Hi Joe,

Thank you for your comments. You're in Boston, right? Hope all is well. Best wishes to you and your writing. Put aside, for the moment, our different views on the issues, let's focus on this:

By contrast, in reality, NO ONE loses any "protected status" under the Conventions -- which contains provisions which apply to every form of status to which a person can be found to "fit" -- solely because ACCUSED of a violation of the Conventions.

Reciprocal Approach To Arguments

This is not correct. But since you've not cited any legal authority or substantiated, I'll not reciprocate. Why? Because, as with the Geneva principles of reciprocity and retaliation, I can do to your argument what you've done to mine: Not provide any legal authority, but do as the US has done: Make an assertion, act on that, and ignore principles of logic, reason, and order.

You started this, and I'll walk through that door with you. You cannot compel others to argue using "substantiation" when you refuse to meet that standard. For that reason, your argument fails. Stop lecturing people to "substantiate" when you fail to meet that example and standard yourself.

US Precedent

The United States has established the precedent of detaining, without charges, civilians; but on accusation alone, denying them of Geneva protections. That's how the US actions are viewed by others. Applying the principle of reciprocity and/or retaliation, other nations -- on accusation alone -- may classify any US citizen as an "unlawful combatant" and deny them protections, as the US has done.

Example: Why Bounties Are Illegal During Wartime

Let's consider the loss of protected status. Civilians who engage in combat operations lost their protected status as a civilian. It's incorrect for you to assert that civilians can only lose their protected status on something more than an accusation.

Let's consider a specific example of that. Bouties, for the sake of this discussion, is when a power like the US puts a price on the enemy's head during war time. The US has done this. This is a war crime.

One reason combatants are not allowed to offer bounties for the enemy, is that this might induce civilians to take up arms to get a bounty. By taking up arms, the civilians are engaging in essentially combat activity. In the case of bounties, they are prohibited because they induce civilians to take action would strip them of their protected civilian status.

Rather, the US precedent defies your argument. On accusation alone, POWs were stripped of their protections, abused, and subjected to war crimes. This means other nations may do the same to US civilians, but call them "unlawful combatants, on accusatio alone."

Let's take a step back and apply the above rule to the Geneva Conventions. Let's use the Nazi U-boat example for the sake of discussion. When the Nazis were brought to trial, as their defense, they claimed the US was also attacking civilian shipping. The Nazi U-boat defense worked: They could not be prosecuted because the allies had engaged in like violations under Geneva.

Bring this Back to today

The point of information warfare is that once the US government subjects American civilians to unlawful abuse of military power, the US government is engaged in war crimes. Also, once POWs are not afforded all Geneva protections, then other nations may similarly not afford all Geneva protections to similarly-situated "unlawful combatants." On accusation alone -- as the US has done -- others may classify US citizens as unlawful combatants, and lawfully not afford them all Geneva protections.

The idea of Geneva is to grant all people who are taken out of the fight some protections. However, the US, despite capturing people, continued to abuse POWs, but denied those POWs a change to defend themselves or fight back. This is illegal because similarly situated Americans should not be treated that way.

This is not entirely correct, and you've provided no substantiation. I will reciprocate and cite no legal authority when refuting your (irrelevant) mischaracterization of Geneva:

BECAUSE a central purpose of the Conventions is to GUARANTEE DUE PROCESS, even when such as you and Bushit would deny it.

One of the "central" purpose of Geneva has nothing to do with due process, but the simple notion of civility. Due process is not an objective, but a by-product of civilized treatment of non-combatants. You're confusing ends and means; desired consequences and requirements; and services and courtesies. They are not the same. That means, "Different."

For example, it's barbaric to demand someone surrender, take them out of the fight, deny them any means to defend themselves, then continue warmaking against them. You're incorrect in suggesting that Geneva is to "guarantee" due process, but ensure something subtle: Respect for non-combatants.

For you to assert someone is "denying" something, you'll have to make your case. Again, you've provided no quote, substantiation, or textual reference to support your argument. We need not consider seriously your assertion that someone has or hasn't denied anything. You're insinuating based on insinuations and speculations and allegations. Didn't you just lecture someone to not do what you're doing?

You start doing what you expect others to do, and maybe others will respect you and treat you in a manner that you might deserve. Allegedly. Maybe. You're on the wrong blog.

No, you're missing the point. The issue is the United States government is illegally attacking US civilians with information warfare.

This deserves some discussion, and shows you're not understanding civilian protections. Here's the quote, which shows a fundamental problem within DOJ OLC:

2. They are permissibly "exposed to" legal "attack" and prosecution under international and domestic laws, including Conventions and Constitution and laws.

It's not correct to say the US civilians are subject to attack as unlawful combatants; but then change your argument to say that civilians are protected.

The flaws with your arguments about "civilians" is that they are never lawfully subject to attack. That's the point. Other powers, to get around this prohibition against retaliating against civilians may -- on accusation alone -- accuse civilians of being "unlawful combatants." That's the legal problem DoJ OLC staff have presented to the public: "We're here to help, but, oh by the way, other nations may call you unlawful combatants on accusation alone because we did it."

Using the US's convoluted violations, the burden falls on the defense to "prove" they are innocent. Again, this is a violation of the due process principle which you claim is guaranteed. However, once the US ignore this due process "guarantee" other natios may ignore it also. See the Nazi U-boat example.

Said another way, Geneva bans retaliatory or reciprocal attacks on civilians. They are always protected. Whether those civilians do or do not take up arms or are unlawful combatants for other reasons is a separate issue.

Said anoter way, you took the bait and have done what DOJ OLC did in re the POWs at Guantanamo:

permissibly "exposed to" legal "attack"

Civilians may never be lawfully subject to any attack, reciprocal action, or retaliatory strike. Not only have you contradicted yourself, but you've well showed how the DOJ OLC "argued" for unlawful abuse against POWs, non-charged civilians at Guantanamo. You defeat yourself.

This is wrong, and ignores situations where civilians are stripped of their protected status because of their combat-support activities:

There is nothing in any international "laws of war," or the Conventions themselves, which authorize or require "stripping" anyone -- civilian or otherwise -- of Convention protections. In fact, they exist to do THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

You provided no substantiation, we'll reciprocate.

The principle of reciprocity and retaliation are related to Geneva. The Conventions permit reciprocal and/or retaliatory attacks for violations of Geneva. Once someone engages in non-protected activity -- like a civilian who engages in combat -- that civilian is stripped of their protected civilian status. It's a separate issue whether that activity is or isn't unlawful activity. See the prohibition on bounties to avoid inducing civilians to engage in non-protected activity that would strip them of their GEneva protections as civilians.

Civilians are only protected as long as they do not engage in combat, or combat-related support functions. Once they cross the line and engage in combat support or direct combat or combat-like activity, they are not entitled to all Geneva protections afforded to protected civilians. Your errors show why there is a problem in the DOJ OLC legal office.

What DoJ OLC has done is create a special class of "nonprotected" non-combatants who are abused in violation of Geneva. Other nations may lawfully do the same: Capture "unlawful combatant" (who are really civilians) and abuse them. This is the perverse result this DOJ OLC has left American civilians. See the Uboat Example showing how retaliation like this, with a fair showing of enemy like violations, might not be prosecuted.

You're shown you don't know about:

- Civilian status
- Protected civilians
- Illegality of ever attacking civilians in retaliation
- Lawful activity which would strip civilians of their protected status
- Unlawful activity which would strip civilians of their protected status
- Retaliation
- Reciprocity

You don't have enough information to adequately comment on the issues raised. If you would like to argue otherwise, let's see some case law. Until then, you're not getting any substantiation. That's called a retaliatory act against you because you don't know what you're talking about on civilians in re Geneva.

You're making the point: Other nations can do the same thing. You've provided no substantiation:

Bushit invented a status which doesn't exist in the Conventions in order not to remove the protections of the Conventions from that status -- he hasn't that authority -- but to deny the protections of the Conventions to that stauts -- an authority he also doesn't have.

No substantiation will be provided to you. The issue isn't only whether there are or are not protections for POWs as a shield; but whether the detaining power will or will not recognize restrictions or the leash. The two prongs are not the same.

The claim that there is an "invented" status has no relevance to whether or not abuse is or isn't permitted. Some abuse, as a retaliatory act, is permitted.

Whether the President does or doesn't have authority to to deny or not deny protections is irrelevant: Other powers may do what the President has illegally done. DoJ OLC legal memoranda, in "legalizing" these war crimes, has opened the door to other nations unilaterally finding ways to engage in like abuses. Not saying that I agree with it, but the DOJ OLC memos do not well settle the legal issue, as they should.

The President has asserted power he doesn't have; and other nations may do the same. This will end when the US enforces the laws of war. Until the US enforces the laws of war against the President, other nations -- on accusation alone -- can detain Americans as "unlawful combatants".

Not saying that I agree with the President; or that these foreign power actions are lawful. Only saying that the DOJ OLC arguments have subjected all Americans to illegal attack. Civilians are never permitted to be the subject of any attack or reciprocal action, but that assurance goes out the window once other nations attempt to call American civilians "unlawful combatants." The US has not granted access to evidence; other nations may do the same.

This is not a speculative discussion. These are real, combat-risks American civilians are now subject, no thanks to DOJ OLC.

DoD Just Released Information

The news is the DoD-released information in response to the FOIA substantally mirrors the DoD information warfare guidance. You would have the world believe this novel connection was known to you weeks ago, but you've provided no link or substantiation to back up your claim. Your assertion fails because it is imprecise and provides not substantiation.

The original (not your) title does two things: Links the White House email to information warfare; and the attached war crimes against US citizens, prohibited under Geneva. Perhaps you have another way of capturing that. However, given that it appears you already knew about (a) the email showing the White House; and (b) the DoD policy guide on information warfare, it's not clear why you bothered to comment on "old" news.

Novel Connection Not Known Two weeks Ago

In truth, the White House email on information warfare has never been combined with the DoD information warfare guide to form a single commentary. The DoD-information had only been released a few short days ago. How you had access to this FOIA information "weeks" ago is for you to explain. Do you have a secret friend inside the White House or court? I don't think so.

However, it cannot be refuted, and is not an allegation, that the White House is implicated. You've added "allegedly" when it's not required. Again, you've contradicted yourself. Before you said to remove speculative and words, now you want them added. You've defeated your own justification which has not been substantiated.

This is not correct, as you've added a word:

"White House [ALLEGEDLY] Implicated In Alleged War Crimes, Illegal Domestic Propaganda"

No, they are implicated because McClellans name is on the Email. That is a fact. Something you wanted above, but now you contradict yourself and want the opposite: Vague, waffling, uncertain, imprecise. You've not provided a consistent showing you're meeting the standard you impose on others. Others may do the same to you. Without notice.

Dictionary Time

Let's ignore Blacks Law Dictionary, and focuse on the "plain meaning" of implicate:

" to bring into intimate or incriminating connection"

From: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008.

When we have an email with the White House Spokesman's name on it, that is not an alleged connection, but a real, factual connection. How deep that factual connection goes is the subject of the FOIA into other DoD-emails.

The reason it is incriminating is the White House would have us believe that this activity is normal, there is no problem with "DoD' Doing it. But low and behold, the White House knew all along, and they thought it was just fine. The point is that we have an email showing they've known about this since 2005, and this isn't news for them in 2008.

Their email implicates them (in an incriminating connection) in alleged war crimes. You've got it backwards. But since you've not provided any substantiation, I'll not argue for your preferred title.

Writers Should Correctly Spell

This is a spelling rule I can ignore, but require you to meet. That's called a reciprocal or retaliatory action for your failure to substantiate. This is your quote, which embarrasses you, it's spelled "Rumpelstiltskin", with an "i", not an "e"; and it's "el" not "le" Writers normally have excellent spell checkers. What happened, Joe. Your version of the spelling has only just over 600 references on the search engine:

"Thanks, Rumplestiltsken, for finally waking up."

Timing

It appears you're talking about something else. How could you know the contents -- two weeks ago -- of an email DoD only now released:

"But the rest of us have known that for at least weeks."

You've cited no links, nor are you offering any useful information about what "everyone else" knows.

Alleged Reckless Failure By Joe To Read

It's defamation to say you are reckless, but it's legal to say your conduct is allegedly reckless, or "In my view and personal opinion -- although this is not widely held -- you're a hypocrite, insecure, and failed lawyer who can't write, think, or speak well."

Remember, TPM has new posting rules which do not permit defamation. It's protected speech to qualify things. TPM wants wordiness, otherwise they wouldn't impose possible, foreseeable consequences for alleged reckless defamation. If you're not happy with the qualifications, talk to the TPMM about changing their posting requirements. I think they're allegedly great, and possibly extraordinary. Maybe.

Then again, if someone were to violate these posting policies, who will do anything? Not likely. But why take a chance. Never know. DoJ Staff might be looking for an excuse to file a lawsuit against you. Can't be too careful on the internet. It's a scary, scary place.

New: Information Warfare Guide, DoD Email to White House-Nexus

Your comment fails to address the DoD information warfare guide, or how the DoD-released data (not just emails) fits nicely within that guide. This is an excellent misdirection. You're asserting something -- rightly or wrongly -- that has nothing to do with the DoD-released information this week. Wiretapping is a different aspect of information warfare, as you read in the DoD information warfare guide-links.

Joe: "And perhaps once you stop yawning and stretching you'll discover that the rest of us have known for many months: the Bushit criminal enterprise has been engaged in illegal domestic wiretapping for years."

You're misrepresenting the issue: We're not arguing that it's "news" there is illegal FISA violations. The news is the White House is on one of the emails sent in re the information warfare and military analysts.

FISA violations are a different sub-set of information warfare, but that's not the email linked to the White House. If you would like to provide some links, maybe I'll return the favor and re-link to the links you supposedly have known about for "weeks".

- How were you able to "divine" this "insight" yet the DoD-released information had only just been released? The answer is that you're confusing the issue: A DoD email about military analysts is different than an email showing the White House is involved with telecom immunity. You'll need to clarify which other issues you or others have "known" about for weeks.

- If you have other information, there's nothing stopping you from discussing that link elsewhere, here, or providing that link. Would you like help with HTML or using a search engine?

Thanks for visiting. I look forward to your prompt response.