Is Glen Reynolds recommended the US commit war crimes?

Glenn Reynolds, a Right Wing University of Tennessee professor of law and the self-styled "Instapundit", seems to be encouraging Bush to kill Iranian civilians. Referring to reports that Iran is arming the Iraqi insurgency, Reynolds argues:

"This has been obvious for a long time anyway, and I don't understand why the Bush Administration has been so slow to respond. Nor do I think that high-profile diplomacy, or an invasion, is an appropriate response. We should be responding quietly, killing radical mullahs and iranian atomic scientists, supporting the simmering insurgencies within Iran, putting the mullahs' expat business interests out of business, etc. Basically, stepping on the Iranians' toes hard enough to make them reconsider their not-so-covert war against us in Iraq. And we should have been doing this since the summer 2003. But as far as I can tell, we've done nothing along these lines."

So assasinating Iranian civilians isn't a war crime according to Professor Reynolds, it's just "stepping on their toes". In case you think he was only being flip with this completely insane prescription, he goes on to confirm:

"I think it's perfectly fine to kill people who are working on atomic bombs for countries -- like Iran -- that have already said that they want to use those bombs against America and its allies, and I think that those who feel otherwise are idiots, and in absolutely no position to strike moral poses. We may wind up doing so via airstrikes, but it would be better to do it in a more selective manner."

Um, when exactly did Iran treaten to use an atomic bomb against the US? The answer is never.

Fortunately, some blogger named Blue Texan brutally exposes how completely batshit-insane such a foreign policy "strategy" is, especially as we are not at war with Iran.

Blue Texan also links to, and cites extensively from, a great editorial by columnist Paul Campos in the Rocky Mountain News.

Campos, a law professor at the University of Colorado, helpfully point out that:

"[Reynolds' argument] involves certain time-tested rhetorical techniques. First, make a provocative claim that happens to be false. In fact, no Iranian government official has ever said Iran wants to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. Then use this claim to defend actions, such as murdering civilians, which would remain immoral and illegal even if the claim happened to be true. Finally, condemn those who object to using lies to justify murder as "idiots," who don't understand the need to take strong and ruthless action when defending the fatherland from its enemies."

Can you imagine what the international outcry would be if hard line Iranian clerics openly advocated assassinating US government workers and religious leaders here in the United States? Reynolds would be the first to demand Iran be referred to the Security Council.

Please note, I in no way support or excuse the horrific human rights record, or virulently anti-semitic platform of the Mullah of Iran or their insane head of government. But targeted assassinations of civilians, besides being flagrantly illegal under the Geneva Conventions the US is a signatory of, would be th surest way to enflame the already perilous military occupation next door in Iraq.