The Cass article is helpful, as far as it goes.

On particular merit is the observation that Handen v. Rumsfield does not necessarily extend POW protections to captured Al Qaeda, only that such status may be appropriate if otherwise warranted.

The quetion is whether Al Qaeda people are "partisans" (and Cass so describres them), entitled to the privileges of lawful belligerency or whether they are bandits--criminals.

Here is where nations of the world differ. Geneva Convention Additional Protocol I, dated 8 June 1977, not ratified by the United States, would grant lawful belligerent status to mere rabble fighting behind and among protected persons, without uniform, equivalent insignia or even openly borne arms, so long as the rabble were fighting "occupation"--that is, killing Jews or Americans.

This whole issue has been and is being set up by the other side as a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose situation. Under Protocol I, they get to dart out from their Mosque or a civilian welling, completely in civilian garb, launch their missles, then run back inside hollering "Olly-olly-in-free!", as though war were a children's schoolyard game.

Another dangerous myth arising from the situations discussed in the article surrounds the practice of allowing bandits to use one's territory as a base from which to attack Jews and Americans, then complaining when the victims defend themselves. Contrary to what Cass writes, we can and should cut off trade with and destroy the cities of those who consistently and flagrantly allow breaches of their own neutrality. Ask Musharref how this works.

They deserve the same treatment the pirates got.

Lou: To be entirely too fair to Professor Cass, he merely meant that one cannot blockade or destroy the cities of Al Qaeda et al. I'm sure he would agree that sanctions or military action against those who harbor them would be appropriate.