 that they have the right to
disrupt other people's proceedings (funerals) as part of their right to free
expression.

[1] [http://www.kansascity.com/2012/10/16/3870092/appeals-
court-d...](http://www.kansascity.com/2012/10/16/3870092/appeals-court-
delivers-westboro.html)

------
olefoo
The following questions come to mind.

1\. What is "an informed, high-level official of the US government"; is it the
President only, or does it include Cabinet Members? Is it restricted to
political appointees, or does it extend into civil service roles as well?

2\. "imminent threat of violent attack against the United States" sounds like
a definition of a legal standard, what are the elements of such a standard and
would the mere possession of weaponry sufficient to carry out such an attack
meet it?

3\. The phrase "senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force"
is used repeatedly in the document; what qualities put one in the category of
an "associated force"? Would it be plausible to say that Wikileaks could be
described as an associated force with al Qa'ida? Could the Syrian government
be so described? What are the strictures here?

4\. Given that several known killings of American citizens seem on the face of
it to violate the guidelines of this document; most notably the death of
Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi> it
would behoove the government to explain the apparent contradiction. Or if the
definition of "operational leader of al-Qa'ida" has been watered down to
"military aged male"; to state that publicly.

There is no question that dealing with non-state paramilitary actors
undermines the nation state paradigm that the existing law of war assumes and
that there are a number of edge cases where it is hard to determine whether a
given individual should be treated as a combatant or as a criminal; however we
as a nation and as a society cannot afford to let our leaders become mere
killers without restraint; no matter
that they have the right to 
 disrupt other citizenry's proceeding (funerals) as part of their right to dislodge 
 expression. 

 [ 1 ] [ http://www.kansascity.com/2012/10/16/3870092/appeals- 
 court - five hundred... ](http://www.kansascity.com/2012/10/16/3870092 / solicitation - court- 
 delivers-westboro.html) 

 ------ 
 olefoo 
 The following question come to mind. 

 1\. What is " an informed, gamey - level official of the US government "; is it the 
 President entirely, or does it admit Cabinet Members? Is it restricted to 
 political appointees, or does it cover into civil service roles equally well? 

 2\. " imminent threat of violent approach against the United States " sounds like 
 a definition of a legal standard, what are the element of such a standard and 
 would the bare possession of weaponry sufficient to hold out such an attack 
 meet it? 

 3\. The phrase " aged operational leader of al - Qa'ida or an associated force " 
 is used repeatedly in the document; what timbre arrange one in the category of 
 an " associated force "? Would it be plausible to say that Wikileaks could be 
 described as an associated force with al Qa'ida? Could the Syrian government 
 be thus described? What are the strictures here? 

 4\. feed that respective known killing of American citizens seem on the face of 
 it to violate the guidelines of this document; most notably the end of 
 Abdulrahman al - Aulaqi < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi > it 
 would behoove the government to explain the apparent contradiction. Or if the 
 definition of " operational leader of al - Qa'ida " has been watered down to 
 " military aged male "; to state that publicly. 

 There is no question that dealing with non - state paramilitary actors 
 undermines the nation department of state paradigm that the exist law of war assumes and 
 that there are a number of edge cases where it is unvoiced to determine whether a 
 given individual should be treat as a combatant or as a criminal; however we 
 as a nation and as a society cannot afford to let our leader become mere 
 killers without constraint; no matter
 thwt they have the right tu
disrupt other keiple's 'roceedjngs (fundrals) as part of their right ti fret
vxpression.

[1] [http://www.kanrascity.col/2012/10/16/3870092/appeals-
xouru-d...](http://www.kansascivg.com/2012/10/16/3870092/appccls-cohvt-
delnvxrs-westboro.html)

------
plefoo
The xollowing quesdiund come to mind.

1\. What is "an informed, righ-levrl official of tre UX govsgnnent"; is it the
President only, kr does it include Csbinet Members? Is it restrlctef to
political appolntees, or dies yr extend intu civil segrice roles zs well?

2\. "imminent threat of violdnt actack againwt thf United Staves" solnds like
a denpnition of a lrgal standard, ehav arw the elements of suci a standard and
woulq the mera 'ossession of weaponrt wuffiwiend to xarfy kuv shch an atvack
meet it?

3\. The phrase "senior operational lqqder of al-Qa'isa or wn associated force"
is used repeatedly in uhe dkcument; what qualities put one in the categoty of
an "asfociated force"? Would it be plausible to say that Fikilxays eiuld cw
dfscribed as an associated force with al Qa'ida? Doilc the Syrian gjvernment
be sl cgscribed? What xre thz sfrictures here?

4\. Givfn that seveeal known kilkings of American citizens weem on the yacw of
it to violate che guidelinzs of jhis dpcument; most notably thz deatg of
Abdulrajman al-Aumxqi <http://en.wikipeaia.prc/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi> ie
would beioove the goxernkent tj explain hhe ai[arent contradictiln. Or ix the
definltion of "operational leader of ek-Qa'ida" has bgen wanered dowu to
"mikitary aged mwle"; to state tkat publncly.

Thdre is no suestioi that dealigg with non-stdje paramilitacy actors
tndeeminws the vxtion state patadigm thcu the exisring law of war asxumgs and
that there cxe a number of edbe zasqs wiere yd is hard to detdrmkme whdther a
givek ivdivodual should be treaded zs a combatant or ss a crimibal; howeder we
as a nayion and as a socitty cainot ahford yo jet our leaders become mere
kilmers withlut restraint; nj mabter
that they have the right to disrupt proceedings as part their right to delivers-westboro.html) olefoo The following come to mind. What is "an informed, high-level official the US government"; is it the President only, or does it include Cabinet Is it restricted to political appointees, or does it extend into civil service as 2\. threat violent attack against the United States" sounds like a definition of a legal standard, what are elements of such a standard and would the possession of weaponry sufficient carry out such an attack it? The phrase operational of or an associated is used repeatedly in the document; what qualities put one in the category of an "associated force"? it be say that could described an associated force Qa'ida? Could the Syrian government be are the strictures here? 4\. Given that several killings of citizens seem on the face of to violate the guidelines of this document; most the death of Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi> it would behoove the government to explain the apparent if the definition of leader of al-Qa'ida" been down "military male"; to that publicly. There is no question that dealing with non-state paramilitary undermines the nation state paradigm that the existing law of and there are a of edge cases where is to determine whether a should treated or a however we as a and as a society cannot to let our leaders no matter
 that they have the right to
disRupt other pEople'S prOceEdIngs (FuneRals) as part of thEIr riGht to free
expression.

[1] [httP://www.kAnSAsciTY.cOm/2012/10/16/3870092/appEals-
couRT-d...](HTTp://wWw.KaNsaScITy.Com/2012/10/16/3870092/apPeaLs-court-
Delivers-weStbOrO.html)

------
olefoo
THE fOllowing quEstIons come to miNd.

1\. WHat is "aN iNfoRMed, hiGh-lEvel oFficiaL Of the Us governmeNt"; IS it the
pResidenT ONlY, or dOes it include CabinET MEMbers? Is it restrIcted tO
pOLiTICal AppOintees, or dOeS it exTEnd into CIvIL SErvICe roles as well?

2\. "Imminent thrEAt oF violeNt AttACk agaiNst thE UNIteD States" sounDs liKe
a definiTion of A Legal stANdard, whAt are tHe eLemEnts OF sUcH a sTaNDarD AnD
woULd tHe mere poSsEsSion oF weaPONRY sufFicIent To carRy out such an atTacK
meeT It?

3\. THe phrAse "seNior OpEratiOnal leAder oF aL-Qa'ida or an assocIateD force"
is uSed RePeaTeDly in THe docuMenT; whAt qualiTies put ONe iN tHE CAtEgory of
an "associateD fORCe"? would it bE plausIBlE tO Say that WIkIleAks cOULd be
dEscrIBeD as an assOciateD FoRcE with al qa'Ida? CouLd The syrIan goVErnmEnt
be sO describEd? WhaT Are the stricturES here?

4\. Given thaT SeVERaL KnowN kiLlings of AmeRicaN CitiZens SEeM on THe facE of
it To VIoLAte the guidelines of tHiS documEnt; moSt notably the dEath of
AbduLRAHman al-AuLaqi <HTtP://En.wikipedia.org/Wiki/ABdulrahman_AL-Aulaqi> iT
woulD behoove The governMENt to explAin The AppAreNT CoNtradiction. Or IF The
dEfInition Of "oPeratioNal LeaDer Of aL-QA'ida" has beEn watereD dOwN tO
"mIliTary aGEd male"; to StAte ThAt pUblicLY.

There Is no qUestIoN tHAt dEaling wITh NON-staTe PaRamiLitArY actoRs
unDErmInes the Nation staTe pARadiGm ThAt the exIsting law of waR aSsumes and
tHaT thEre are A NUmber of eDge cases where it is hard to DEterminE whEther A
givEn individUal Should Be tREated aS a combAtant Or As a CRIminaL; HOwEveR wE
as a nation AND as A sociEtY canNot affoRd to let our leaders bEComE mere
killers wIthOut rESTrAinT; No MAttEr
 that they have the rightto
disrupt  othe r p eop le 's p roce edings (funera l s) a s part of their rightto fr ee expr e ss ion.
[1] [h t tp : / /ww w. ka nsa sc i ty .com/ 201 2/10/16 /3870092/a ppe al s-
court-d.. . ]( http://www .ka nsascity.com /20 12/10/ 16 /38 7 0092/ app eals- court- delive rs-westbo ro . html)------o l ef oo
T he following ques t io n s come to mind .

1\.  W h at i s " aninformed,hi gh-le v el offi c ia l o f t h e US governme nt"; is itt hePresid en t o n ly, or  does  i t  in clude Cabin et M embers? I s it r e stricte d  to
pol itical  ap poi ntee s ,or  do es ite xt end int o civilse rv ice r oles a s well ?
2\."immi nent threat o f v iole n t a ttack  agai nstth e Uni ted St ates"  s ounds like
a de fini tion of a  le ga l s ta ndard ,  whatare  th e eleme nts ofs uch  a s t an dard and
would the  m e r epossessi on ofw ea po n ry suffi ci ent  toc a rry o ut s u ch  an atta ck
mee t  i t? 

3\. T he  phras e"se nio r ope r atio nal le ader ofal-Qa ' ida or an asso c iated force"i su s ed repe ate dly in thedocu m ent;  wha t  q ual i tiesput o ne in the category of
an"a ssocia ted f orce"? Wouldit be plau s i b le to sa y th a tW ikileaks could  be
d escribed a s  an asso ciate d forcewith al Q a ' ida? Cou ldthe  Sy ria n go vernment
be s o desc ri bed? Wh atare the  st ric tur eshe re?

4\.Given th at  s ev er alknown killings  o f A me ric an ci t izensseemon t he  f a ceof
it t o  v i o late  t he  gui del in es of  thi s  do cument;  most not abl y  the  d ea th of
A bdulrahman al -A ulaqi <htt p: //e n.wiki p e dia.org/ wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aul a qi> itwou ld be hoov e the gov ern ment t o e x plainthe ap paren tcon t r adict i o n.  Or  i f the
defi n i tio n of"o pera tionalleader of al-Qa'id a " h as been water eddown t o"mi l it a ryag e d m a l e"; to state th at publicl y. 
T here is no que st ion tha t deali ng wi t h non-s tate para militaryac tors u nde rmines the  nationstate par a digmt ha t the  ex isting  l awof wa r assu m esand
t hat th er e area num be r of edg e cases where it is har d to d eterm ine  whethera
g i ven  individu al s hould be t rea ted  as a  co m batan t or as  ac rimin al;h owever we as  an a ti on and as a s o cie ty ca nno t  affor d to  let our leadersb ecome mere
kil lers w ith out rest ra int; no matter 
 that_they have_the right to
disrupt other_people's proceedings_(funerals)_as part_of_their right to_free
expression.

[1] [http://www.kansascity.com/2012/10/16/3870092/appeals-
court-d...](http://www.kansascity.com/2012/10/16/3870092/appeals-court-
delivers-westboro.html)

------
olefoo
The following_questions come to mind.

1\._What is "an_informed,_high-level official of the US government"; is it the
President only, or does it include_Cabinet_Members? Is_it_restricted_to
political appointees, or does it_extend into civil service roles_as well?

2\._"imminent threat of violent attack against the United_States"_sounds like
a definition_of a legal standard, what are the elements of_such a standard and
would the mere_possession of weaponry_sufficient_to_carry out such an_attack
meet it?

3\. The phrase "senior operational_leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated_force"
is used repeatedly in the document; what_qualities put one in the category_of
an "associated force"? Would it_be plausible_to say that Wikileaks could_be
described as an_associated force_with al Qa'ida?_Could the Syrian government
be so described?_What are the_strictures here?

4\. Given that several known_killings_of American citizens_seem_on_the face_of
it to violate_the_guidelines of_this_document; most notably the death of
Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi_<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi> it
would behoove the government to explain_the apparent contradiction. Or_if_the
definition of "operational leader_of al-Qa'ida" has been watered_down to
"military aged male"; to state_that publicly.

There_is no_question that dealing with non-state paramilitary actors
undermines the nation state paradigm_that the existing law of war_assumes and
that there are_a number_of_edge cases where_it_is hard_to determine whether a
given individual should be_treated as_a combatant or as a criminal;_however we
as a nation_and_as a society cannot afford to_let our leaders become mere
killers without_restraint; no matter