The mere fact that some faiths take a certain position on the issue is not a sensible reason to take the other side. Whatever you think of "Abrahamic Faiths" is irrelevant, as is the fact that it is a so-called "non-issue" in some parts of the world. The Chinese execute political dissidents; In some parts of India, a widow is expected to commit suicide at her husband's funeral; Muslims behead people for printing cartoons they don't like. These behaviors are sick, immoral, and *wrong*, and so are the cultures/religions that support them.

Western Civilization has rightly outlawed those barbaric practices, and we should do the same with the evil of using defenseless children as spare parts for those fortunate enough to have already been born.

You have read correctly that the Geneva Conventions do not have a classification of "Unlawful Combatant", however you have drawn the wrong conclusion. The Geneva Conventions are a list of positive rights granted to people who meet certain classifications (e.g., POWs, non-combatants). One of the major aims of the Conventions was to encourage classic army conflicts as opposed to guerilla conflicts, on the theory that guerillas are harder to distinguish from civilians and therefore increase the danger to non-combatants around them. Thus the GC's requirements that POWs must be uniformed members of national armies, carrying arms openly, etc.

Guerilla combatants are *specifically*, *intentionally* afforded none of the protections of POWs (they are only afforded those basic human rights such as food, water, etc.). They certainly have no right to any access to the US civilian court system.