The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL

[stanleywinthrop]

Thank you for the kind words. In answer to your questions.



In default of having the actual "mission order" (more than one document, I'd expect; and a bunch of annexes) and the subsidiary "commander's guidance and intent", we of lower pay grades have to be satisfied with what we can reach: Laws of War as accepted by the US; 2001 AUMF as interpreted (primarily by the DC Circuit); JCS SROEs (the unclassified open-source); and the respective service handbooks on Operational Law (Navy being as good as any under the present circumstances).



I'm not lazy, but I am busy. So, negat. I'm not asking for "sir, I'll find out, sir"; but I do request the "I'll find out" from you.

I've many posts dealing with the AUMF and its relevance to "kill or capture" missions - all of the Gitmo detainments are based on the same basic legal analysis. Start with this post in War Crimes, Gitmo Update, and read through all the court opinions I cite, as you move to the end of the page.

Then, after understanding the Laws of War as decided by the DC Circuit, do an SWC Advanced Search on AUMF (as key word) and jmm99 (as member). I got 77 posts just now.

You'll learn nothing if I feed you a bowl of Pablum (my baby food; it's awful). My purpose here is not to display my own knowledge (such as it is or is not), but to educate others. Do some work.

Now, I have to run and have a PM conversation with a friend.

Regards

Mike

Hey pal, you may be a pretty smart guy, but apparently you have trouble understanding my simple question. I was asking for a defintition, not a dissertation on the "AUMF and it's relation to 'kill or capture missions'", or the "law of wars" as decided by the DC circuit (as if the DC Circuit has somehow become the ultimate arbiter on internationally accepted law of war). I'm not sure what reading through "all the court opinions I cite" would do either, for if there is a simple accepted definition for what I asked they would all agree and reading them all would be repititious. However, I bet most do not even address what I asked. In fact THE COMMANDER’S
HANDBOOK ON THE LAW OF NAVAL OPERATIONS EDITION JULY 2007 provides a simple and direct definition for lawful and unlawful combatants which does not require analysis of the "AUMF and it's relation to 'kill or capture missions'" nor, "the "law of wars" as decided by the DC circuit" or "all the court opinions I cite":

5.4.1.1 Lawful Enemy Combatants
Lawful enemy combatants include members of the regular armed forces of a State party to the conflict; militia, volunteer corps, and organized resistance movements belonging to a State party to the conflict, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the laws of war; and members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the detaining power. Lawful combatants are entitled to combatant immunity—that is, they cannot be prosecuted for their lawful military actions prior to capture.
Lawful combatants also include civilians who take part in a levee en masse. A levee en masse is a spontaneous uprising by the citizens of a nonoccupied territory who take up arms to resist an invading force without having time to form themselves into regular armed units. Combatant immunity for a levee en masse ends once the invading forces have occupied the territory.
5.4.1.2 Unlawful Enemy Combatants
Unlawful enemy combatants are persons not entitled to combatant immunity, who engage in acts against the United States or its coalition partners in violation of the laws and customs of war during armed conflict.

So disregard my question. Enjoy your PM.