Same with the Geneva Conventions: We don't owe anyone fighting out of uniform and/or in a way that is designed to place civilians at risk anything more than a quick execution. Yet many unhinged people want to grant these animals full constitutional privileges. For an example, just read some of Mr. Knapps rantings.

The only lesson people seem to have learned in the last few years is that if they complain loudly enough they can safely ignore any fact that is damaging to their argument.

Remember we ad hoc with having troops in many places in Europe after WWII until we were able to come up with formal treaties and it still changes every so often.

Wayne... I simply don't agree that things are too complex to formalize rules of conduct. Terrorists clearly do not deserve to be treated as simple prisoners of war, for instance. But that is an argument for a new framework, not for a simply throwing ones hands up and saying that everything has to be ad hoc. What I find frustrating is that many people don't seem to understand the danger of not formalizing things at some point. We need to be able to wage a sustainable campaign against the jihadist threat, but for it to be sustainable it ultimately needs to be institutionalized. We knew we needed to spy on the Soviets after WW2... we didn't just send a few guys to do it, we created the CIA. We knew we'd need to help defend Europe... we didn't just deploy troops, we signed a formal treaty. Not only does it create a legal basis for our actions, but it forces our leaders to forge a national consensus.

Can you tell I'm wringing my hands?

I would agree that in the long run it is better for the US to state your standards and stick to them. Unfortunately few are willing to do it in a way that would work. They only want to state the nice part of rules and not the bad one. Yes it not nice to spy but not spying would be foolish. Does this mean we if we catch a spy, we should say “no big deal we do it too so no retribution”? That would be foolish. We have to look after our own interest just like other countries look after theirs. Should that mean anything goes? No. The U.S. should state we will treat you fair until you don’t treat us fair. As long as they do then we should keep our standard even if it hurts. However if the other country doesn’t hold up their end then we are allowed to play dirty too.

As for the terrorist example, if Pakistan is doing a good faith effort to impede terrorist camps in their county then we shouldn’t invade. They may not do as much as we would like but a good faith effort is enough. Iran doing nothing to impede terrorist camps in their country or worst yet supporting them is justification to attack them. If the U.S. have a terrorist group in the U.S. and did nothing about it then another country taking action would be understandable. That country should be weary of retaliation for that action as well. That just the way it is and pretending otherwise is unwise.