Jewish Law on Enemy Combatants and Detainee Rights, Round 2

[Name], though I value your opinion, in this case, your initial post and the response you have offered to my critique are deeply lacking. It is regrettable that, in the heat of debate, you have neglected the time honored tradition of intellectual honesty.

Your points, one by one:

1) I brought to this argument the halachic concepts of "pursuer", "self defense", "obgligatory war", "authorized war" and directly referenced Nachmanides to refute a statement that you had made. I would feel extremely confident were you to bring in a halachic authority on who is being more accurate, you or I.

2) You have done exactly that - conflate terrorists with illegal aliens. This is utterly unjustified, and you have yet to apologize, to my knowledge. Many illegal aliens in this country are otherwise completely law abiding, hard working people. To equate them with terrorists who wish to murder innocents is reprehensible.

Moreover, their status in Jewish law is clear - enemy soldier. Jewish law makes no distinction between uniformed and non-uniformed soldiers. Even were they to be innocent civilians, our actions would be absolutely justified. In the context of war, Jewish law authorizes the killing of civilians when it is not avoidable (i.e. when civilians have not fled from the field of battle, such as during the siege of a city). Halacha even permits the taking of enemy civilians as slaves, depending on the type of war in which we are engaged. How much more so, then, is it justifiable to detain individuals from the field of battle, in the context of an ongoing war, in order to accurately determine their intentions, when lives are at stake.

You have refused to provide a single halachic source that would indicate we must treat enemy soldiers as common criminals. The reason why the commentators derived the rules of war is precisely to differentiate between what is right and just in a time and place of war, and a non-war, civilian setting.

3) Both "pursuer" and "self-defense" apply to this conflict. You should confer with a qualified rabbinical authority. There are very few exceptions under which non-Jewish or secular states may participate in a war, from a halachic standpoint.

4) I have addressed parts of this above. These individuals are not accused of any crimes - they are enemy combatants until such time as they are no longer deemed to be, with no limit to their detention. These are soldiers, not criminals.

To apply civilian law in this case is a true travesty of justice that perverts the entire system. What next? Will you handcuff our troops to their humvees and have them get a signature for every bullet expended? After all, you assume that these individuals must be provided rights, the first of which is a basic assumption of innocence. What right do our troops have to engage in war against those who are presumed innocent until convicted by a jury? Preposterous! It is a massive overreach by the judiciary, which you support. These people are planning war, and you are playing games.

In the words of our sages, "He who is compassionate to the cruel, ends up being cruel to the compassionate."

5) Really? Did the nation of Amalek receive a fair trial? Was there a trial before their men were slain on the field of battle, their women and children exterminated, their king hung? What of the other Seven Caananite nations? You are utterly confused on the halacha in this case, I assure you. The only reason I chose to comment is to avoid a confusion of Jewish Law.

I urge you to evaluate the world in which we live not through the lens of emotion, but Torah and Halacha.

Separately, from a secular standpoint, to put it in the words of many honorable Americans, you have a pre-911 mentality.