind you about what retired Marine 1st Sgt. Jim Reifinger says, “if you ever find yourself in a fair fight, it’s because your tactics suck.” And thanks to this current administration, our tactics REALLY suck.
However, it’s not just in Afghanistan where we find the theater of the absurd, it’s also right here in America — in Minnesota.
As reported by the Star Tribune:
Five Twin Cities men accused of plotting to go to fight alongside ISIL in Syria are asking a federal judge to drop murder conspiracy charges on grounds that they have “combatant immunity” under both common and international law.
They say combatants are immune from criminal prosecutions for acts of war, including murder, against military targets.
The five — Hamza Ahmed, brothers Adnan and Mohamed Farah, Abdirahman Daud and Guled Omar — are scheduled to appear in federal court in Minneapolis next week for a hearing on that and other motions in the case, which is set to go to trial May 9.
The men were charged last year with conspiring to leave the United States to fight with the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). [Folks, note that only liberal progressives who refuse to acknowledge Israel’s existence refer to ISIS as ISIL.] In October, the government filed a new indictment that added a charge of conspiracy to commit murder, which attorneys for the men say should not apply.
“ISIL has engaged in atrocious acts,” attorneys for the five said in one motion. “But however one might describe it as an entity, it has an organized professional army engaged in traditional military warfare — an army with which the defendants are alleged to have intended to join in ‘combat.’”
Federal prosecutors who brought the case argued in a court filing last month that the men were “grossly mistaken” in claiming ISIL fighters are combatants as part of a regularly constituted military force.
OK, let me explain what the defense lawyers for these wannabe barbarians are trying to do. They’re seeking to classify ISIS as a legitimate entity — a state — with a military force. Basically, these very slick chucklehead lawyers want to rewrite the Law of Warfare. They’re seeking to legitimize Islamic terrorists — these non-state, non-uniform belligerents. What they’ll seek next week is for these five men to be classified as “legitimate” combatants, rather than unlawful enemy combatants.
Let me explain the danger. But first let me remind you these Islamic jihadists reside in the congressional district represented by one Keith Ellison. A study of Rep. Ellison’s background should cause y’all much concern. Then again, Ellison was right there this past Wednesday with another Islamist sympathizer and enabler, Barack Obama, in Baltimore, at the very questionable Islamic Center of Baltimore mosque.
Now, here’s the danger: if these men are allowed to be classified as a legitimate combatants, then will we be able to deter any future ISIS recruits from leaving this country? If these lawyers are successful, the argument becomes one of ISIS not being a terrorist organization, but the legitimate and “organized professional army” of a state that’s conducting “traditional military warfare.”
Something tells me that if we follow the money, perhaps we’ll find out who’s funding this legal team — wouldn’t surprise me if it’s the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). You know, that unindicted co-conspirator in the largest Islamic terrorist funding case in U.S. history, the Holy Land Foundation trial.
Herein lies the problem in treating this as a law enforcement act; this is why we need a declaration of war against Islamic terrorism, not just ISIS or al-Qaida. Under that scenario, if you’re an American citizen seeking to join this terrorist group — not an organized professional army — your rights as a U.S. citizen would be revoked. You’re joining forces with the enemy, an unlawful enemy; you’re not a legitimate combatant and therefore not recognized by the Geneva Convention.
If we head down the path the lawyers in this case are pushing, then Hezbollah, Hamas, the Quds Force, Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa and Al Quds Martyrs Brigade, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, al-Qaida, the Taliban, Jemaat al-Islamiyah and all the others must be recognized as organized professional armies. This is a very dangerous slippery slope, combined with our releasing the enemy back to the enemy — as Obama continues to do in releasing enemy combatants from Guantanamo Bay.
Prosecutors also wrote that the current fighting in Syria has been determined a noninternational armed conflict — a battle between a nation-state and an insurgent group or between two rebel groups within the borders of a single country — which would invalidate any claims of combatant immunity. And even if the fighting in Syria were considered an international armed conflict, they said, the men can’t be considered combatants anyway.
“They are, if they must be categorized within the international law of armed conflict, best categorized as aspiring war criminals,” the prosecution said.
Let us never forget, in the history of warfare, armed conflict, there’s a reason why those captured on the battlefield not in uniform were tried and summarily executed. It was to protect civilian populations from being caught in the crossfire of battle. And if you’ve seen the recent drone pictures of Homs Syria, you know what happens. And then these uninformed combatants flee and come to other nations, where the enemy can infiltrate because they don’t declare themselves by wearing uniforms and openly carrying their arms.
The 21st century battlefield will require leaders who won’t succumb to insidious, and deadly, games of political correctness. Here we are with unconscionable rules of engagement on the battlefield, and these lawyers are about to provide legitimizing status to barbaric war criminals. Funny, I don’t recall Rep. Ellison or President Obama addressing this last Wednesday. So, if this categorization were to be accepted in the court next week, then ask yourself, were Syed Farouk and Tashfeen Malik legitimate combatants, soldiers, who conducted a military operation in San Bernadino?
No, they were just savage butchers, unlawful enemy combatants who attacked innocent civilians. If we don’t get serious and let this enemy know we’re dead set on killing them and crushing their theocratic-political totalitarianism, we will not win. Remember Hillary Clinton said we should “empathize” with our enemy. And Bernie Sanders, heck, he’ll be too busy redistributing the wealth and resources of America. Neither of them could be trusted to protect our republic and its citizens. And based on the actions and rhetoric of folks like Obama and Rep. Ellison, we don’t have anyone safeguarding us now.