The precedents set forth by Ike, Dick, and Dutch should apply to the wives of the approximately 800 male ISIS POWs now in the custody of the US military.
Those women who followed their boyfriends into a long terrorist excursion in Syria with the hope of killing no less than Bashar Assad himself are themselves potential terrorists. Once dealt with by the Syrian court system – which operates on the Islamic world’s robust legal interpretation of victor’s justice – the West will never have to worry about these prisoners reappearing to bring mayhem somewhere else in the West; a reappearance that would no doubt be preceded by a generous stint living off of the West’s multi-trillion dollar welfare hegemon.
This alternative is better than simply releasing them, a problem which Trump has warned our foolish laws will require unless their home nations take them back.
Of course, our glorious President Trump should not be in a position where he might have to free ISIS POWs into the wild where they would vanish beneath the shadows of the criminal underworld.
In a sane legal system our heroic leader would be empowered to order the US Army to line up any terrorist POWs and their wives in front of a firing squad for execution: The Geneva Conventions were not intended to benefit non-state combatants, especially combatants who swore allegiance to the most sinister terrorist organization in modern history.
But we have no such luxury as a sane judicial system; what we have is one in which the 9th Circuit has outlawed the Constitutional right to keep and bear straws.
Because of Progressive Globalists absolutely every aspect of life from gender, to carbon atoms, to asking a waiter for a lonely plastic straw is now tied up and delayed with bureaucratic paperwork unto all eternity: If it were up to their precious “international law” the imprisonment (let alone execution) of ISIS POWs would be stuck in court for decades only to end with their release after 1 to 2 years for “good behavior”.
Fortunately, the Condor Principle followed by Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan vis a vis the Shah; Pinochet; the Contras, 1980s Saddam, Hosni Mubarak, and other American backed dictators, has a solution to this problem. (On a side note, and to be fair, the Principle was also followed to a certain degree by Truman, JFK, Lyndon Johnson, and Carter, though Republicans were the most skillful at adhering to the Principle whereas Democrats were the least skillful and have only gotten worse since).
The Condor Principle is an agreement by the United States to remain neutral towards any human rights violations committed by a foreign tyrant so long as that tyrant agrees to remain aligned or neutral towards America’s military and economic interests. At worst, the United States would, only for PR purposes, encourage the tyrant to do a better job keeping his oppression behind closed doors.
It should be noted that the brutality of the Condor Principle is only necessary to the extent a foreign population itself is brutal and/or cannot be trusted to freely vote for a government that will, at a minimum, not interfere with American military and economic interests.
Because the Principle played an indispensable role in the defeat of the Soviet Union’s Cold War against Capitalism, it has the virtue of being backed by real history – not feel-good Wilsonian-Progressive hallucinatory-history about the “inevitability” of global Democracy.
It is also, like all of the best governing systems, flexible enough that it can be applied with success across niche situations and use cases.
In Assad’s niche use case the Condor Principle can be applied to an Assad dynasty that has been continuously hostile, to varying degrees, to America since the beginning of the Cold War when Syria agreed to become a Soviet client state.
It applies because our interests on the treatment of ISIS fighters are aligned for this situation – Assad will enjoy executing these ISIS POWs who once dreamed of executing Assad as much as Trump will enjoy not having to worry about what they will do if he releases them.