There once was a Star Trek episode in no weapons were used, the warring nations would send emails or some form of communication and each time a certain 10,000 or 100,000 or what ever would march off to die under the hand of their own government. I did not like it even as a TV episode. The fact we continue to move in that direction as a policy may be the biggest problem we face in this or any country.

I am an Episcopalian. I served in the U.S. Army and as a United Nations Peacekeeper. For American forces, conduct is governed by "The Law of Land Warfare" (which codifies lawmaking treaties to which the USA is a Party: The Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions of 1929 & 1949, the U.S. Code, the U.C.M.J., and "International Custom" which is "unwritten law"). Army Field Manual 27-10 (revised in 1956 with legal precedents from the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crime Tribunals in mind and still in force for American troops) states: "The prohibitory effect of the law of war is not minimized by military necessity. Military necessity has been generally rejected as a defense for acts forbidden by the customary and conventional laws of war." There is to be no blurring of civilian populations with hostile forces out of "military necessity." This is immoral and illegal. And while we are on the topic, torture is a crime, in some cases a capital crime (see U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C). Kasher and Yadlin (along with some members of the former Bush administration) have lost their way. In addition to erroneous claims of "military necessity," under the Law of Land Warfare, it is a "defense not available" to assert that the law of war was violated pursuant to the order of a superior authority ("I was only following orders."). Also, a person who committed an act which constitutes a war crime is not relieved of legal responsibility because they acted as a head of state or in the role of a responsible government official (leaders are held accountable even if they don't get their hands dirty or bloody). There is a longstanding (and universal) legal and moral distinction between combatants and noncombatants. Kasher and Yadlin are attempting to argue "military necessity" (safety of troops) to justify acts which are indefensible under Laws of Warfare. The 1949 Geneva Convention clearly and specifically defines as "Protected Persons" civilians, prisoners of war, and wounded, sick, and shipwrecked members of armed forces. Kasher and Yadlin should know better.

By enabling "our" combatants to jump the queue for their own safety—so that their safety comes before the safety of civilians (whoever they are).

This is nothing new. In my activist anti-nuke youth in the '80s, many an angry family argument started with "Your father was on that boat headed for Japan---if we hadn't dropped The Bomb, you might not be here kiddo!"

[Somehow, I don't the burning, irradiated victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would find MY existence their be-all and end-all... :-/]

JC Fisher