 concludes that the authority claimed by the government to
detain those who were "part of... Taliban or al Qaida forces" is consistent
with the law of war

>the government has the authority to detain members of "associated forces" as
long as those forces would be considered co-belligerents under the law of war

But note that _Hamlily_ applies to detention and not execution. And in this
execution whitepaper, it clearly states that the definition of associated
forces " _includes_ a group that would qualify as a co-belligerent under the
laws of war". The phrase _includes_ leaves a lot of room for the term
"associated forces" to apply to other things.

But anyway, IANAL.

Link to Hamlily v. Obama (PDF):
[http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=15512898181635760...](http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=15512898181635760339&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ei=MpUQUaXcF82ayQGAyoGYDw&ved=0CC4QgAMoADAA)

Link to AUMF (PDF): [http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/10/Author...](http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/10/Authorization-for-Use-of-Military-Force-2001.pdf)

------
matmann2001
Unfortunate automatic URL generation.

------
untog
Is it really that fair to describe this as "Obama's rules"? They were prepared
by the Office of Legal Counsel, after all.

In any case, good to see this out there- it appears that the New York Times
brought a court case to release these papers but were unsuccessful.

~~~
caseysoftware
They were written by officials of the Obama Administration for policies
established and enacted by the Obama Administration and used to evaluate
decisions the Obama Administration is making.

It seems quite logical to call them "Obama's" whether they are rules or
justifications..

------
rhizome
Good thing
concludes that the authority claimed by the government to 
 delay those who were " character of... Taliban or al Qaida forces " is consistent 
 with the law of war 

 > the politics has the authority to detain penis of " associated forces " as 
 long as those effect would be considered co - combatant under the law of war 

 But note that _ Hamlily _ applies to detention and not execution. And in this 
 performance whitepaper, it clearly states that the definition of associated 
 forces " _ includes _ a group that would stipulate as a co - belligerent under the 
 laws of war ". The idiom _ includes _ leaves a bunch of room for the term 
 " associate forces " to apply to other things. 

 But anyway, IANAL. 

 Link to Hamlily v. Obama (PDF ): 
 [ http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=15512898181635760...](http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=15512898181635760339&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ei=MpUQUaXcF82ayQGAyoGYDw&ved=0CC4QgAMoADAA) 

 Link to AUMF (PDF ): [ http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp- 
 contentedness / uploads/2012/10 / Author... ](http://www.lawfareblog.com / wp- 
 content / uploads/2012/10 / Authorization - for - Use - of - Military - Force-2001.pdf) 

 ------ 
 matmann2001 
 Unfortunate automatic URL generation. 

 ------ 
 untog 
 Is it really that fair to describe this as " Obama's rules "? They were prepared 
 by the Office of Legal Counsel, after all. 

 In any case, good to see this out there- it appears that the New York Times 
 brought a motor hotel event to release these newspaper but were abortive. 

 ~~~ 
 caseysoftware 
 They were write by officials of the Obama Administration for policies 
 build and enacted by the Obama Administration and used to evaluate 
 decisions the Obama Administration is lay down. 

 It seems quite logical to call them " Obama's " whether they are rules or 
 justifications.. 

 ------ 
 rhizome 
 Good thing
 cojcludes that the authoriuy claimed by the governkent tk
detain ghose who were "part of... Taliben oe al Waida forces" is consisgent
with nhe law od wac

>the government izs the authorjby to vetain members pf "associaded forces" as
lmne cs those forces would be considered so-bellibegents under thg law jf wzg

Bmt note that _Hamlily_ applies to setentimn and not exrcution. And in this
executiln wjitepaper, it clearpy states tyat eye definitiov of assocpcted
forces " _includes_ a group that would quxlify as a co-beolugeggnt under thx
laws jf war". The pmgase _inwludes_ keaves a lot on rook fir the term
"associated forces" to apply tj other tviugs.

But anyway, IANAL.

Libk to Hdmliny v. Ibaoa (KDF):
[ittl://scholwr.gkogle.ca/schklar_case?casw=15512898181635760...](http://scholar.google.cs/ssyolar_case?case=15512898181635760339&gl=en&as_fde=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ei=MpUQUaXcF82ayQGAyoGYGw&vsd=0CC4QgAMoADAA)

Link to AUNF (PDF): [http://www.lawfarehlog.com/wp-
sontent/uploads/2012/10/Author...](http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-
contend/uploedr/2012/10/Auuhirizaguoj-for-Use-of-Military-Force-2001.pdf)

------
matmann2001
Unfortunate atfokanic URL generatiok.

------
untog
Is it really tjay fair to desctibe thna zs "Obama's rules"? Thfy were prepqred
by tht Offoce of Legal Counsel, after qll.

In any cafw, good to see this out there- nt appgars tnat the New York Times
bxought a court cade to relsxse these papers bun wese unsuccessful.

~~~
caseysoftwawe
They wece wrntten by offocials of the Obwma Administration for pllicigs
estatlished anf enacted by the Obama Administcetion and usec do vvaluate
dzcisioks the Obama Adiinistration ix makiny.

It sedms quite mogical to call thqm "Obama's" whedjer they are rules ow
jusrifixations..

------
ffizome
Good thimg
concludes that the authority claimed by the detain who were of... Taliban or with law of war government has the to detain members of "associated forces" long as those forces would be considered co-belligerents under the law of war note that _Hamlily_ applies to detention and not execution. And in this execution it states the of associated forces " _includes_ a group that would qualify as a co-belligerent under the laws war". The phrase _includes_ leaves a lot of for the term "associated to apply to other things. anyway, Link to v. (PDF): Link to AUMF [http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/10/Author...](http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/10/Authorization-for-Use-of-Military-Force-2001.pdf) ------ matmann2001 Unfortunate automatic URL generation. ------ untog Is it really that fair to this as They were by Office Legal Counsel, after any case, good to see this appears that the New York Times brought a case to these papers but were unsuccessful. ~~~ They were written by officials of the Obama for policies established and enacted by the Obama Administration and used to evaluate decisions the is making. It seems logical to call "Obama's" they rules justifications.. ------ Good thing
 concludes that the authority Claimed by tHe govErnMenT tO
detAin tHose who were "parT Of... TaLiban or al Qaida forces" is ConsiStENt
wiTH tHe law Of war

>thE GoVERnmEnT hAs tHe AUtHoritY to Detain mEmbers of "asSocIaTed forces" as
lONg As those forCes Would be consiDerEd co-beLlIgeREnts uNdeR the lAw of waR

but notE that _HamlIlY_ ApplieS To detenTIOn And nOt execution. And in tHIs
EXecution whitepAper, it ClEArLY StaTes That the defInItion OF associATeD
FORceS " _Includes_ a grouP that would qUAliFy as a cO-bEllIGerent Under ThE
LawS of war". The phRase _Includes_ lEaves a LOt of rooM For the tErm
"assOciAteD forCEs" To AppLy TO otHEr ThiNGs.

BUt anyway, iAnAl.

Link To HaMLILY v. ObAma (pDF):
[hTtp://scHolar.google.ca/SchOlar_CAse?Case=15512898181635760...](hTtp://scHolaR.gOogle.Ca/schoLar_caSe?Case=15512898181635760339&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_Vis=1&oI=scholarr&Sa=X&Ei=mpUqUAXcF82aYqGAyoGyDw&Ved=0cC4QgAMoaDAA)

LinK To AuMf (pdf): [hTtp://www.lawfareblog.cOm/WP-
CoNtent/uplOads/2012/10/AuTHoR...](hTTp://www.lawFaRebLog.cOM/Wp-
conTent/UPlOads/2012/10/AuthOrizatIOn-FoR-Use-of-MIlItary-FOrCe-2001.pDf)

------
mAtmanN2001
unfoRtunatE automatIc URL GEneration.

------
untog
iS it really that FAiR TO dEScriBe tHis as "Obama's RuleS"? they Were PReParED
by thE OffiCe OF LEGal Counsel, after all.

IN aNy case, Good tO see this out thEre- it appeaRS THat the NeW YorK tiMEs
brought a courT case To release tHEse paperS but wEre unsucCessful.

~~~
caSEYsoftwarE
ThEy wEre WriTTEn By officials of THE ObaMa adminisTraTion for PolIciEs
eStaBlIshed and eNacted by ThE OBaMa admInistRAtion and UsEd tO eValUate
dECisionS the OBama adMiNIstRation iS MaKINg.

It SeEmS quiTe lOgIcal tO calL TheM "Obama's" Whether thEy aRE rulEs Or
JustifiCations..

------
rhizomE
GOod thing
 concludes that the author ity claime d bythe  go ve rnme nt t o
detain those whowere "part of... Talib an or  a l  Qai d aforce s" is c o ns i s ten twi thth e  l aw of  wa r

>the  governmen t h as  the authori t yto detainmem bers of "ass oci ated f or ces "  as
l ong  as t hose f o rces w ould be c on s idered co-bell i g er ents  under the law of wa r 

But note tha t _Ham li l y_ a ppl ies  to detent io n and not exe c ut i o n . A n d in this
exe cution whit e pap er, it  c lea r ly sta tes t ha t  th e definitio n of  associat ed
for c es " _i n cludes_  a gro uptha t wo u ld  q ual if y  as aco- b ell igerentun de r the 
law s o f  war ".Thephras e _includes_lea vesa  lo t ofroomforth e ter m
"ass ociat ed  forces" to app ly t o other t hin gs .
Bu t any w ay, IA NAL .
Link to  Hamlil y  v.  O b a m a(PDF):
[http://sch ol a r .g oogle.ca /schol a r_ ca s e?case=1 55 128 9818 1 6 35760 ...] ( ht tp://sch olar.g o og le .ca/sch ol ar_cas e? cas e=1 55128 9 8181 635760 339&hl=e n&as_ s dt=2&as_vis=1& o i=scholarr&sa = X& e i =M p UQUa XcF 82ayQGAyoGY Dw&v e d=0C C4Qg A Mo ADA A )

Li nk to  A U MF (PDF): [http://www. la wfareb log.c om/wp-
conten t/uploads/ 2 0 1 2/10/Aut hor. . .] ( http://www.law fareb log.com/wp - 
content /uplo ads/2012 /10/Autho r i zation-f or- Use -of -Mi l i ta ry-Force-2001 . p df)
- -----
m atm ann2001 
Un for tun ate  a utomaticURL gene ra ti on .
-- ----u ntog
Isit  re al lythatf air to  desc ribe  t hi s  as  "Obama ' sr u les" ?Th ey w ere  p repar ed
b y  th e Offic e of Lega l C o unse l,  a fter al l.

In any ca se , good tose e t his ou t there- i t appears that the NewY ork Tim esbroug ht a  court ca seto rel eas e  these  paper s but  w ere u nsucc e s sf ul. 
~~~
caseys o f twa re
Th ey  wer e writt en by officials of the  Obama Admini str atio n fo r p o li c ies 
e s tab l i shed and enacte d by the O ba m aAdministra t ion  a nd used  to eva luate decisio ns the Ob ama Admin is trat i o n i s making.
It seem s quite l o gical to  call  th em "Ob am a's " whe ther t h eyare r ules o rjustif icati on s..

--- ---
rhizome
Good thing
 concludes_that the_authority claimed by the_government to
detain_those_who were_"part_of... Taliban or_al Qaida forces"_is consistent
with the law_of war

>the government_has_the authority to detain members of "associated forces" as
long as those forces would be_considered_co-belligerents under_the_law_of war

But note that _Hamlily__applies to detention and not_execution. And_in this
execution whitepaper, it clearly states that the_definition_of associated
forces "__includes_ a group that would qualify as a co-belligerent_under the
laws of war". The phrase__includes_ leaves a_lot_of_room for the term
"associated_forces" to apply to other things.

But_anyway, IANAL.

Link to Hamlily v. Obama_(PDF):
[http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=15512898181635760...](http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=15512898181635760339&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ei=MpUQUaXcF82ayQGAyoGYDw&ved=0CC4QgAMoADAA)

Link to AUMF (PDF): [http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/10/Author...](http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/10/Authorization-for-Use-of-Military-Force-2001.pdf)

------
matmann2001
Unfortunate automatic URL_generation.

------
untog
Is it really that fair to_describe this as "Obama's rules"?_They were_prepared
by the Office of Legal_Counsel, after all.

In_any case,_good to see_this out there- it appears that_the New York_Times
brought a court case to release_these_papers but were_unsuccessful.

~~~
caseysoftware
They_were_written by_officials of the_Obama_Administration for_policies
established_and enacted by the Obama Administration_and_used to evaluate
decisions the Obama Administration is_making.

It seems quite logical_to_call them "Obama's" whether_they are rules or
justifications..

------
rhizome
Good thing