Moral justification for the execution of criminals of war?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think "agreement not to kill each other" need apply when one party clearly hasn't gotten the memo.  It's pretty simple-- you deprive a kid of life, you lose yours.  

-and there, is an incompatibility, an inconsistency, some incongruence.  It's your notion of this that has the exception, you must understand?

Of course, because we're so "genteel," we will extend to these POS luxuries their victims don't get, like a trial.

Because someone else committing crimes is no reason for us to commit crimes, yes.  Extrajudicial killings are an even lower category of deed than judicial killings, in this view.  

In my opinion, sheltering someone that evil is itself an evil, and shows a weakness of character rather than strength of one.

We have laws to that effect as well - they're not really moral judgements but people do take them to be (or to correspond).  Harboring, sheltering, complicity before and after a fact.  Alot of the time it's family or an so that does it - another instance of the many ways that human beings are compromised, and particularly compromised when they have some emotional connection to the people involved - victim or perp.  For or against.

Not terrorism?  You really believe these are meant to be surgical strikes?

Correct, not terrorism, because word - what does it mean.  Yes, drone strikes are meant to be surgical strikes - again..what is word.  Whether or not they end up that way...obviously one of the many problems you and I both see with drone strikes.  Our other lethal options are bigger missiles or boots on the ground, both of which would be certain to amount to even greater collateral damage.  It;s deciding that we're going to kill killers that puts us in this situation.

Is it ....bad...or something?

I don't-- I hear the message loud and clear: "You associate with anyone who's on America's wrong side, even by something as happenstance as living nearby or being a member of the same family, and you and everything you hold dear could be forfeit at any moment, without any warning"

And in case you think I'm reading it wrong, consider Bush Jr's big speech about the new axis of evil, where he said (I'm paraphrasing but I can look it up if you want), "Either you're with us or you're against us, and if you're against us, we will hunt you down."

Seems like he might have been trying to invoke a particular emotion-- ebullient glee maybe?

Are we supposed to look at Bush the Dumbers opinion as right thought?  Is it bad form if that guy refers to emotion as a justification or approved motivation for killing, but good form if you do?  You can see how the "let's not kill each other" rule makes any waffling back on forth on these issues and carving out exceptions moot, yes?