SOWELL ON GITMO: Thomas Sowell thinks we're focusing on the wrong prisoners on the favorite island paradise of Jack Nicholson, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and Noam Chomsky:

Will even the bloody terrorist attacks in London put a stop to the media's hand-wringing because they don't think we have been nice enough to some of the cut-throats who are locked up in Guantanamo? The media have never shown any such interest in how prisoners are treated anywhere else on the island of Cuba, such as in Castro's prisons.

I keep wondering why we're warehousing al Qaeda prisoners at Guantanamo. No, here's what I'm actually wondering: Why do we take al Qaeda prisoners, period? During WWII, Germans who donned British uniforms as a way to deceive British soldiers were lined up and executed on the spot when captured. Why isn't this standard procedure in the battle against Islamic extremists (and not because they violate the dress code)? I'm reminded of what Reagan said when asked about the preferred outcome of the Cold War: "Victory." Reporters thought he was kidding; history says he was right. Al Qaeda has one mission and only one mission: to kill as many Americans as possible, anywhere in the world, anytime, no distinction between combatants and civilians. Let's stop taking prisoners. The appeasement left will say that's adopting the tactics of the enemy. Precisely: a commitment to victory. "But it would inflame the terrorists." Like they're not already maxed out in the motivation-to-destroy department. What I'm advocating is not called torture. It's called the death penalty. In the spirit of George Lakoff, we might call it "assisted martyrdom." So long as we get clear on the need to fight this fight to win.