The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL

[stanleywinthrop]

So, what happened to

"Pal", I'll leave that on the shelf where it belongs.

No regards

Mike

?

--------------------------------
Ah, the riddle question (as originally stated with emphasis added):



Please note and renote "as used in the AUMF".

Let's look (text in Wiki). Gee, "combatant" ain't in the 2001 AUMF. How about that ?

The question often is a debating question - leading to "ain't in the 2001 AUMF; thence, can't be in the rules of situations covered by the 2001 AUMF; hence, you are guilty of war crimes."

Now, there is a link up between the 2001 AUMF (no combatant definitions)and the 2007 Navy Handbook (definitions) - 5.4.1.1 Lawful Enemy Combatants and 5.4.1.2 Unlawful Enemy Combatants. Gee, how could I have missed those sections. Oh, I didn't miss them - I just gave the cites to them, in The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL (the OP):



How mean of me to miss the evening feeding.

Whoever is interested in learning something can follow my leads from the AUMF (methodology in a prior post) and come up with the answers.

Regards [sic]

Mike

Well thank you for showing exactly how you misinterpreted my "as originally stated with emphasis added" question. Takes a big man to admit that. Because as I "note and renote [sic] "as used in the AUMF", i still don't know how (deleted by Moderator) I suggested you "Gee, how could I have missed those sections." Further, by attempting to assign an argument which I have not made: ("The question often is a debating question - leading to "ain't in the 2001 AUMF; thence, can't be in the rules of situations covered by the 2001 AUMF; hence, you are guilty of war crimes.") (deleted by Moderator).