The New York Times thinks that the administration is "rewriting the Geneva Convention," when in fact it's the New York Times that is engaging in revisionism.

Mark Danziger explains the historical foolishness of the argument that it's important for us to abide by Geneva so that our enemies will. In fact, when we grant Geneva rights to people who have no rules at all, we weaken the Conventions, and strip them of meaning. There are good reasons to treat Jihadi prisoners humanely, in general, but Geneva is a very misguided and in fact counterproductive one. And as a commenter points out, it's only possible to make the argument that the Times does if one has never actually read the Conventions.

I'm surprised no comments on this yet. I almsot wrote earlier, but then again, there is nothing new about the New York Times writting such an editorial that displays their ignorance of the subject in which they write, their desire to degrade the US, and their total disregard of the effects that their dogma will have on the safety of our troops.