from a purely legal point of view, since they were not wearing uniforms or officially fighting under orders for a national flag, they are common criminals and should be treated as such. but it disturbs me that the legal safeguards of common law might make it easier for them to get away with their crimes, or to receive a lighter sentence than they deserve.

but it disturbs me even more that i should feel that way about it. the legal standards of evidence and procedure in common law favor the defendant, and rightly so. when you start making excuses to short-circuit the law for the really bad guys, it only is a matter of time before it becomes convenient to ignore the law for anyone you feel "really" has it coming, or where it would be otherwise "disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts".

I also have second thoughts about treating enemy irregulars or guerrillas fighting against invaders in their country as if they were criminals or terrorists. we condemn the nazis for killings and reprisals against french and russian partisan forces during wwii. i wonder how we would feel about someone who invaded n america and felt they had the right to treat as criminals any civilian who took up arms against them? true, the individual acts of these individuals might merit punishment, but that has to be proven on a case by case basis. when combatants hide behind civilian clothes, they are committing a cowardly crime, but it is ridiculous for the alien forces invading their country to be their judges and executioners.