Well, frankly, if you're gonna be sarcastic, I don't mind, but at least get your setup straight. I know a lot of sarcastic people, myself included, so it's no skin off my teeth.
In this instance I'm referring to your discussion of moral practice. I think we seem to be "talking" at cross purposes in several places. For instance, execution of spies, partisans, etc.... I simply don't address it from a moral perspective. In fact, most actions in wartime could be fairly described as amoral or possible immoral (as long as your not a relativist). So, yeah, silly you.
"I speak of everyone who recognizes it as perhaps the most horrific method of torture of all time." Really, pray tell, who are they? You, AI and HRW? Maybe some of your friends? I wonder if in fact they've done much research on torture or just complain b/c it's one of the methods cited as being used in the "war on terror".
Just since you're not clear on the subject, spies are people that disguise themselves in the uniform of their opponents or in civilian garb. I don't actually need to cite a source. You might as well ask me to cite a source if I side the sun often looks yellow or the sea looks blue when hit by sunlight or viewed from a certain angle. You DO realize, I hope, that spies can't operate effectively if the walk around in the military uniform of the side they belong to, don't you? That LOGICALLY leaves only two alternatives, the other side's uniform or civies. In military parlance, if nothing else, what you're suggesting is called recon, not spies. In a hostile environment, they may indeed be killed, but usually in combat, not by a formal firing squad...like a spy.
So, had the mullahs of Iran or Assad in Syria had OBL, you'd have supported an invasion of those countries? Likewise for Sadam? It's irrelevant to this question whetther any of them actually did, b/c I'm only trying to make sure I understand your position clearly. One could logically conclude from your assertion that the US would have been justified in attacking ANY country that harbored OBL (including some of our "allies" should they've chosen NOT to hand him over and let him run freely about). And I only bring up Iraq in response to your allegations in this thread about that decision.
I looked at your article postings, but they fail to back up your claim that the US was INTENTIONALLY TARGETING civilians. This begins to sound more like the debate in the hiroshima/nagasaki thread about the nature of what type of weapons should ever be allowed to be used vs a MILITARY target, lest ANY civilians be hurt or killed. Do you condemn the Allies from WW2 b/c there were civilian casualties during the Normandy landings?
Was that aticle 5 of the GC or DHR? I ask b/c you claim it's in both, but don't say which one you're citing in your post.