Take 'em Dead, Not Alive

Ralph Peters solves the problem of what to do with violent terrorist killers caught on the battlefield:

THE British military defines experience as the ability to recognize a mistake the second time you make it. By that standard, we should be very experienced in dealing with captured terrorists, since we've made the same mistake again and again.

Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.

Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or even illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others, but by ourselves.

The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.

Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.

The present situation encourages our enemies to behave wantonly, while crippling our attempts to deal with terror.

Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an IED, killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then demand humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents tales of abuse.

Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous transnational outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal. It exalts monsters. And it provides the anti-American pack with living vermin to anoint as victims, if not heroes.

Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve the "unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With our help.

That sounds a little like something I said here regarding the Hamden decision:

But there's another group out there that's going to rue this decision as well. Who? The terrorists.

No, not the boys down at Club Gitmo, but the vermin that's still out in the caves and slums and who will be coming face-to-face with our Special Forces in the future. As long as the judicial situation involving terrorists is in limbo, what motivation will the Special Forces have in taking any of these animals alive? Absolutely none, if the prospect is a trial in a U.S. criminal court. Consequently, terrorists captured by our Special Forces in some dark nook or cranny of Iraq or Afghanistan can look forward to a brief and possibly painful interrogation to get what we can get out of them, and then will probably be "shot while attempting to escape", if you know what I mean.

This could likely become the norm as the military finds itself fighting both the terrorist enemy, and the media and their liberal allies. It's an inelegant solution, but solves the problem.