I want to say coming out of the chute on this that I am very heartsick for the families of the latest two soldiers killed in Iraq.  I won’t dwell on their brutal deaths, enough other people are doing that. What I am concerned about is the r…

But as for your unease, I'm guessing you didn't read far enough into your link. I quote:

Even after effective occupation of territory, members of the armed forces who have not surrendered, organized resistance movements, and genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation, but they must distinguish themselves from the civilian population, or at least carry their weapons openly during attacks and deployments. Any direct involvement by civilians in these hostilities would be unlawful.

If you contend that the "insurgents" are a levee en masse you 'll have a hard time deying that they have not separated themselves from civilians. In fact, they have done just the opposite.

I tend to get a bit edgy at the sight of phrases like en masse. My bad.

How much more inflamed do you expect them to be?

I would argue that nothing we do can inflame our enemies further than they are already inflamed and I've not seen a shred of evidence to say otherwise.

Andy – What I am referring to is our general gentility toward our enemies because of misguided political of humanitarian motives. We have refrained from attacking enemies in mosques, despite ample proof that they use them as weapon supply depots, ambush points, and sniper nests. We have chosen not to lay siege on terrorist strongholds for fear of causing injury to civilians in that same area who have chosen to remain there. We have allowed such murderers as Moqtada al-Sadr not only to live but to actively fight against us even though we know well who and where he is, and that his strength comes largely from his Iranian backing because we worry about inflaming the distinct minority of Iraqis.

Note, by the way, that I'm not saying that the GC is null and void but that it is a treaty. Treaties are only valid between signatories. I am also not saying that we shold not abide by the GC. I happen to believe that we are. I do believe, though, that in dealing with those who do not abide by the treaty, we err in using the GC as the sole guide of our behavior. What should guide our behavior in this war is what defeats the enemy quickly and decisively.

What's the "restraint" you want removed? You seem to be implying that we should be, at mimimum, much less discriminate in picking targets. Or, to take that line of logic to it's extreme, we should be broadening the responsibility for the insurrection beyond the insurgents. But I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I also don't get the reasoning that says the Geneva Convention(s), or at least the idea, is null and void because of the terrorist's tactics. We're not trying to convince the terrorists to behave humanely. We're trying to prove to a sceptical Middle East public that we're capable of behaving humanely, even in the face of brutality.

Tom – It's not the torture that has inflamed me, but the revelation for what must be the bazillionth time, that our enemies in this war are not signatories to and indeed have no intention on honoring in even the smallest way, the Geneva Conventions. We have heard for four years how the GC must be our guiding light even as those waging war against us have used civilians for cover, have committed actual acts of torture, and have sawed off the heads of hostages. I simply point out that for all the warbling about the GC, we remain fairly ignorant of what it does and does not allow us to do.