To the editor,
When at war, there are Rules of Engagement that have been accepted worldwide. They include such things as rules on the use of poison gas, humane treatment of captured uniformed prisoners and even the types of munitions being used. These rules were established for wars between established governments. We are now at war, but not with any specific government. We are dealing with loosely organized political groups where no Rules of Engagement exist. We, and the rest of the established governments, try to protect ourselves in a humane and acceptable manner.
This simply does not work.
I would suggest that we set up rules for terrorists that consider these independent types as though they do represent a government. When in an active combat situation exists this is presently being done. But when the situation exists in a peaceful area it is called a terrorist activity and treated as an act of civil disobedience, workplace violence or something similar and treated in civil courts. This is unacceptable.
As an example, such terrorists, regardless of nationality should be considered as enemy combatants that are not in uniform and are therefore, “spies” with an existing, and accepted penalty. And this does not require that any act has been accomplished. The accepted penalty for this is, “execution.” This should also include the way our newly defined “homegrown terrorists” are treated.
When will we ever accept the real facts and balance the scales.