I agree to an extent--it should be updated to clarify that people fighting out of uniform are still entitled to full protection.
I have yet to see an example where that's true. There are lots of claims about this but I suspect corruption of those who make those claims--people don't want to follow the rules for the same reason people 100 years ago didn't want to follow the rules--because they think their cause is more important than the values encoded in the GC, that the ends justify the means, and so on. And they're wrong.
I agree.
I disagree. The Khadrs are also ineffective, as are most terrorists. I think the threat from terrorism is overblown this notion that our civilization will come to an end if we don't undermine every value we've ever fought for is wrong.
Traffic accidents kill more people. Terrorist acts are terrifying (they're meant to be) and they grab headlines but they are NOT all that effective, they do not do significant damage to our social structures, our governments, our institutions, or our population.
Yes we need to stop them, the same way we need to stop murderers, rapists, serial killers, and other scum of the earth. However civilization does not come to an end if the police fail to catch a couple of criminals, no matter how nasty they are, and that applies to terrorists like the Khadrs as well.
As for Khadr's rights they are pretty simple and not very new or different:
1. The right to a fair trial
2. The right to be treated as a child soldier, which he was
The first of those was as relevant when the Magna Carta was drafted as it is today. The 2nd is a 20th century conception but I think just as important.
These are not difficult things to do, and doing them would not undermine our society. In fact in the long run the way to win the war is to claim the moral high ground, undercutting support for your enemy in the long run. That may result in some short term setbacks but it is the only way to win in the end.
The nature of war has changed in one significant way in the last 100 years: 100 years ago another way to win was the complete annihilation of your enemy including all of their women and children, but we don't do that now. As a result winning in the modern world MEANS winning hearts and minds, and any killing done along the way must necessarily be a means to that end, and therefore restricted by that end. Eventually ALL modern conflicts are settled by negotiation and accommodation. Any other solution is a temporary measure inherently: since genocide is off the table the enemy is never truly eliminated.
To the extent that failing to abide the GC's undercuts trust and removes our claim to the moral high ground it undercuts the only viable long-run victory condition.
You will hate this Seth, but it's absolutely true: All modern wars are eventually won by civilians. In the modern world soldiers can win battles, but soldiers cannot win wars.
Don't believe me? Who won the war between the British and native North Americans? The correct answer is it isn't settled yet. Military victories inevitably give way to a resurgent enemy who puruses his same interest in new ways hundreds of years later until some lasting political solution is achieved.
