She says, “Non-state actors, including terrorist groups, regularly launch attacks against states, often from external bases. When a state seeks to respond with force to those attacks, it must decide whether to use force on the territory of another state with which it may not be in conflict. Absent consent from the territorial state or authorization from the United Nations Security Council, international law traditionally requires the state that suffered the armed attack to assess whether the territorial state is “unwilling or unable” to unilaterally suppress the threat.”

Go here to read the whole thing:
http://www.asil.org/insights110505.cfm

As you probably well know, they have no protection under the rules (Geneva Convention) of war. They are the equivalent of spies or saboteurs. They do not wear the uniform of the military of a recognized nation and have no rights beyond the rights possessed by a rabid raccoon. We have the obligation to execute them at the moment of capture or imprison them for as long as we deem appropriate.

“Trying to apply our standards of laws and honor to medieval barbarians…. We will either use every means available to defend ourselves or we will lose.”

I quibble over the use of the term medieval; the jihad loons are pre-medieval.

What they are doing is, IMO, the same as insisting that a boxing match be conducted with one fighter going with one arm tied behind his back and adhering strictly to the Marquis of Queensberry rules while the other fighter follows no rules as he uses any means to not only beat his opponent but to kill him. Our legalists either do not conceive of this as an existential struggle or they are suicidal. Maybe a bit of both.

The debate about enhanced interrogation hinges on the definition of terror. For our legalists they seem to think anything that makes the prisoner uncomfortable or stressed for more than a few minutes is torture. My definition of torture is any technique that causes permanent physical injury to the prisoner. It seems to me that is pretty much what Yoo had in mind when he wrote the opinons about enhanced interrogation. Waterboarding is terrifying but it doesn’t do permanent injury and it is effective. Most of our military air crew have experienced it and other enhanced techniques during their SERE training. We can do it to our military people for training purposes but not use it on our enemies. This is, like so much else, a complete contradiction of values and thinking by the left.

It is true that our society is based on respect for the law. It has served us well because it provides a sense of fairness and good order to our dealings with one another. However, we are dealing with a foe who recognizes no rules, no laws, and is intent on wiping us out. Bush said in some of his speeches that this was not a normal war and it could not be prosecuted in the normal manner. IMO. he was spot on. Trying to apply our standards of laws and honor to medieval barbarians is the same mistake the Romans made. We will either use every means available to defend ourselves or we will lose.

On another note, I see Obama visited my unit: the 101st Airborne. I can tell you that although all troops were expected to conduct themselves with professionalism, there was lots of rolling eyeballs and cursing, sotto voce.

The French are, well, French. They can be exasperating at times, but admirable nonetheless. They know their nation lost its status as a world power in WW2. Yet although they are no longer a first rate world power, they wish to remain distinctly French. Never underestimate their will to do so. I like Sarkozy. He had the gaul (pardon the pun) to push through the outlawing of the burka in public. Can you imagine that happening in the USA or the UK?

E-Mail: yoo@law.berkeley.edu

http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_the_barbarians.html

That other link is worth reading to see how a “legal analyst” of the left elevates the law it likes. (Our law is better than yours, so there.)

I have read Dalrymple’s account of the conclaves of Muslims in Paris and by all accounts the French have quite a problem.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/the-unrepentant-john-yoo-enhanced-interrogation-got-us-bin-laden/238356/

Excerpt:

there are now an estimated 8 or 9 million people of North and West African origin in France, twice the number in 1975–and at least 5 million of them are Muslims. Demographic projections (though projections are not predictions) suggest that their descendants will number 35 million before this century is out, more than a third of the likely total population of France.

Indisputably, however, France has handled the resultant situation in the worst possible way. . . it has flattered the repellent and worthless culture that they have developed;

No one should underestimate the danger that this failure poses, not only for France but also for the world.

Stop being rational and become hyper-partisan and hypocritical and you’ll understand.