Let's see, I think the author forgot about that one legal quandry that is the most likely to result in being punished by death: murder.
That's what it's called when you shoot captives or otherwise disarmed people, even in a war.
I see this myth that non-uniformed combatants, terrorists, pirates, etc., may be shot on sight. In no English legal tradition has that ever been legal. I defy anyone who espouses this view to provide even a single example of such a practice being accepted at law.
Piracy law was much the same as the law of irregulars and non-uniforms: people who engage in it are subject to criminal punishment, whereas uniformed Navy and Army may not be punished, even where they engage in exactly the same conduct as the non-uniformed.
That has always been the general rule. So spies and terrorists, if caught, were tried by either court martial or in the civil courts and executed if they were convicted of the crime. People who did the same fighting in uniform were held in camps and released when the war was over.
Iain, it's nearly impossible to notice the effect that being Caucasian in appearance and english speaking has on the way the "international community" evaluates how terrorists should be treated. I've never heard of anyone in America calling for summary executions of the Irish-Americans, including congressmen, who gave money and aid to terrorism in Northern Ireland.
