I am in no way qualified to answer the question as to legality.
Sorry Wilf if I brought you in the debate for a bad reason. Though you may have something to say.

With the exception of your use of "monkeys" I agree
Sorry, it is a literal translation of a French expression to say that you understand. No offense.


I disagree, the Geneva Convention is an "agreement" between potential warring parties; sort of a quid pro quo thing. I realize there are rules of law beyond the Geneva Convention, but if your enemy fails to follow anything resembling a set of rules of conduct (murdering civilians intentionally, using human shields, terrribly mutating their prisoners, etc.), then why are we obligated to treat them like Soldiers? I'm not advocating whole sale slaughter or torture, but simply that they haven't earned the right of being treated like a legal combatant.
Geneva Convention are not conventions between fighters. They are conventions on how to conduct war. The fact that the opponent does not follow them is not a reason to not follow it as US or other government who ratified the GC are bound to respect the GC. And after, it is a question of your honour as a soldier that is at stake. You have to disobey an unlawful order, in the letter and the spirit. (Raw translation of French soldier manual). I believe that you have the same.

The question you address is in fact the recognition of the opponent as a jus hostis: a lawful enemy. But still, as I said previously, it is not because delinquents are not following the law that police has the right to break it. It is all the point in the “humanitarian” conduct of war. I would rather say the Human way to conduct war. (if it is possible)

I am an advocate for killing those non-shooting insurgents/terrorists who post videos on the web that inflame hate and recruitment to the radical side as much as I support killing those who are emplacing IEDs.
Political leaderships being one, and unarmed (woman with a cell-phone) reconnaissance being another.
Here the distinction between lawful target and unlawful target takes all its sense. A woman doing recognition ops is a lawful target just as a spy (consider the spy status is defined and law applicable to them in GC). A child soldier is a lawful target. The boy carrying the gun of his dad on the way to an attack is more unclear but on a pure legal point: it is not a lawful target. (How to make the difference? Good question, especially under fire)
But on the other hand the propagandists are civilians if they do not conduct active recruitment. The reporters are not lawful targets and are protected by laws and GC. Why should it be different for the enemy? The question is all about active participation in a military operation. Hosting people when you do not know they are enemies does not make you a criminal. Organising the rest and recover of enemies makes you an active actor of the conflict. Killing is may be not the best solution.

Killing politicians is even less clear. If you kill a political or religious leader, then you recognise them as combatants. So you cannot claim that it is unlawful to target your politicians and religious leaders or opinion makers. Then you open the Pandora box for civilian killing.
If the cause you are defending is justice… Then you are counter productive. If you catch them and trial them, then you are more productive as you show that you practice what you defend.