--------------------------------
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
Bookmarks