As you all probably know, a judge decided yesterday that Guantanamo Bay prisoners may be "prisoners of war" under the Geneva Conventions, requiring greater legal protection that that currently afforded by the Bush Administration.
When reading the NYT over lunch today on the ruling, I choked on this little morsel on the front page. It is the official response of a Department of Justice spokesperson:
"By conferring protected legal status under the Geneva Conventions on members of Al Qaeda, the judge has put terrorism on the same legal footing as legitimate methods of waging war."
Apparently, when it comes to what sort of warfare is legitimate, the Bush Administration has a very strong moral code. Conventional warfare cannot be demeaned by elevating terrorism alongside it.
Whatever the legal merits of the Justice Department's position, that quote inspired the satirical article below:
BUSH ADMINISTRATION DEFENDS CONVENTIONAL WARFARE
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Nov. 8 --
A federal judge today ruled that President Bush may have erred by classifying detainees as non-prisoners of war for purposes of the Geneva Conventions.
The response from the Bush Administration was swift.
In a prepared statement, President Bush remarked, "Legitimate means of warfare just don't get the respect they deserve anymore. We are a country that values conventional war. My opponents don't like to admit it, but a true Christian masses troops at a border, and then invades with the support of heavy weaponry and soldiers who wear actual uniforms."
Donald Rumsfeld also weighed in. "The American military welcomes a fair fight. But these terrorists have proven unworthy of the mantle of legitimate war-wagers. I give the American people this pledge: We will never attack Al-Qaeda in illegitimate ways."
Following the judges ruling, unconfirmed reports swirled in the Pentagon indicating that preparations were underway to convince Al-Qaeda to adopt the "best practices" of legitimate warfare.
One rumor has a Pakistani intermediary delivering a cake to Osama Bin Laden, along with a pledge to equip him with tanks, airplanes, and submarines so he could undertake an invasion that would be recognized under international law. As of press time, Pentagon officials would not comment on the speculation, although one mid-level operative remarked, "Let's just say we hope Osama likes chocolate with sprinkles on top."
"Look," said a senior aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the issue, "We are committed to protecting conventional warfare from being eroded by terrorism. I think everyone recognizes just what a slippery slope it is."
Unsure how to present a fair and balanced view of this breaking story, I asked Bush Administration officials from whom I should seek comment on the Democratic side. Republican Party operatives graciously made Zell Miller available to this reporter.
Miller voiced unity with the Republicans. "If you legitimize terrorism as a method of waging war, what's next? Spitballs? Duels? When I take on Chris Matthews from 20 paces, I sure as hell don't want to subject myself to 'war criminal' status."
The roiling debate has made its way overseas, where intelligence officials indicate increased "chatter" within the terrorist network on how to respond.
"There appears to be deep divisions between various cells," one CIA analyst noted. "Cells in the south of Europe seem to favor a fundamentalist approach that gives the Geneva Conventions a strict construction. Reading the text quite literally, they agree with the Bush Administration's sharp distinction between legitimate and illegitimate war."
Ironically, some fundamentalist cells in the south appear to be coalescing with more activist cells. Some Al-Qaeda activists are said to oppose diluting illegitimate warfare by seeking acceptance within the legitimate war community, which they see as riven by hypocrisy and as a vestige of a paternalistic, repressive, pre-modern modality.
Cells in the north of Europe do not seem quite so sure. "The old paradigms of illegitimate warfare are too confining to them," noted one CIA agent. "They believe if what were once seen as illegitimate means of warfare get accepted by the 'conventionalists,' as they like to call them, exciting new possibilities emerge."
One senior White House aide promised that we have not heard the final word in this debate yet. "This Administration feels it knows a thing or two about illegitimate warfare. Whether it is a traitorous activist judge who seek to comfort the enemy by elevating their tactics in the eyes of international law, or the terrorists themselves, we have a single, tried-and-true response."
With a pause for effect, the aide intoned, "Bring it on."