This is beginning to disgust me. All your talk about "acceptable loss" seems to limit it's definition to foreigners who happen to be somewhere around the Middle East.
When you're talking about killing, there is NO such thing as "acceptable loss." It is, in fact, unacceptable.
If, say the U.S. was a very war torn, unstable region, and some country, let's say India (a very democratic system might I add exists there) gets attacked by a well known terrorist living in the United States.
Then India decides to retaliate, starts rooting out terrorists all over the place in North America. Decides, Hey! Canada's got an unreasonable dictator that is abusing his power. Let's get rid of him.
So in goes India's army, and the war's over in several weeks.
India begins planning to circumvent all those international Commissions and Standards groups, and starts planning a camp to convict, try, and execute people India doesnt like, somewhere around Buffalo, or Rhode Island.
So it end's up that a few Americans get stuck in this camp. Nobody from India's ever heard of them or really cares who they are. Considers that if a couple of people like this died, it would be an "acceptable loss."
Now how would you feel, if you were one of them. Never really took part in any of the Wars, fighting, and always practiced your religion faithfully (or in the case of atheism, practiced no religion).
You stand in front of this tribunal, which seems to deem it an acceptable risk that they haven't found out much about you. But there's a chance, that you might've killed someone in your lifetime, so they sentence you to death.
Hardly seems fair does it?