Out-damn-standing take-down in NRO today:

[T]he Times's gambit today reprises another oldie-but-goodie: the Bush administration's purported denial of human rights to captured terrorists (to whom it is the paper's amiable wont to refer as "young Arabic men"). Thus, this morning's page-one screamer reports that the administration has reversed itself and is denying the protections of the Geneva Conventions to some of the fighters captured in Iraq — which, for example, justifies permitting them to be removed from the country for interrogation purposes.

This may be the most transparent example yet (at least this week) of the Times's trying to make something out of nothing at Bush's expense. Members of the international network of Islamic terrorists against whom we are at war are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 whether they are captured in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pittsburgh.

During wartime, combatants are privileged to employ military force if they are members of a national army, or of a militia that is part of such an army and that conducts itself accordingly — meaning that its members are subject to a formal chain of command, wear uniforms, carry their weapons openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.... [summary of law of war omitted]

Terrorists flip these laws on their heads: They are not state actors; they intentionally target civilians; they torture, behead, and otherwise execute their prisoners; and, when not crashing airliners into skyscrapers, they actively seek chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons to maximize carnage. As a matter of law they are patently not entitled to Geneva protections. As a matter of common sense, it would be suicidal to accord them such protections because that would reward and legitimize their tactics.

...

Senator Kerry assures us that, while he would wage a more "sensitive" war, he would slam terrorists just as vigorously as the president. ...

Al Qaeda terrorists do not have any more right to stay in Iraq under benevolent captivity than they had to enter to country and begin murdering civilians and our troops — not to mention trying to foment civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. Under existing international law, they may not be tortured; and unlike their own practices, we won't be beheading them and beaming the tape over to al-Jezeera. But, much as this may dismay the Times, they don't get Miranda warnings either.

...

Just like yesterday's news, today's story — if you read between the lines, rather than just what the Times decided was "fit to print" — is another reason why national security would best be served by the president's re-election next Tuesday. War is always messy, but it has to be fought to win.

This is sooooo better than when he told James Spader, playing "Steff":

Blane: "Steff. You buy everything, Steff. You couldn't buy her, though. That's what's killing you, isn't it? That's it, Steff, she thinks you're shit. And deep down, you know she's right."*

I mean, that was good too. But his is even better.

How many times are you going to keep doing this lame joke? So the men have the same name. Is it really funny to pretend you've got them confused? -- ed. Well, I think it is, yeah. Trust me, it's not.--ed. Some jokes have an audience of one. That goes out the window when you're begging for cash, douchebag.--ed You're not nearly as polite as Mickey Kaus' fake editor, you know. Just don't do this lame joke again, and we'll get along fine.--- ed.

* Thanks for the quote correction to Golden Boy.