Here's Why The Media Denies it Was Terrorism

[CurveLight]

Good grief. His analysis is his opinion. All op-ed pieces are analyzed opinions. We were discussing why hasan could or could not be accurately labeled as a terrorist. Your fas link was presented in a fashion to say by the Law he is a terrorist. That is the bullshit I called out and contrary to your assumptions I did read through a good portion. It's fluff to try and legitimize the mythical WOT.

If you had quoted the author admitting it was his OPINION along with the top part of the abstract I wouldn't have seen any deception.

 

[Intense]

Good grief. His analysis is his opinion. All op-ed pieces are analyzed opinions. We were discussing why hasan could or could not be accurately labeled as a terrorist. Your fas link was presented in a fashion to say by the Law he is a terrorist. That is the bullshit I called out and contrary to your assumptions I did read through a good portion. It's fluff to try and legitimize the mythical WOT.

If you had quoted the author admitting it was his OPINION along with the top part of the abstract I wouldn't have seen any deception.

There was no deception on My part. Actually the Reference was applied as an argument for classifying Him as a Combatant, if you refer back to the original Post #467.
It was written in 2004. It is an in depth analysis for The Naval War College, not The New York Times. It is not an Op-ed. At this point when you make unsubstantiated attacks, and refuse to reason, I have nothing else to say to you.
NAVAL WAR COLLEGE
Newport, R.I.
TERRORISTS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS
An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism
By
Scott Reid
MAJ, U.S. Army




Op-ed
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Look up op-ed in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
An op-ed, abbreviated from opposite the editorial page (though often believed to be abbreviated from opinion-editorial), is a newspaper article that expresses the opinions of a named writer who is usually unaffiliated with the newspaper's editorial board. These are different from editorials, which are usually unsigned and written by editorial board members. Op-eds are so named because they are generally printed on the page opposite the editorial.

Although standard editorial pages have been printed by newspapers for many centuries, the first modern op-ed page was created in 1921 by Herbert Bayard Swope of The New York Evening World. When he took over as editor in 1920, he realized that the page opposite the editorials was "a catchall for book reviews, society boilerplate, and obituaries".[1] He is quoted as writing:

"It occurred to me that nothing is more interesting than opinion when opinion is interesting, so I devised a method of cleaning off the page opposite the editorial, which became the most important in America … and thereon I decided to print opinions, ignoring facts."[2]

Op-ed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CurveLight]

Good grief. His analysis is his opinion. All op-ed pieces are analyzed opinions. We were discussing why hasan could or could not be accurately labeled as a terrorist. Your fas link was presented in a fashion to say by the Law he is a terrorist. That is the bullshit I called out and contrary to your assumptions I did read through a good portion. It's fluff to try and legitimize the mythical WOT.

If you had quoted the author admitting it was his OPINION along with the top part of the abstract I wouldn't have seen any deception.

There was no deception on My part. Actually the Reference was applied as an argument for classifying Him as a Combatant, if you refer back to the original Post #467.
It was written in 2004. It is an in depth analysis for The Naval War College, not The New York Times. It is not an Op-ed. At this point when you make unsubstantiated attacks, and refuse to reason, I have nothing else to say to you.
NAVAL WAR COLLEGE
Newport, R.I.
TERRORISTS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS
An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism
By
Scott Reid
MAJ, U.S. Army




Op-ed
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Look up op-ed in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
An op-ed, abbreviated from opposite the editorial page (though often believed to be abbreviated from opinion-editorial), is a newspaper article that expresses the opinions of a named writer who is usually unaffiliated with the newspaper's editorial board. These are different from editorials, which are usually unsigned and written by editorial board members. Op-eds are so named because they are generally printed on the page opposite the editorial.

Although standard editorial pages have been printed by newspapers for many centuries, the first modern op-ed page was created in 1921 by Herbert Bayard Swope of The New York Evening World. When he took over as editor in 1920, he realized that the page opposite the editorials was "a catchall for book reviews, society boilerplate, and obituaries".[1] He is quoted as writing:

"It occurred to me that nothing is more interesting than opinion when opinion is interesting, so I devised a method of cleaning off the page opposite the editorial, which became the most important in America … and thereon I decided to print opinions, ignoring facts."[2]

Op-ed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've always seen "op-ed" in the context of an opinion so I did learn that is not what it really means. However, that doesn't change the fact the author said the paper is:


HIS OWN PERSONAL VIEW!

That's an opinion.

 

[Intense]

TERRORISTS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS
An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism
Commanders need to understand how the law of armed conflict applies to the various
enemy forces they are likely to encounter while combating terrorism. Historically, terrorists
have been regarded as bandits and held criminally responsible for their unlawful acts under
domestic law. However, after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in
September 2001, the U.S. decided to engage transnational terrorists in armed conflict. As
enemy combatants, terrorists may be lawfully killed by virtue of their membership in the
enemy group rather than their individual conduct.
If a nation’s armed forces harbor or support terrorists, the facts will determine whether
they are lawful or unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are protected under the Geneva
Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and entitled to specific privileges
while captured. Unlawful combatants have no such rights. The President has considerable
latitude in identifying, detaining, and punishing them.
As U.S. forces engage terrorists and the states that harbor them, we should expect to
encounter both lawful and unlawful combatants. This paper explains what the difference is
and why it matters.

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/reid.pdf

Hilighted The First sentence for You. Now show where Anything was Misrepresented. Explain the motives, and back up your claims. This is self defined as an Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism. You obviously are not capable of reading it through, and unworthy to comment on it. You have misrepresented My Position, and My Link, based on a false premise. That makes You a lier and a fraud.

 

[CurveLight]

TERRORISTS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS
An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism
Commanders need to understand how the law of armed conflict applies to the various
enemy forces they are likely to encounter while combating terrorism. Historically, terrorists
have been regarded as bandits and held criminally responsible for their unlawful acts under
domestic law. However, after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in
September 2001, the U.S. decided to engage transnational terrorists in armed conflict. As
enemy combatants, terrorists may be lawfully killed by virtue of their membership in the
enemy group rather than their individual conduct.
If a nation’s armed forces harbor or support terrorists, the facts will determine whether
they are lawful or unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are protected under the Geneva
Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and entitled to specific privileges
while captured. Unlawful combatants have no such rights. The President has considerable
latitude in identifying, detaining, and punishing them.
As U.S. forces engage terrorists and the states that harbor them, we should expect to
encounter both lawful and unlawful combatants. This paper explains what the difference is
and why it matters.

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/reid.pdf

Hilighted The First sentence for You. Now show where Anything was Misrepresented. Explain the motives, and back up your claims. This is self defined as an Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism. You obviously are not capable of reading it through, and unworthy to comment on it. You have misrepresented My Position, and My Link, based on a false premise. That makes You a lier and a fraud.

Chippety chirp chirp butt burp. Dude. What is so fucking hard with comprehending the author stating the paper is his:

OWN PERSONAL VIEW!

Can you show where in the analysis the author addresses the fact the taliban has never been listed as a terrorist organization?

Can you show where the author addresses the fact our longest running influential ally in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, is and has been the world's greatest source of terrorism?

Can you show where he explains how secret prisons qualify as legal? (I asked that a while ago and you totally ignored it.)

The whole paper is a pro bush bullshit piece trying to justify all the fucked up shit we are doing.

 

[Intense]

TERRORISTS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS
An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism
Commanders need to understand how the law of armed conflict applies to the various
enemy forces they are likely to encounter while combating terrorism. Historically, terrorists
have been regarded as bandits and held criminally responsible for their unlawful acts under
domestic law. However, after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in
September 2001, the U.S. decided to engage transnational terrorists in armed conflict. As
enemy combatants, terrorists may be lawfully killed by virtue of their membership in the
enemy group rather than their individual conduct.
If a nation’s armed forces harbor or support terrorists, the facts will determine whether
they are lawful or unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are protected under the Geneva
Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and entitled to specific privileges
while captured. Unlawful combatants have no such rights. The President has considerable
latitude in identifying, detaining, and punishing them.
As U.S. forces engage terrorists and the states that harbor them, we should expect to
encounter both lawful and unlawful combatants. This paper explains what the difference is
and why it matters.

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/reid.pdf

Hilighted The First sentence for You. Now show where Anything was Misrepresented. Explain the motives, and back up your claims. This is self defined as an Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism. You obviously are not capable of reading it through, and unworthy to comment on it. You have misrepresented My Position, and My Link, based on a false premise. That makes You a lier and a fraud.

Chippety chirp chirp butt burp. Dude. What is so fucking hard with comprehending the author stating the paper is his:

OWN PERSONAL VIEW!

Can you show where in the analysis the author addresses the fact the taliban has never been listed as a terrorist organization?

Can you show where the author addresses the fact our longest running influential ally in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, is and has been the world's greatest source of terrorism?

Can you show where he explains how secret prisons qualify as legal? (I asked that a while ago and you totally ignored it.)

The whole paper is a pro bush bullshit piece trying to justify all the fucked up shit we are doing.

What My problem is, is You accusing Me of Fraud. You know that You are wrong. Had You read the PDF you would have recognized it for what it is. You are still in denial? Read it again in full, and explain to Me why it was sent from the US Army to The Navy and The Navy War College Faculty?
To admit when in error is Virtue. To continue to falsely justify is hurtful. I remind You that the Post You complain about specifically, was cut and paste, without any comment from me. The original Post also made no claim, each provided the Link. You assume because I left off the Title page and Table of Contents, that My goal was to deceive, when it was not. You assumed that I was trying to pass something off as something it was not based on your failed logic. It was not my intent to deceive you in any way, nor is it now. This Paper is an in depth analysis of how The US applies the Law of Armed Conflict in the Global War on Terrorism 2004, Bush Administration. Read It. Search the Foot Notes.

How many posts are wasted on this shit, You have yet to address a single point of context beyond the Disclaimer.

 

[Yukon]

Intense....you are American therefore you are a FRAUD.

 

[Intense]

Intense....you are American therefore you are a FRAUD.

Whats up with You Yukon? Did You run out of Little Boys and Girls? Is Canada still Independent? Was It Ever? Parasite got your nose?

 

[CurveLight]

Hilighted The First sentence for You. Now show where Anything was Misrepresented. Explain the motives, and back up your claims. This is self defined as an Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism. You obviously are not capable of reading it through, and unworthy to comment on it. You have misrepresented My Position, and My Link, based on a false premise. That makes You a lier and a fraud.

Chippety chirp chirp butt burp. Dude. What is so fucking hard with comprehending the author stating the paper is his:

OWN PERSONAL VIEW!

Can you show where in the analysis the author addresses the fact the taliban has never been listed as a terrorist organization?

Can you show where the author addresses the fact our longest running influential ally in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, is and has been the world's greatest source of terrorism?

Can you show where he explains how secret prisons qualify as legal? (I asked that a while ago and you totally ignored it.)

The whole paper is a pro bush bullshit piece trying to justify all the fucked up shit we are doing.

What My problem is, is You accusing Me of Fraud. You know that You are wrong. Had You read the PDF you would have recognized it for what it is. You are still in denial? Read it again in full, and explain to Me why it was sent from the US Army to The Navy and The Navy War College Faculty?
To admit when in error is Virtue. To continue to falsely justify is hurtful. I remind You that the Post You complain about specifically, was cut and paste, without any comment from me. The original Post also made no claim, each provided the Link. You assume because I left off the Title page and Table of Contents, that My goal was to deceive, when it was not. You assumed that I was trying to pass something off as something it was not based on your failed logic. It was not my intent to deceive you in any way, nor is it now. This Paper is an in depth analysis of how The US applies the Law of Armed Conflict in the Global War on Terrorism 2004, Bush Administration. Read It. Search the Foot Notes.

How many posts are wasted on this shit, You have yet to address a single point of context beyond the Disclaimer.

Fuck. What is your fucking problem? I pointed out the author said the entire paper is his personal point of view.

THAT MEANS IT'S A MOTHER FUCKING OPINION.

It doesn't matter if........forget it....this isn't worth it. Keep posting your whiny shit and keep pretending I didn't address the OPINION piece. In fact, I asked a simple question the first time you posted the link and all you did was give a whiny response.

You tried to pass off an opinion piece as fact and you got busted. See ya. I'm done with this until you can answer the first question I asked.

 

[Intense]

Chippety chirp chirp butt burp. Dude. What is so fucking hard with comprehending the author stating the paper is his:

OWN PERSONAL VIEW!

Can you show where in the analysis the author addresses the fact the taliban has never been listed as a terrorist organization?

Can you show where the author addresses the fact our longest running influential ally in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, is and has been the world's greatest source of terrorism?

Can you show where he explains how secret prisons qualify as legal? (I asked that a while ago and you totally ignored it.)

The whole paper is a pro bush bullshit piece trying to justify all the fucked up shit we are doing.

What My problem is, is You accusing Me of Fraud. You know that You are wrong. Had You read the PDF you would have recognized it for what it is. You are still in denial? Read it again in full, and explain to Me why it was sent from the US Army to The Navy and The Navy War College Faculty?
To admit when in error is Virtue. To continue to falsely justify is hurtful. I remind You that the Post You complain about specifically, was cut and paste, without any comment from me. The original Post also made no claim, each provided the Link. You assume because I left off the Title page and Table of Contents, that My goal was to deceive, when it was not. You assumed that I was trying to pass something off as something it was not based on your failed logic. It was not my intent to deceive you in any way, nor is it now. This Paper is an in depth analysis of how The US applies the Law of Armed Conflict in the Global War on Terrorism 2004, Bush Administration. Read It. Search the Foot Notes.

How many posts are wasted on this shit, You have yet to address a single point of context beyond the Disclaimer.

Fuck. What is your fucking problem? I pointed out the author said the entire paper is his personal point of view.

THAT MEANS IT'S A MOTHER FUCKING OPINION.

It doesn't matter if........forget it....this isn't worth it. Keep posting your whiny shit and keep pretending I didn't address the OPINION piece. In fact, I asked a simple question the first time you posted the link and all you did was give a whiny response.

You tried to pass off an opinion piece as fact and you got busted. See ya. I'm done with this until you can answer the first question I asked.

Some People are capable of admitting when They Screw Up, Some just can't handle it. You have been Very Very Naughty.

Any Rational Minds out there keep in mind that the Post Curved Light Responded to was cut and paste, with no commentary by Me. The first sentence from the two Primary Postings, identify it as an Analysis in the First sentence. This does also appear to be an Official Military Document, it is implied. Curve Light has long abandoned the op-ed charge, but he seems to have gotten something stuck in his zipper regarding Opinion Piece. Howl all You want Curve Light. It's a "How to" sent by the Army to the Navy, in compliance with the Department of Joint Maritime Operations. It has a disclaimer, Like the one Somebody should have signed when You were born.

Here is a Reposting of The Same Document which includes all through the Introduction.

NAVAL WAR COLLEGE
Newport, R.I.
TERRORISTS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS
An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism
By
Scott Reid
MAJ, U.S. Army
A paper submitted to the Faculty of the Naval War College in partial satisfaction of the
requirements of the Department of Joint Maritime Operations.
The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by
the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy.
Signature: ___________________
9 February 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
Part I: Jus ad Bellum – Justifying the Use
of Armed Force Against Terrorists ------------------------------------------------ 2
A. The Significance of Engaging Terrorists
As Enemies Instead of Criminals ---------------------------------------------------- 2
B. Authority to Use Military Force Against Terrorists ----------------------------- 2
Part II: Jus in Bello – Examining the Rules That Apply
to Al Qaeda and Taliban Forces as Enemy Combatants ----------------------- 3
A. The Privileges of Lawful Combatancy --------------------------------------------- 3
B. The U.S. View: Al Qaeda and Taliban
Are Unlawful Combatants ----------------------------------------------------------- 4
C. Al Qaeda Members Are Always
Unlawful Combatants ----------------------------------------------------------------- 4
D. Taliban Forces Are Unlawful Combatants
Because of Their Conduct ------------------------------------------------------------ 5
1. The Geneva Conventions Apply to the Taliban ------------------------------ 5
2. The Taliban Failed to Qualify As Lawful
Combatants Eligible for POW Protections ------------------------------------ 7
a. Wearing emblems and carrying arms --------------------------------- 8
b. Failure to conduct operations in accordance
with the laws and customs of war --------------------------------------- 10
c. A cautionary note ---------------------------------------------------------- 10
E. Rules Governing Detention ------------------------------------------------------------ 11
1. Conditions of Internment ----------------------------------------------------------- 11
2. Repatriation --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
3. The President’s Military Order
– Authority to Detain “Certain Non-Citizens” ----------------------------------- 12
4. Challenging Detention ----------------------------------------------------------------- 13
a. In Federal Court --------------------------------------------------------------- 13
b. Geneva POW Convention -- Article 5 Tribunals ------------------------ 14
F. Lawful Combatants Receive Greater Due Process
if Charged With a Crime ------------------------------------------------------------------ 15
Conclusion --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
Abstract
TERRORISTS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS
An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism
Commanders need to understand how the law of armed conflict applies to the various
enemy forces they are likely to encounter while combating terrorism. Historically, terrorists
have been regarded as bandits and held criminally responsible for their unlawful acts under
domestic law. However, after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in
September 2001, the U.S. decided to engage transnational terrorists in armed conflict. As
enemy combatants, terrorists may be lawfully killed by virtue of their membership in the
enemy group rather than their individual conduct.
If a nation’s armed forces harbor or support terrorists, the facts will determine whether
they are lawful or unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are protected under the Geneva
Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and entitled to specific privileges
while captured. Unlawful combatants have no such rights. The President has considerable
latitude in identifying, detaining, and punishing them.
As U.S. forces engage terrorists and the states that harbor them, we should expect to
encounter both lawful and unlawful combatants. This paper explains what the difference is
and why it matters.
1
INTRODUCTION
The recent activities of transnational1 terrorist organizations have transcended the realm
of mere criminality. For more than a decade, the Al Qaeda terror network has repeatedly
attacked U.S. citizens, property, and military interests, to wit: the World Trade Center in
1993, the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the U.S.S. Cole in a Yemeni port
in 2000, and the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Al Qaeda has
been characterized by one observer as a “modern army” with combat power, considerable
financial resources, decentralized command and control, and operational reach into all the
nations of the world.2 The President has responded to Al Qaeda’s asymmetric attacks with
military force, which perversely elevates the status of these terrorists from criminals to
enemies.3 When the Taliban government of Afghanistan persisted in providing Al Qaeda
with a safe haven, it became our enemy as well.4
Military commanders need to understand how the laws of armed conflict apply when
terrorists are treated as enemy combatants. Using Operation Enduring Freedom as an
analytical model, this paper demonstrates the legal advantages of treating terrorists as
enemies while highlighting the distinctions between lawful and unlawful combatants. Part I
sets forth the legal framework for using armed force against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and
explains the advantages of treating terrorists as enemy combatants instead of criminals. Part
II analyzes the Bush Administration’s decision that neither Al Qaeda nor Taliban forces are
lawful combatants, focusing on the criteria for lawful combatancy and the rules regarding
detention and punishment. Careful study reveals that transnational terrorists will always be
unlawful enemy combatants, but the issue is fact-dependent with regard to the armed forces
of states that support terrorism.
http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/reid.pdf

 

[CurveLight]

Good fucking grief man. I used "op-ed" because I thought it was short for "opinion editorial." you posted the link showing that is not what it really means so I stood corrected on my misuse of the abbreviation.

For some strange reason you keep overlooking where the author of that paper states:

"The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by

the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy."

"The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by

the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy."

"The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by

the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy."


"The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by

the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy."



"The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by

the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy."

 

[Yukon]

I guess the best and easiest way to commit terrorist atrocities in the USA is to join the US Military. Heck, you will be even more successful if you're a Doctor.

 

[CurveLight]

That means his analysis is his PERSONAL VIEW. Go ahead and skip over that again. This is fucking psychotic.

 

[Yukon]

That means his analysis is his PERSONAL VIEW. Go ahead and skip over that again. This is fucking psychotic.

Do you also hear voices my son ?

 

[Intense]

Good fucking grief man. I used "op-ed" because I thought it was short for "opinion editorial." you posted the link showing that is not what it really means so I stood corrected on my misuse of the abbreviation.

For some strange reason you keep overlooking where the author of that paper states:

"The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by

the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy."

"The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by

the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy."

"The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by

the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy."


"The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by

the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy."



"The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by

the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy."

He is an Army Major Dip Shit and the Statement is a Disclaimer. How many more times are you going to wet yourself?

 

[CurveLight]

Good fucking grief man. I used "op-ed" because I thought it was short for "opinion editorial." you posted the link showing that is not what it really means so I stood corrected on my misuse of the abbreviation.

For some strange reason you keep overlooking where the author of that paper states:

"The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by

the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy."

"The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by

the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy."

"The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by

the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy."


"The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by

the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy."



"The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by

the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy."

He is an Army Major Dip Shit and the Statement is a Disclaimer. How many more times are you going to wet yourself?

Intense.......

....look at this link.....the link you give was written by Major Reid as a STUDENT PAPER while attending the Naval War College.

BLACK HUMOR: 'The right to kill them by virtue'

Don't like that link? How about a bibliography that points out it was a paper submitted to the War College?
Law of Armed Conflict

Don't like that link? How about an actual court case that points out it was a paper submitted to the War College?
http://www.pegc.us/archive/In_re_Gitmo_II/boumediene_supp_20081031.pdf

 

[Intense]

That means his analysis is his PERSONAL VIEW. Go ahead and skip over that again. This is fucking psychotic.

Do you also hear voices my son ?

So Yukon.... How many times Have You been Water Boarded? ... Was that the last time Your Body has seen Hygiene? That thing over there.... what do you call it?..... read it. PAOS... No Soap.... Let me explain.

 

[Yukon]

America tortures POWs....I thought only Nazis, VC, and Commies tortured people?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Lol..I never said you did support the invasion or cheney you super arrogant fuck. No wonder you think it was legal....you can't even read short posts so how can it be expected you could read Laws?

Oh bullshit. You were attempting to imply it with yer little Cheney strawman.

Lying must come as naturally as breathing to you. Too bad you can't get away with it because of your mental deficiencies.

Here ya go (dis)honest abe. I pointed out I never said you supported the invasion or cheney and your response clearly says I implied that. Can't believe you tried to spin it as a "literary tool." rotfl.

So, to summarize, you get caught lying and accuse others of the same when busted.

Got it.

Go back to spinning and projecting. Even though you're not very good at that either.

 

[Intense]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LAKHDAR BOUMEDIENE, et al.
Petitioners, Civil Action No. 04-cv-1166 (RJL)
v.
GEORGE WALKER BUSH, et al.
Respondents.
PETITIONERS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW REGARDING THE
IMPLICATIONS OF AN “ENEMY COMBATANT” DETERMINATION
Case 1:04-cv-01166-RJL Document 246 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 1 of 6
2
Petitioners submit this Memorandum of Law to clarify a point made during argument on
Tuesday, October 28, regarding the implications of an enemy combatant determination.
The parties have briefed the definition of “enemy combatant,” and the Court has made its
ruling. This Memorandum is not a motion for reconsideration. The Court expressed some
concern regarding whether and in what circumstances an enemy combatant may be lawfully
targeted with deadly force. This Memorandum is simply intended to address that concern.
Whatever definition of “enemy combatant” is applied, the categorization of a person as
an “enemy combatant” is an extremely grave determination: an enemy combatant is someone the
United States military can attack and kill, on sight and without warning. As noted in our prior
Memorandum, “[t]he term ‘combatant’ has an established meaning in the law of armed conflict.
It refers to a person whom the military may lawfully kill or capture and, if captured, detain for
the duration of hostilities.” Pets. Mem Regarding Enemy Combatant Def’n, Oct. 19, 2008, at 2.
Lawful combatants, e.g. uniformed U.S. military forces, are “entitled to carry out attacks on
enemy military personnel and equipment” and “bear[] no criminal responsibility for killing or
injuring enemy military personnel or civilians taking an active part in hostilities, or for causing
damage or destruction to property, provided his or her acts have been in compliance with the law
of war.” U.S. Dep’t of the Army, United States Operational Law Handbook – Judge Advocate
General’s School Publication JS-422 Ch. 2 § VIII.A.1.a (2006) (hereafter “Operational Law
Handbook,” available at www.jagcnet.army.mil); see also Solis Decl., Trav. Ex. 18, ¶ 6.c
(discussing Army General Order 100, 1863 Lieber Code, and noting that “combatant’s privilege”
is that “he or she may kill or wound opposing combatants, and destroy enemy targets or objects,
without penalty.&#8221
Case 1:04-cv-01166-RJL Document 246 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 2 of 6
3
There are few limits and exceptions. Under the law of war, it is forbidden to kill or injure
enemy personnel who have already surrendered or been taken out of combat – including
prisoners of war and the wounded. Operational Law Handbook Ch. 2 § VII.A.2 -3.1 There are
also prohibitions on inflicting “unnecessary suffering,” although it is the case that “[t]he
prohibition of unnecessary suffering constitutes acknowledgement that necessary suffering to
combatants is lawful, and may include severe injury or loss of life. There is no agreed definition
for unnecessary suffering.” Id. Ch. 2 § IV.B.1 (emphasis in original).
Some experts have opined that the principle of military necessity “might preclude killing
a nonthreatening enemy combatant who can easily be arrested without the use of force.” Bradley
& Goldsmith, Congressional Authorization and the War on Terrorism, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 2047,
2121 n. 325 (2005). The United States military strives to ensure that the “loss of life and damage
to property incidental to attacks must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct
military advantage expected to be gained.” The Law of Land Warfare, Army Field Manual FM
27-10, ¶ 41, change 1 (emphasis added).2 But “‘[m]ilitary advantage’ is not restricted to tactical
gains,” and is instead “linked to the full context of war strategy.” Operational Law Handbook
Ch. 2. § V.B.1. Killing a bona fide enemy combatant is unlikely to be considered “incidental” to
an attack, and even less likely to be considered “excessive” in relation to the “concrete and direct
military advantage” expected to be gained by his killing, given the circumstances of the war on
terror. Id. As Major Scott Reid of the U.S. Army candidly put it in a paper submitted to the
1 United States armed forces must comply with the law of war during all armed conflicts,
however such conflicts are characterized. DoD Directive 5100.77, 9 Dec. 1998, ¶ 5.3.1.
2 As noted in our prior Memorandum, it is always forbidden to intentionally target
civilians, and even civilians directly participating in hostilities may not be targeted with lethal
force if arrest, interrogation, and trial are available and would accomplish the military objective.
See generally Pets. Mem Regarding Enemy Combatant Def’n, Oct. 19, 2008, at 3 n.3.
Case 1:04-cv-01166-RJL Document 246 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 3 of 6
4
Faculty of the Naval War College:
The biggest advantage in treating Al Qaeda and Taliban members as enemy
combatants is the right to kill them by virtue of their collective enemy status
instead of arresting them for their individual criminal acts. If terror acts are only
domestic crimes, then law enforcement agencies must investigate to determine
who is individually responsible. They must capture the criminals unless it is
necessary to kill in self-defense. However, if the nature and frequency of terror
acts rise to the level of an armed conflict, there is no requirement to determine
individual criminal responsibility, demand surrender, or limit the use of force to
self-defense.
Scott Reid, Terrorists As Enemy Combatants: An Analysis of How the United States Applies the
Law of Armed Conflict in the Global War on Terrorism (Naval War College 2004) (citations
omitted, available at http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA422754). See also Solis Decl., Trav. Ex.
18, ¶ 6.c (“In the war on terrorism, the term ‘enemy combatant’ has come into use. . . . [T]he
combatant is a member of a group in armed conflict with the United States or its allies, and is a
lawful target who may be killed by United States and allied combatants.&#8221.
A killing could thus be justified by military commanders as “necessary” under the law of
war, even if the combatant might appear “nonthreatening” to some, provided that the killing
serves an advantage within the full context of the war strategy and the combatant has not placed
himself into a protected category – e.g., by surrendering or by otherwise being “out of combat” –
at the time when lethal force is applied. The Government’s contention that Petitioners were
lawfully detained as enemy combatants, therefore, is tantamount to saying that in October 2001,
the Petitioners, or others similarly situated, could have been lawfully attacked and killed on sight
and without warning, rather than detained through Bosnian police intermediaries.
* * *
Case 1:04-cv-01166-RJL Document 246 Filed 10/31/2008 Page 4 of 6
5
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Allyson J. Portney
Seth P. Waxman (admitted)
Paul Wolfson (admitted)
Robert McKeehan (admitted)
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 663-6800
Stephen H. Oleskey (admitted pro hac vice)
Robert C. Kirsch (admitted pro hac vice)
Mark C. Fleming (admitted pro hac vice)
Gregory P. Teran (admitted pro hac vice)
Allyson J. Portney (admitted pro hac vice)
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 526-6000
Douglas F. Curtis (admitted)
Paul M. Winke (admitted pro hac vice)
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
399 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
(212) 230-8800
Dated: October 31, 2008

http://www.pegc.us/archive/In_re_Gitmo_II/boumediene_supp_20081031.pdf