What should we do with IS returning fighters

[Thanas]

So I'm in favor of lenient punishments. But they still need to be watched as their giving up might not be genuine.

I am not in favour of lenient punishments for anybody who joined ISIS after they took Mosssul and proudly displayed their atrocities for all to see on the internet. Because at that point you cannot claim they made a mistake.

[loomer]

Yeah. These are people who willingly, voluntarily, and knowingly joined a state engaged in armed hostilities with the government or an ally of the government of the nation they are from. That on its own is or ought to be viewed with strictness, but when we factor in that this is a state that openly and loudly shouted to the world with great pride about their atrocities, it moves from a perhaps understandable (but treasonous) sympathy (let's say, hypothetically, an American fighting for Canada if Trump decides to annex the Yukon or some shit, or maybe even some early volunteers when it was still primarily a fight against Assad) for a legitimate cause into the willful support of genocide, mass sex slavery, and pogroms of gays - and that's without touching on the rest of the shit they did.

Why the hell should we be lenient with these people? Were they lenient when they were throwing gays off rooftops? Were they lenient when they blew up priceless artifacts? Were they lenient when they raped and tortured Yezidi women and children? Were they lenient when they cut off men's hands for theft? Were they lenient when they sold men, women and children into slavery? Were they lenient when they forcibly removed organs from prisoners for transplantation? Were they lenient when they tortured and mutilated people for crimes against a version of (blasphemous) Sharia law so strict and byzantine that even hardline Islamists couldn't be expected to know it?

They do not deserve leniency. Throw them in a prison for the rest of their lives, because these are war criminals of the highest and foulest degree. If they wanted leniency, they should have come to us earlier, surrendered before their Caliphate began to lose. But they didn't. They're rats fleeing from a sinking ship, not principled men who realized they were on the wrong side. The only exception I see are those with special vulnerabilities - mental illness and intellectual disabilities that left them open to manipulation.

A man who says 'oh, they didn't give me four wives and a car and a house, so screw those guys' is not genuinely repentant. He went there for the promise of women to rape and a house stolen from its rightful owner. Those men brought to daesh by the promise of women to rape deserve nothing less than life imprisonment, and make no mistake: Any fighter who went because he was promised four wives, knowing how daesh acquires those wives, has elected to join them for the opportunity to rape.

That's who we're dealing with. So fuck leniency. Treat them as humanely as possible, but give their victims the justice they deserve.

[Zaune]

I am not in favour of lenient punishments for anybody who joined ISIS after they took Mosssul and proudly displayed their atrocities for all to see on the internet. Because at that point you cannot claim they made a mistake.

Even if they deserted after seeing those atrocities first-hand and realising, however belatedly, that they couldn't bring themselves to be an accomplice in them?

[loomer]

I am not in favour of lenient punishments for anybody who joined ISIS after they took Mosssul and proudly displayed their atrocities for all to see on the internet. Because at that point you cannot claim they made a mistake.

Even if they deserted after seeing those atrocities first-hand and realising, however belatedly, that they couldn't bring themselves to be an accomplice in them?

If they joined any time in the last few years, they joined on the promise that this was the place those things happen. They joined because they were promised the opportunity to throw gays off a rooftop, to rape women, and to own slaves - or at the least, to defend a country where those things are the law. They cannot plead ignorance unless they belong to a special class of person of real vulnerability to manipulation.

There may be a place for mild leniency - that is, fifty years not life - for those who never fired a shot, but at the end of the day these are still people who saw gays being thrown off rooftops, the Yezidi being genocided, and men beaten to death for shaving and thought 'yeah, this is right for me, I want to join and help'. Every single fighter for daesh who joined over the last three years is a person who saw these horrors and wanted in. Not only are they morally bankrupt and traitors, they pose a real public safety risk.

EDIT:
And you know, maybe if they'd left earlier, I'd be singing a different tune. The guy who realizes he's in over his head when daesh starts their crimes is one thing. If he runs and surrenders, maybe he does deserve special treatment - but at this point, we're down to the people who stuck to the end, the hard liners. Unless they're part of that specially vulnerable class, these are not the people for whom conscience lead them to surrender - these are the rats fleeing the sinking ship.

[Zaune]

I wasn't suggesting they should plead ignorance. But not everyone who got trapped in the Da'esh Internet Tough Guy echo-chamber goes on to be a war criminal themselves; seeing ISIS atrocities in a doubtless selectively edited video is one thing, but face to face would be something else. Maybe enough for some of them to start to lose their nerve and realise that no, they don't want to be part of this.

And the last thing we need is for those people to feel that they have nothing to lose because it's too late.

[bilateralrope]

So I'm in favor of lenient punishments. But they still need to be watched as their giving up might not be genuine.

I am not in favour of lenient punishments for anybody who joined ISIS after they took Mosssul and proudly displayed their atrocities for all to see on the internet. Because at that point you cannot claim they made a mistake.

Fair enough. I'm not opposed to life in a humane prison for ISIS members.

I just want there to be a clear difference between what happens to someone who surrenders and someone who keeps fighting. Something to give them an incentive to surrender.

[loomer]

I wasn't suggesting they should plead ignorance. But not everyone who got trapped in the Da'esh Internet Tough Guy echo-chamber goes on to be a war criminal themselves; seeing ISIS atrocities in a doubtless selectively edited video is one thing, but face to face would be something else. Maybe enough for some of them to start to lose their nerve and realise that no, they don't want to be part of this.

And the last thing we need is for those people to feel that they have nothing to lose because it's too late.

If you voluntarily take up arms to defend a state that commits atrocities, knowing full well that it commits those atrocities, then you are aiding those war criminals. Every single voluntary daesh fighter is a traitor guilty of a treason offence, and one who did so with the express purpose of enabling and aiding in atrocities.

Those 'selectively edited videos' of atrocities were not clean and happy 'look at how great the caliphate is! Everyone is great!' like some of the propaganda. It's 'and now watch us behead these people before we throw these faggots off a rooftop, what fun! Next on Channel Daesh, the Flogging Hour!' They wanted to be part of it. They took up arms to be part of it. And now they will face the consequences. Let's not forget that not everyone who, as you say, gets caught in the Daesh ITG echo-chamber goes to join and actually takes up arms, either.

I suppose I just don't see any benefit for them to surrender than to die fighting. If they die fighting, we don't have to worry about people who saw the brutal beatings of prisoners or the murder of men and children for nothing more than having the wrong religious identity and went 'fuck yeah, gimme some of that'. These are people who have said to the world, by taking up arms to support a brutal and barbaric state, that they support what it stands for. So while I remain opposed to moral grounds to treating them as they treat their captives and to summary executions of any prisoners taken, I cannot see a world in which I am happy for any fighter who is still voluntarily fighting for daesh or who has been until recently to return to his or her country of origin in anything but chains to spend the rest of their life in prison.

Maybe time will see me mellow. Maybe they can, in fact, be safely and successfully deradicalized and returned to society. But until that time, the protective function of incarceration must be paramount, and the law is clear at least in my country: Take up arms for a country or organization that is at war with us, and you will go to jail for the rest of your life.

[Thanas]

I just want there to be a clear difference between what happens to someone who surrenders and someone who keeps fighting. Something to give them an incentive to surrender.

Even if they deserted after seeing those atrocities first-hand and realising, however belatedly, that they couldn't bring themselves to be an accomplice in them?

Quoting you both:

Their first widely circulated videos involved the destruction of artifacts and cutting people's heads off. Their first targeted twitter propaganda towards men in the west involved widely circulated bills of sale for slave girls. I have very little sympathy for those people and think they are little better than the guys who volunteered for Nazi death squads (I am using Nazis here because they are one of the the other largescale war-criminal state with lots of volunteers most people know of).

I am okay with treating local conscripts like other conscripts who joined evil organizations in the past (see for example the Waffen-SS). But guys who volunteer for this shit are not deserving of any mercy. They are lucky they get to keep their lifes and maybe after a long prison time and rehabilitation they can rejoin society as productive members of it.

But membership in ISIS after the propaganda effort went worldwide should be enough to automatically make you complicit in war crimes. They do not even get the flimsy excuse of "Oh I did not know those things were happening" because everybody who watched evening news in the west knew about it. Everybody who used facebook and twitter knew. Everybody who just walked down the streets in the past few years and saw newspaper headlines knew. This is not even like the Nazi regime which at least made a token effort to hide their crimes by showing propaganda reels of happy jews in Theresienstadt, this is the equivalent of the Nazis hypothetically showing films of gas chamber mass murder to the entire population. ISIS happily broadcasted their crimes to everybody who was listening.

People who went to join ISIS after their propaganda effort kicked in in full force do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. They should be heavily punished.

[bilateralrope]

Thanas, I accept your point. I'm going to rethink my position. So far:
- I am against executing them. In part because I'm against the death penalty in general.
- I can support a life sentence in a humane prison.

I suppose I just don't see any benefit for them to surrender than to die fighting.

What about the effects on others in the area of the fighting ?

Both the soldiers fighting against ISIS and civilians who are stuck in the middle.

[Simon_Jester]

Effects on others in the area of fighting?

Honestly, in the long term it isn't likely to make much difference. The foreign ISIL fighters from countries like Australia are such a vanishingly small proportion of ISIL's total strength that letting them surrender without punishment isn't going to end the war significantly faster.

You'd want to look at other countries in the Middle East for that... And I suspect those countries WILL accept large numbers of former ISIL fighters back at the war. I also suspect they'll end up regretting that decision in the long run. Because now they have countries full of unreconstructed ISIL-types.

[MKSheppard]

Administer the traditional Soviet method(s) of execution.

[The Romulan Republic]

Administer the traditional Soviet method(s) of execution.

Yeah, fuck due process! Three cheers for despotism!

[Zixinus]

I want to make a suggestion that many of you will not like:

I think there should be an amnesty for those that surrender or actively defect, under these conditions:
- they will be an investigation into whether and what kind of war (or other) crimes they did. If the war crimes can be clearly be proven above a well-defined threshold, they will be trialed with some mitigation (depending in the nature of participation and of the crime).
- they surrender. Being captured does not count.
- they cooperate and willingly with intelligence. This includes confessions.
- they make public statements denouncing IS, on public record.
- they go on a list, so if they do something bad in the future, their history will be known. This means giving at least fingerprints for future police use. These people did receive training they may potentially use against themselves.
- probably something else obvious.

The reason I think it should be considered is multiple:

- It weakens IS and helps discredit it, along with its ideals. That is, arguably, more important for the future.

- The people that were initially hooked in with stupid stuff (or not so stupid stuff like in the article, a new home and wife and car is a pretty rational if naive reason) and have since wised up a reason to quit. The disillusioned (or suckered or those who thought they had nothing to lose) will then have a rational reason to give up and maybe return to their old lives or start new ones elsewhere.

- Likewise, if a somewhat cynical reason, the people that don't take the amnesty make a choice to stay with IS. These people get straight-up war crimes trials with no mitigation of any kind but more importantly, takes away any last vestige of claiming to be a victim of circumstance. "You might have been suckered in due to whatever, but once you knew about the amnesty you choose to stay and keep doing the bad stuff you now knew for sure to be doing!"

- Give a reason to give up rather than keep fighting to the last.

- General moral standing of not tossing lives casually under the bus.

[Tribble]

Well in Canada it's going to be practically impossible to successfully prosecute the majority of these fighters, so I suppose close monitoring and attempts at reform are the only real options.

[Solauren]

Well in Canada it's going to be practically impossible to successfully prosecute the majority of these fighters, so I suppose close monitoring and attempts at reform are the only real options.

Hence, why I say hand them back over to Syria/Iraq. They committed the crimes in that territory, let that territory deal with them.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well in Canada it's going to be practically impossible to successfully prosecute the majority of these fighters, so I suppose close monitoring and attempts at reform are the only real options.

Hence, why I say hand them back over to Syria/Iraq. They committed the crimes in that territory, let that territory deal with them.

You do know that extradition is a process, with established procedures, that can be contested in court?

[MKSheppard]

Yeah, fuck due process! Three cheers for despotism!

God bless Winston Churchill

The British government opposed the establishment of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunals at the end of the second world war because it wanted selected Nazi leaders to be summarily executed and others to be imprisoned without trial, according to a contemporary account that is declassified on Friday.

Winston Churchill made the proposal at the "Big Three" conference at Yalta in February 1945, according to the account, but was overruled by Franklin D Roosevelt, who believed the US public would demand proper trials, and Joseph Stalin, who argued that public trials possessed excellent propaganda value.

The British eventually agreed to the war crimes trials despite the misgivings of some senior government officials who believed the decision to prosecute the surviving Nazi leadership for waging a war of aggression would set a dangerous precedent. They also feared the prosecutions would be on a par with the high-profile show trials in Stalin's Russia.

Basically, anyone who joined ISIS basically decided to leave the human race of their own accord. So, let's help them on the next step in that process by, per wikipedia:

In the Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia, convicted awaited execution for a period around 9-18 month since the first sentence. That is the time which typically needed for 2-3 appeals to be processed trough soviet juridical system, depend on court of which level first sentenced convicted to death. Shooting was the only legal means of execution, though the exact procedure has never been codified. Unlike most other countries, execution did not involve any official ceremony: the convict was often given no warning and taken by surprise in order to eliminate fear, suffering and resistance.[citation needed] Where warning was given, it was usually just a few minutes.[citation needed]

The process was usually carried out by single executioner, usage of firing squads being limited to wartime executions. The most common method was to make the convict walk into a dead-end room, and shoot him from behind in the back of the head with a handgun.[25][26][27] In some cases, the convict could be forced down on his knees.[28] Some prisons were rumored to have specially designed rooms with fire slits,[25] while in others the convict was tied to the floor, his head against a blood draining hole.[28] Another method was to make the convict walk out of the prison building, where he was awaited by the executioner and a truck with the engine and headlamps turned on. The lights blinded and disoriented the convict, while the noise of the engine muffled the shot.[29] Sometimes the execution was carried out outdoors in front of the grave in which the convict was to be buried.[30]

The body of the executed criminal was not given to the relatives, but rather buried in anonymous graves in undisclosed locations.[31]

[The Romulan Republic]

So Winston Churchill supported summary executions. What's your point, unless this is an appeal to authority fallacy?

Personally, I don't feel membership in the human race is something that one can forfeit for the sake of political convenience. That kind of negates the entire point of "human rights".

[loomer]

Thanas, I accept your point. I'm going to rethink my position. So far:
- I am against executing them. In part because I'm against the death penalty in general.
- I can support a life sentence in a humane prison.

I suppose I just don't see any benefit for them to surrender than to die fighting.

What about the effects on others in the area of the fighting ?

Both the soldiers fighting against ISIS and civilians who are stuck in the middle.

While I am sympathetic to the people caught in the crossfire, it again bears repeating that at this point we are primarily down to the true believers or the true idiots. I also have sympathy for the idiots - anyone with intellectual disabilities or mental illness (or another factor that would make them severely vulnerable to manipulation) deserves gentler treatment not out of a sense of general leniency, but because that is how a civilized society treats the vulnerable and when faced with barbarism it is important we not surrender all of our civility - but at the end of the day, the bulk of fighters left fall into the former, not the latter. I do not see that any appeal to them with an offer of leniency will see daesh melt away, and if it does, it will melt away in exactly the way counter-terrorist analysts have feared: radicalized, experienced young terrorists who may, or may not, carry out attacks or form the nucleus for jihadist groups in their home countries.

Given these circumstances, I maintain that a slightly longer war with fewer daesh survivors is a preferable outcome for the world. And I say that as an advocate for deradicalization generally, and with all sympathy for the families of the men and women who went to fight for daesh. Their heartbreak is also our heartbreak, but their sons and daughters had the choice not to go, had the choice to desert, and have chosen not to until the end. Two years ago I would have gladly supported an amnesty - now I do not. Fight until the bitter end for a cause as barbaric and monstrous as daesh's, and a bitter end you will receive.*

(*exceptions made for the handicapped and those who tried to desert but were effectively forced to remain and fight, obviously, if that can be verified.)

I want to make a suggestion that many of you will not like:

I think there should be an amnesty for those that surrender or actively defect, under these conditions:
- they will be an investigation into whether and what kind of war (or other) crimes they did. If the war crimes can be clearly be proven above a well-defined threshold, they will be trialed with some mitigation (depending in the nature of participation and of the crime).

Sorry, you've already lost me. Every last daesh fighter is complicit in the war crimes of the entire organization, and more than that, they are guilty by default of an offence carrying a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment in Australia. Investigations should be held - but any that does not recognize these two basic facts for fighters returning to Australia (and I would hope elsewhere) will be a joke. Every single fighter who joined knowing what daesh stood for joined to fight for and defend those atrocities - there is no room for an excuse of ignorance or 'well, I only drove the trucks with the gays in it, I didn't throw them off the roof' here, except for that specially vulnerable class of people I outlined above.

Every last daesh fighter is a war criminal. They are complicit in so many crimes it's almost easier to list what sections of the Geneva Conventions and the additional protocols they haven't violated.

- they surrender. Being captured does not count.

The time to surrender was earlier in the fight. Surrendering because your side is losing is not surrendering because you have a moral conscience.

- they cooperate and willingly with intelligence. This includes confessions.
- they make public statements denouncing IS, on public record.
- they go on a list, so if they do something bad in the future, their history will be known. This means giving at least fingerprints for future police use. These people did receive training they may potentially use against themselves.
- probably something else obvious.

Fine and dandy, but ineffectual.

The reason I think it should be considered is multiple:

- It weakens IS and helps discredit it, along with its ideals. That is, arguably, more important for the future.

- The people that were initially hooked in with stupid stuff (or not so stupid stuff like in the article, a new home and wife and car is a pretty rational if naive reason) and have since wised up a reason to quit. The disillusioned (or suckered or those who thought they had nothing to lose) will then have a rational reason to give up and maybe return to their old lives or start new ones elsewhere.

I need to remind you that the 'not so stupid stuff like... a new home and wife and car...' is not a motive we want to have roaming around, because you cannot be aware of what daesh stands for and not recognize that your new home is a stolen home, your new wife is a slave for you to rape and not an actual wife, and your car is probably stolen from its rightful owner as well.

Those are not acceptable things to be bought by. Any man brought to fight for daesh by the promise of property or wives is brought by the promise of theft and rape. I might even prefer to give amnesty to the religiously and ideologically motivated, because at least they have a code of ethics, however foreign and repugnant it may be to me, and cannot be convinced to participate in some of the worst barbarism of the last two centuries with little more than an offer of being able to rape women.

- Likewise, if a somewhat cynical reason, the people that don't take the amnesty make a choice to stay with IS. These people get straight-up war crimes trials with no mitigation of any kind but more importantly, takes away any last vestige of claiming to be a victim of circumstance. "You might have been suckered in due to whatever, but once you knew about the amnesty you choose to stay and keep doing the bad stuff you now knew for sure to be doing!"

This is the only reason I find particularly agreeable.

- Give a reason to give up rather than keep fighting to the last.

I posted earlier I see no benefit to more daesh fighters surviving than dying. I still don't - not when to a man they are war criminals of the foulest order.

- General moral standing of not tossing lives casually under the bus.

There is nothing casual about my position. As a rule, I am all in favour of amnesties, of leniency, and of attempts at reconciliation. As a rule, I am not a fan of prisons in general, and as a rule, I prefer peace to war. I do not propose an idle flick of daesh lives under the bus, as you suggest. I propose that we treat them as they deserve: Humanely, but firmly, with life imprisonment as the law clearly sets out as the appropriate penalty for their acts of gross treason, and in the doing we can give some justice to the hundreds of thousands murdered, tortured, and raped by daesh.

If anything, I find suggestions of amnesties and leniency and 'oh, come on back, we'll forgive you' to be casually throwing justice for the dead and maimed and raped under the bus. Never forget when you speak about a daesh fighter that you speak of a man who either directly participated in or willingly, with full knowledge, stood up to grab a gun and defend a state that participated in the murder of Yezidis, the rape of women and children, torture, public beheadings, forced organ theft, the murder of shias, the destruction of priceless cultural heritage, genocide, and the use of civilians as human shields.

Do not be so quick to esteem their lives that you throw justice for those they have wronged under the bus instead.

[Solauren]

Well in Canada it's going to be practically impossible to successfully prosecute the majority of these fighters, so I suppose close monitoring and attempts at reform are the only real options.

Hence, why I say hand them back over to Syria/Iraq. They committed the crimes in that territory, let that territory deal with them.

You do know that extradition is a process, with established procedures, that can be contested in court?

Not if you deny them re-entry in the first place.

[bilateralrope]

It occurs to me that there are three ways of dealing with them:
- As criminals. No special treatment. Follow due process. Let returning ISIS members reenter the country if they have citizenship. Arrest them on specific charges if they have broken that countries law. Give them a fair trial. If found guilty, punish them according to the law. If they haven't broken any laws of that country, they can go through the extradition process like any other extradition request.
- As enemy combatants. Nobody here seems to be suggesting this, so I don't see any reason to discuss it further.
- As terrorists. The route that has already led to plenty of human rights abuses by people claiming to be the good guys. The route that hasn't been shown to help in any way.

I'm not seeing any convincing arguments for anything other than the "as criminals" route.

[Tribble]

Hence, why I say hand them back over to Syria/Iraq. They committed the crimes in that territory, let that territory deal with them.

You do know that extradition is a process, with established procedures, that can be contested in court?

Not if you deny them re-entry in the first place.

The right of Canadian citizens to reenter their country is pretty absolute. Canadian citizens have the right to enter and leave via section 6 of the charter, and even Sec 33 (the notwithstanding clause) cannot be applied to it.

Technically there could be some limitations set due to sec 1, but off the top of my head I'm not aware of any case law or legislation expressly forbidding them from returning (and the latter would almost certainly be subject to a constitutional challenge).

So ya, unless our government is willing to blatantly violate one of our main constitutional rights, they are almost certainly allowed to come back. And unless there is sufficient evidence to arrest them, they will be allowed to travel within Canada freely. That being said they would probably be closely monitored by groups like CSIS though.

[Solauren]

Now, here is the Charter question for you;

By joining ISIS, most of the fighters actually renounced their home country. (Hell, one idiot made a video explaining why he did it, including examples of how he was a typical Canadian, etc). They renounced their citizenship to join a foreign power Canada's allies were actively at war with.

Does that remove their citizenship?
And if not, SHOULD it?

[Tribble]

Now, here is the Charter question for you;

By joining ISIS, most of the fighters actually renounced their home country. (Hell, one idiot made a video explaining why he did it, including examples of how he was a typical Canadian, etc). They renounced their citizenship to join a foreign power Canada's allies were actively at war with.

Does that remove their citizenship?
And if not, SHOULD it?

Probably not.

If they want to renounce their citizenship they have to formally apply to do so, and according to the guidleines they would be ineligible due to point 5 and point 2 as well if they do not have dual-citizenship:

What are the requirements?

To be eligible to renounce your Canadian citizenship, you must:
-be a Canadian citizen;
-prove that you are or that you will become a citizen of a country other than Canada if your application to renounce is approved;
-not live in Canada;
-be at least 18 years old;
-not be a threat to Canada’s security or part of a pattern of criminal activity; and
-understand the significance of renouncing your Canadian citizenship.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-re ... n-9-1.html


As for the government, Bill C-6 (which will probably end up going to the Supreme Court) allows for the government to revoke citizenship under the following conditions:

Grounds for revoking citizenship

Canadian law allows for revocation in certain circumstances. Subsections 10(1) and 10.1(1) of the Citizenship Act provide that a person’s citizenship or renunciation of citizenship may be revoked if the person obtains, retains, renounces, or resumes citizenship by
-false representation;
-fraud; or
-knowingly concealing material circumstances.

Citizenship may also be revoked if a person (who is a dual citizen), before or after the coming into force of subsections 10(2) and 10.1(2) and while the person was a Canadian citizen,

-was convicted of terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offences, depending on the sentence received; or
-served as a member of an armed force of a country or as a member of an organized armed group and that country or group was engaged in armed conflict with Canada.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-re ... ation.html

Note that this legislation is working its way through the courts and so far the rulings have been that the government cannot revoke citizenship without a fair hearing. IMO it's highly unlikely that the Canadian government would be able to revoke citizenship to prevent a dual-citizen fighter from returning until after the hearing has been held and the decison made.

Obviously home-grown fighters who have sole-Canadian citizenship have more or less an absolute right to return (though they may be arrested if there is enough proof to warrant doing so, or they may at least be closely monitored).

Should it?

IMO this should be treated as evidence that can be used against them in court (whether criminal or a citizenship hearing etc), but perhaps not in and of itself sufficient to automatically revoke citizenship.

[MKSheppard]

It occurs to me that there are three ways of dealing with them:

You forgot door #4; as I have stated; summary execution as unlawful, stateless combatants.