Noncombatants in the War on Terror

I suppose I shouldn't be shocked by stuff like this any more.  Alan Dershowitz argues in the LA Times today that noncombatants are not all created equal.  His principal point?

There is a vast difference — both moral and legal — between a 2-year-old who is killed by an enemy rocket and a 30-year-old civilian who has allowed his house to be used to store Katyusha rockets. Both are technically civilians, but the former is far more innocent than the latter. There is also a difference between a civilian who merely favors or even votes for a terrorist group and one who provides financial or other material support for terrorism.

One of the stranger things about his argument is that he seems to think the ambiguities towards which is pointing are anything new or peculiarly modern.  I'm so tired of the arguments that the war on terror changes everything the just war tradition has ever taught about the just causes for war, and the just means of executing a war.  I'm curious, though, precisely how certain of the more controversial Israeli tactics in Lebanon, e.g., the bombing of civilian infractructure and densely populated neighborhoods in Beruit, are designed to distinguish even the radically reduced group of worthy civilians who, even on Dershowitz's view, cannot properly be called accomplices to terror?  Ahh, this must be it:

The Israeli army has given well-publicized notice to civilians to leave those areas of southern Lebanon that have been turned into war zones. Those who voluntarily remain behind have become complicit. Some — those who cannot leave on their own — should be counted among the innocent victims.

This has to be the most egregious line in an egregious piece. Just to be clear, if a foreign state bent on military reprisal against a terrorist group tells you to leave your home, and you fail to do so, you are complicit in terrorism and, therefore, on Dershowitz's logic, you are fair game for indiscriminate attack. (Hat tip to Kevin Drum.)

On a different note, there's a nice little clip over at the Daily Show (I wouldn't call it funny), highlighting some of the, how should I put this, tensions surrounding the president's somewhat selective enthusiasm for the sanctity of human life.  (To see the clip, you have to click on the video entitled "Stem Cell Veto.")