As a common criminal.
I understand the visceral desire to see this guy labeled a combatant, but the term “enemy combatant” has a specific legal meaning.
An illegal combatant is not accorded Geneva Convention protections until his or her surrender is accepted. The Geneva Convention specifically allows soldiers to reject the surrender of an illegal combatant (armed and engaging in combat without wearing a uniform and not part of an organized military unit) at which point he could be summarily executed on the battlefield.
Once the surrender of an illegal combatant is accepted he becomes subject to due process of law — either military or
civil, including provisions accorded a regular enemy combatant.
A simple enemy combatant is accorded legal protections. He must be released at the end of the conflict, is not subject to criminal prosecution for battlefield actions consistent with prosecution of a war (killing another soldier in combat) and must be fed, sheltered, and protected.
In exchange for surrender that combatant becomes a prisoner of war, forfeiting combatant priviliges. (One example: an escaping POW who kills or injures someone while escaping can be tried and punished for that.)
These guys should not be dignified with the title of combatant. Technically they are filibusters — the land-going equivalent of pirates. They can be shot out of hand, but once they have surrendered they receive the same rights as any criminal.
Personally, I don't see a dime's worth of difference between these two and any other mass murderer, including Kermit Gossnell. Treat them the same as McVeigh. Give the surviving one a fair trial, convict him, strap him to a gurney and put a needle in his arm.
Works for me because we are a nation of laws, not a place where the king makes the rules.
Sounds good to me. I was really surprised at how fast McVeigh was executed. Let’s hope this is the same.
I learned something today- thank you. I would've guessed it meant that they wouldn't shut up. :-)