So, Americans, with impunity, can engage in armed conflict in support of terrorist organizations against US forces, because the government bailed out AIG?
So, Americans, with impunity, can engage in armed conflict in support of terrorist organizations against US forces, because the government bailed out AIG?
No; that’s not at all what I was saying. What I was saying is that our government only ‘believes in’ laws and rules when it suits them.
You brought up the Hague convention as a matter of law [the definitions thereof] and I countered with another matter of law. The ‘enemy combatant’ designation is a misnomer [as regarding the Hague]; there are “lawful combatants” {uniformed soldiers} and “unlawful combatants” {what we’ve been calling ‘enemy combatants’}.
IE the ‘enemy combatants’ term, as used today, is an example of [our] government “playing the [word] game” with ‘legalese.’