Wait, that's not when Sgt. Pepper taught the band anything

Google reader has a setting whereby if people google knows you know (because you've exchanged e-mail with their gmail account) also use google reader and decide to share an item, that item by default comes up in your reader as a shared item. One guy I went to college with who likes to share items likes a bunch of very conservative blogs. I'd considered telling my reader that I don't want to see his shared items, because they're generally complete trash, but decided instead that it's worthwhile using them as a method to keep up on what (some) conservatives are thinking. That's all background for how I ended up reading, and am about to post about, an entry by Mark Impomeni from the community blog RedState. Here's the post:
Six Years Ago Today…
…Daniel Pearl was kidnapped, later to be brutally beheaded by his captors with the video proudly posted on the Internet for the world to see.

The terrorists who committed this act, were they to be captured today under the Obama Administration’s policies, would be brought to the mainland United States for trial in civilian courts, be granted the rights of habeas corpus and the right to remain silent, could not be subjected to any coercive interrogation practices, and would have the right to see all evidence against them, as well as cross examine their accusers.

Rest in peace, Daniel.
I agree, I hope Daniel Pearl is resting in peace and that his widow and family have found some measure of comfort after his death. But really, I just want to note that this guy thinks the situation he describes (accepting his hypothetical as laid out) is self-evidently wrong. He's just one person, but as best as I can tell large swathes of the conservative movement agree with him and are devoted to the idea that people suspected of crimes, or at least foreign Muslims suspected of crimes, should be either imprisoned for life without trial or shot on sight. Why this guy thinks that giving Pres. Obama, whom he certainly doesn't trust, the power to do this is a good idea is totally beyond me. I do trust Pres. Obama, and would turn against him immediately if he tried to claim or exercise such power.

Looking at the comments to the post, it seems like the idea is that enemy combatants in a war wouldn't be treated in the way described (true, especially if they're uniformed, but also if they're not uniformed but captured in a situation such that they're clearly enemy combatants), the people who murdered Daniel Pearl think that they're enemy combatants in a war with the United States (true), and therefore we should treat whomever we suspect of being those people as if they're enemy combatants in a war with the United States, and further treat them as if they're enemy combatants who committed war crimes (bat-sh*t insane1).

Update: I just read Yglesias fucking2 nail the issue I'm talking about in the paragraph above, and thought I'd post it.
Simply put, terrorists are not warriors. The German soldiers my grandfather fought during World War II killed people, but they weren't murderers; they were soldiers. When captured, they became prisoners of war, not criminals. Some on the Nazi side were, of course, criminals -- war criminals -- and were charged as such. But the typical German soldier was a soldier, entitled to return to his home and family unmolested if he survived the war. Men who blow up nightclubs and train stations and demolish office buildings, by contrast, are murderers. We neither should nor will treat them as soldiers. But insofar as that's the case, we're not at "war" with them any more than we're actually "at war" with the guy who used to sell me pot.
Exactly right. Also, I wonder if as Yglesias's place in the media hierarchy improves he'll stop publicly acknowledging past illegal behavior. That last clause is in fact toned down relative to things he's discussed in the past, but still kind of gutsy.

1. This blog has no consistent policy on the use of expletives.

2. See?