Which Side of the Fence are You On?

I have emphasized before that this was a struggle of Cuban patriots against a Cuban dictator. ...we made it repeatedly clear that the armed forces of this country would not intervene in any way.

Any unilateral American intervention, in the absence of an external attack upon ourselves or an ally, would have been contrary to our traditions and to our international obligations
--John F. Kennedy, Bay of Pigs Invasion speech (1961)

Willard Gates: Raven... how do you feel when you're doing... [indicates murder headlines] this?
Phillip Raven: I feel fine
--This Gun for Hire (1942)
______________

While President Kennedy's speech included a small untruth regarding U.S. involvement, he nonetheless spoke to an electorate who understood the job of their President, and as a president who understood his obligation to international law. ''...this Government will not hesitate in meeting its primary obligations, which are to the security of our Nation.'' That is the truth, a truth unfortunately made murky by this administration, with the complicity of the press.

It is this subtle, ethnocentric agenda of most MSM interests me. A small bit recently on a Bay of Pigs veteran provides an example:

TITUSVILLE, Fla. - A Bay of Pigs paratrooper will sky dive Saturday in Titusville to commemorate the 46th anniversary of the ill-fated U.S. invasion of Cuba.

Special Forces veteran Edel R. Fernandez of Titusville was a paratrooper during the April 17, 1961, invasion. He was kept as a political prisoner for almost two years.

So, Mr. Fernandez jumped into Cuba as a part of a U.S.-trained, equipped and funded military assault force that had as its intention the overthrow of the government of Cuba, which most Americans will recognize as a sovereign, if much maligned, state. And he then morphed into ''Political prisoner.''

How did he turn into persecuted hero ideologue from paratrooper? He did not languish in Gitmo for five years as an armed enemy combatant.

Even though paratrooper Fernandez did not ostensibly nor in point of fact represent a nation, the U.S. policy was to require the Cuban government to treat them as bona fide POW's. Yet today, we do not afford that same right to the prisoners we hold at Gitmo, who instead meet with inappropriate punishments.

Our standards are inconsistent. Without a doubt, men like Fernandez killed Cuban soldiers during this venture, yet none of them were tried for the crime of murder, as we trying to do with the Gitmo inmates. Killing on the field of battle is not murder, nor should it be treated as such.

Therefore, the correct title for Mr. Fernandez during his capture in Cuba would be ''POW,'' as he was captured on the field of battle by a sovereign state. But the confusion is understandable in a country which eschews calling a spade a spade, for that precise nomenclature would entail responsibility. Responsibility today seems the most onerous of things for this country to own up to.

If you are responsible, you must ensure proper care and treatment. To earn the title humane, you must not abuse your responsibilities. If you are uncertain or ambivalent, and do not define your status in relationship to another, anything is possible. That anything usually ends up being the languishing of those which have come under your provenance. And that is neither kind nor fair nor just.

Just because Mr. Fernandez hired on with the U.S., doesn't automatically make his cause just. He is not exempt from title of combatant simply by virtue of his affiliation. He was a shooter, not a political protester. Likewise, the U.S. is not presumed to be ideologically justified simply because is it advancing its own interests. Terms like ''right'' and ''terrorist'' are often determined by which side of the fence on which you live.

If we were to play the semantic game that Mr. Fernandez was a political prisoner, then what are the occupants of Gitmo and other secret prison facilities throughout the free world? Political prisoner applies more aptly to present-day U.S. detainees than to Mr. Fernandez, who was a mercenary invading a sovereign state. Most Gitmo prisoners were indigenous fighters defending their homeland, not offensive fighters-for-hire captured in a foreign territory. They were the home team.

For all of his vilification, Castro treated these prisoners more equably than U.S. policy is managing to do in Cuba today.

Hindsight indicates that the Bay of Pigs served as a mini-practice for later regime change type invasions like Grenada, Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a simple, straightforward formula: invade, kick ass, and kick 'em out. Put in your lackeys. Repeat, if necessary.

Only it didn't go to plan in Cuba.