Will we fight terrorism or not?

Thank God for Jack Bauer.

The fictional hero of the television series "24" may be the only true defense we have against terrorism in this country. We just have to hope and pray that Osama and the other cave-dwelling Muslim terror rats get Fox on their satellite service.

If they do, and they watch counter-terrorism agent Bauer interrogating murderous vermin using any means necessary, they may actually start to worry that the American people have the will and strength to defend themselves against any enemy using whatever means is necessary.

On the other hand, if they are watching cable TV news, we are doomed because they will discover that we are quivering neurotic feel-good do-nothing pansies who would rather make friends with terrorists than make them talk.

Never mind the 3,000 dead Americans from September 11. Or worse yet, never mind the 3 million dead Americans the first time we don't stop Jihad Jim from blowing up his nuke bomb in the middle of Manhattan.

All that matters - if you get your world view from the politically correct folks at CNN, FNC and MSNBC - is acting by the "rules" and behaving yourself like proper gentlemen. It kind of reminds me of the battles between France and England in the 17th century where the commanders would enjoy a tea behind the lines while sending their troops forward in neat, orderly rows to "engage" the enemy and die.

That gentlemanly form of slaughter worked fine until one side decided not to play by the rules. But the bloody French and Indian War on our own continent established that one man playing by his own rules could kill a dozen playing by gentlemen's rules. Within a few years, the British had learned their lesson and stopped marching men to their deaths.

Nowadays, we have one side that doesn't play by any rules - the terrorists whose only goal is to kill as many of us as possible - and one side which still thinks it is more important HOW you fight the war than whether you WIN it. Yeah, that's us, the guys with the sign on our back that says, "Blow Me Up!"

How could this be? Are we so morally clouded that we honestly do not recognize the difference between a U.S. victory and an al-Qaida victory in the War on Terror? Do we really think we will win the world's accolades because we are "nice" to our enemy while he cuts our heads off?

Unfortunately, many of our most influential citizens do think that way. Rosie O'Donnell does. Keith Olbermann of MSNBC does. David Gregory of NBC does. Howard Dean does. So if the terrorists are watching cable news or talk shows, they are probably not at all worried about being caught by us.

And this week, the terrorists found out that many U.S. senators are trying to protect terrorists from the indignity of being interrogated (in the unlikely event that the under-manned American military or the depredated U.S. intelligence agencies should get ahold of them in the first place).

John McCain, Lindsay Graham, John Warner and Susan Collins are four Republican senators who decided to put international law (and feel-good moral superiority) above American law and down-home, no-terror-tolerated homeland security. As leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee, they teamed up with Democrats to try to stop the CIA and other agencies from interrogating terrorists. Oh sure, we can still bribe them to talk, and we can feed them three-course dinners to fatten them up, so that they may decide to spill the beans while smoking cigars over snifters full of brandy afterwards.

But heaven forbid we dunk these vermin in water and try to scare them into talking about where the next bomb attack is planned! That would be an "outrage upon human dignity."

Thanks a lot, Sen. McCain. I mean, thanks a lot for looking out for the human rights of Osama bin Laden. We wouldn't want to upset the world's top terror madman in the unlikely event that we captured him - we wouldn't want to deprive him of sleep by playing heavy metal music! We wouldn't want him to get the idea that we were so dedicated to our own survival that we would sink to that level!

The "outrage upon human dignity" line comes from so-called Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1949 where civilized nations came together to try to prevent war crimes and atrocities in future conflicts. That noble goal is obviously very dear to the people of the United States, and anyone who does not think so is a fool.

But the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties should not be used for something other than what they were intended - which for the most part is to establish civilized rules for the treatment of uniformed soldiers in armed combat. They were not meant to be loopholes to permit murderers to go unpunished. And they were not meant as a way to ensure that future murders could go forward as intended by the bad guys.

In fact, they were not even intended to be applied to a war like the current War on Terror - at least not in the way that the Gang of Four on the Armed Services Committee would have you believe.

First of all, the Geneva Conventions apply only to signatories of the treaties. Article 2 of the 1949 treaty says plainly that the provisions apply only when two or more of the "High Contracting Parties" are in conflict against each other. So far as I know al-Qaidastan is not a nation yet, and even if it were, I don't think President Osama would sign a document that would forbid al-Qaida from torturing women and children or cutting heads off of innocent American contractors like Nick Berg.

So the Geneva Conventions don't even apply.

But let's say that they did, as former Secretary of State Colin Powell and McCain's Gang of Four claim. If that were true, then Common Article 3 would have to apply in our dealings with Osama, wouldn't it?

Uh, no. Actually just the opposite if anyone were to read the actual document instead of listening to the talking heads on cable TV. Article 3 applies specifically to "armed conflict not of international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties."

Can you think of a more international war than the War on Terror?

Article 3 is relevant only in internal wars, civil wars or rebellions - not the kind of conflict which we are engaged in now, a conflict of civilizations that stretches from a field in Pennsylvania to the caves of Afghanistan.

So Article 3 is only a club used by anti-American forces to try to sway worldwide public opinion against us as we work to defend ourselves from a brutal enemy. Congress and the president should in reality not be wasting our time with such a debate in the first place, but since they are, let's consider the crux of the argument - whether or not the United States has a right to define "outrages upon personal dignity."

As used in the document, the phrase merely encompasses "humiliating and degrading treatment." Since this is vague and unclear, the president has asked that the language be amplified with America's understanding of what kind of treatment of terror prisoners is "humiliating and degrading." Thus everyone will know what can and can't be done.

Short of that definition being put into place, the military has informed the president that interrogation of prisoners of war will need to cease immediately because of the risk to military personnel of being put on trial for war crimes.

Well, Sen. McCain, what say you? To paraphrase Sen. Kerry's infamous quote of the 2004 campaign, were you "for" the war on terror before you were "against" it? You can't have it both ways. You are either in favor of interrogating terrorists, or you are against it.

And don't try to confuse the issue by saying that if America uses waterboarding on its prisoners, then the same thing may happen to our soldiers when they are captured. Our soldiers would be relieved and delighted to know that if they were captured in Iraq, the worst that would happen to them is they would be dunked in water until they were coughing and frightened and paralyzed with fear. Instead, they face mutilation, burning, electrification and beheading. I'll say it once again - al-Qaida does not honor the Geneva Conventions. Period.

Which brings us back to Jack Bauer.

He doesn't follow the Geneva Conventions either. If he catches a terrorist, and he thinks there is even a chance the guy will be able to provide information that will save innocent American lives, he doesn't mess around by calling Sen. McCain for permission to interrogate - he shoots the terrorist in the leg. After that "warning shot," he puts the gun to the terrorist's head. Every once in a while the gun goes off. Usually, Bauer feels bad about it, but not as bad as the terrorist.

And you know what? Bauer usually wins. Maybe HE will run for president in 2008. We could sure use him.