old europe wrote: Stealing is a crime. A thief is violating the law. By your logic, it wouldn't be a crime to steal from a thief.
Let's not distort what I am saying so that one can comfortably disagree with it.
The Geneva Conventions are the law for all those who are signers of those conventions. The USA is a signer. The terrorists murdering their prisoners and civilians in Iraq are not signers of those conventions, nor are they obeyers of those conventions. No signer of the Geneva Conventions is legally obliged to abide by those conventions in a conflict with those who are not signers of those conventions and/or repeatedly are violators of those conventions. Therefore the USA is not legally obliged to abide by those conventions in a conflict with those who are not signers of those conventions and/or repeatedly are violators of those conventions by murdering their prisoners and civilians.
Therefore the USA is not legally obliged to abide by those conventions in a conflict with terrorists in Iraq who are not signers of those conventions and repeatedly are violators of those conventions by murdering their prisoners and civilians.
So lets modify your attempted analogy to fit the situation I am discussing.
Murder is a crime. A murderer is a criminal. By my logic, it would not be a crime to
kill a person who is attempting to
murder me and other civilians. It is one's moral obligation to
kill a person who is attempting to
murder one and other civilians.
Perhaps you think that ruthless. I think that couragous.