DoD Law of War Manual updated today. Not sure what it means but interesting…
(lieber.westpoint.edu)
🧐 Research Wanted 🤔
Comments (32)
sorted by:
My uneducated guess is that, as we progress in this COG scenario, some of the generals might have asked for specific clarifications to be able to carry out their duties.
I don't see much else it could be. I'm very encouraged that the language is talking about going with whatever the guys on the ground decide when it's time sensitive. That's the mark of a good chain of command.
edit- and putting the phrase 'good faith' in there multiple times. this is like watching the sky turn light, waiting for the first glimpse of the sun to come into view on the horizon.
Also makes sense that adding a subjective criteria (like good faith) is only safe when we are sure the bad elements have been purged, and the good guys are given the freedom to use their discretion.
If I wasn't 100% confident that patriots are in control, then I would be very worried about that language since those who want to destroy America would have a different view of "good faith".
I wish I was confident that patriots were in control.
If they werent we'd all be long dead by now is come concentration camps.
White Hats, slipped Joe in (and Bernie out) in SC Primary (2020). Think back to then and recount the elements of The Movie we’ve been watching, since then…undeniable 🤔 NCSWIC!
It comes from my understanding/interpretation of biblical records & seeing how everything continues to follow what was set up. Even when my own best guesses of how future events are likely to play out, once they happen, God's plan is clearly still on course & I just didn't have enough wisdom to see more possibilities the time.
2nd Esdras in the 11th book (IIRC) talks about the line of kings & how the Antichrist rises up once Biden is taken out, only to be forced out of the US by the young lion (could be Trump, could be the new MAGA minded political party).
Coincidences just keep lining up way too much for me. I believe that our Lord & Savior is at the door ready to reign again on this earth soon. Though, as stated above, my understanding of specific of how the process is working isn't perfect. I just know God wins & we are preparing the way individually with love & hope for our fellows who share this planet.
Sounds good but it's like that guy that has to keep asking people if he handsome. When you take an obvious tacitly understood rule and bring it to the front is usually a sign that it's fixing to be violated is my way of thinking.
It's like if I walked up to my wife and said out of the blue, "I will never mess around on you" and she says, what made you say that? Was I tempted with messing around. Had I been weighing that option and all of a sudden came to a decision of which way I would go. Why bring it up at all in other words. ,
Why that particular analogy though? Hmm?
Qeq! ;)
Where that fucking hose meme when I need it?
Giddy-up!
that would make sense in clown world, but this is the heart of the GAW we're looking at here.
First Revision https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/law_war_manual15.pdf
Updated doc https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.PDF
Section it references 5.4.3 and 5.5.3
With regards to 5.5.3
Old - 5.5.3 Assessing Information in Conducting Attacks. Persons who plan, authorize, or make other decisions in conducting attacks must make the judgments required by the law of war in good faith and on the basis of information available to them at the time. For example, a commander must, on the basis of available information, determine in good faith that a target is a military objective before authorizing an attack. Similarly, the expected incidental damage to civilians or civilian objects must be assessed in good faith, given the information available to the commander at the time. In making the judgments that are required by the law of war rules governing attacks, persons may rely on information obtained from other sources, including human intelligence or other sources of information. For example, in a long-distance attack, a commander may rely on information obtained from aerial reconnaissance and intelligence units in determining whether to conduct an attack.
New -
5.5.3 Feasible Precautions to Verify Whether the Objects of Attack Are Military Objectives. In planning and conducting an attack, those who plan or decide upon an attack must take feasible precautions to verify that the targets to be attacked are military objectives174 and not protected by the law of war from being made the object of attack. These measures help implement the principle of distinction in classifying persons or objects as military objectives. Like other precautions in planning and conducting attacks, these measures are also part of the implementation of the principle of proportionality. These measures help reduce uncertainty in armed conflict,179 and they reinforce military effectiveness because they help avoid attacks that would serve no military purpose.
As discussed in § 5.2.3.2 (What Precautions Are Feasible), what precautions are feasible depends greatly on the context, including what time and other circumstances permit. The specific verification measures may depend on how the attack is being conducted and what type of target is being attacked. For example, when troops are in contact with enemy forces during combat operations, they may need to react immediately based on their professional judgment developed through training and experience and in accordance with military doctrine. On the other hand, with more time and resources available in planning an attack during the deliberate targeting process, planners and analysts may need to gather more information and conduct a more extensive review of whether a potential target is a military objective.In any event, the law of war, including the requirements discussed in this section, does not forestall commanders and other decision-makers from making decisions and taking actions at the speed of relevance, including in high-intensity conflict, based on their good faith assessment of the information that is available to them at the time, as explained in § 5.4.3.2 (Classifying Persons or Objects as Military Objectives When Planning and Conducting Attacks).Feasible precautions to verify that objectives to be attacked are military objectives may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Reviewing the accuracy and reliability of the information supporting the assessment that a potential target is a military objective;
• Checking potential target locations against no-strike and sensitive site lists;
• Reviewing previously approved targets at reasonable intervals as well as when warranted in light of fresh information and changing circumstances, e.g., to ascertain whether enemy forces continue to use the object for military purposes or whether the object’s destruction or neutralization continues to offer a definite military advantage;
• Gathering more information, such as visual identification of the target through intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms; • Taking steps when carrying out a planned attack to confirm that the person or object to be attacked, is, in fact, the intended target of the attack; and • Issuing communications to elicit reactions that inform whether a person or object is a military objective, such as summons of vessels to stop; directions given from intercepting aircraft; warnings required before the cessation of protection of medical units, vessels, or facilities; or some types of warnings before attacks that may affect the civilian population.
Old - Didn't have a 5.4.3 - the highest it had was 5.4.2 which states:
5.4.2 Decisions Must Be Made in Good Faith and Based on Information Available at the Time. Decisions by military commanders or other persons responsible for planning, authorizing, or executing military action must be made in good faith and based on their assessment of the information available to them at the time.A large number of States have recognized this principle.This principle has also been reflected in the decisions of courts assessing individual responsibility under the law of war, which have declined to second-guess military decisions with the benefit of hindsight. The requirement that military commanders and other decision-makers make decisions in good faith based on the information available to them recognizes that decisions may be made when information is imperfect or lacking, which will often be the case during armed conflict.
Page 192-193
New - 5.4.3-5.5 Lots of new stuff added some of it which states:
5.4.3 Assessing Information in Conducting Attacks. Persons who plan, authorize, or make other decisions in conducting attacks must make the judgments required by the law of war in good faith and on the basis of information available to them at the time.85 For example, a commander must, on the basis of available information, determine in good faith that a target is a military objective before authorizing an attack against that target. Similarly, the expected incidental damage to civilians or civilian objects must be assessed in good faith, given the information available to the commander at the time.
5.4.3.1 Considering Information Obtained from Other Persons or Means. In making the judgments that are required by the law of war rules governing attacks, individuals may rely on the information that is available to them, whether they have personally observed it or obtained it from other persons or means.87 For example, a commander may rely on information obtained from aerial reconnaissance and intelligence units in determining whether to conduct an attack. Commanders may also rely on information gathered by other forms of intelligence, including relevant human intelligence and geospatial intelligence.
5.4.3.2 Classifying Persons or Objects as Military Objectives When Planning and Conducting Attacks. The law of war requires that only military objectives be made the object of attack and imposes other requirements for the protection of civilians and other protected persons and objects In planning and conducting attacks, decisions or determinations that a person or object is a military objective must be made in good faith based on the information available at the time.In addition, these decisions must be consistent with the obligation to take feasible precautions to verify that the objects of attack are military objectives and with other obligations to seek to reduce the risk of incidental harm to civilians and other persons and objects protected from being made the object of attack.
Under the principle of distinction, commanders and other decision-makers must presume that persons or objects are protected from being made the object of attack unless the information available at the time indicates that the persons or objects are military objectives. This presumption is the starting point for the commander or other decision-maker’s good faith exercise of military judgment based on information available at the time. For example, if there is no information indicating that a person is a combatant93 or a non-combatant member of the armed forces, then commanders or other decision-makers must presume that person is a civilian. Under such a presumption, the person may not be made the object of attack unless the
available information evaluated in good faith indicates that the person takes a direct part in hostilities. Similarly, an object dedicated to civilian purposes (such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling, or a civilian school) is a civilian object and may not be made the object of attack, unless the available information evaluated in good faith indicates it is a military objective in the circumstances.Good Faith. Commanders and other decision-makers must assess whether persons or objects are military objectives in good faith. They must have an honest and genuine belief that a person or object to be attacked is a military objective. The law of war does not require that commanders and other decision-makers apply a fixed standard of evidence or proof.98 Rather, as elaborated below, the law of war requires commanders and other decision-makers to exercise professional judgment in making any assessment that a person or object is a military objective, and what is reasonable in making that assessment depends on the circumstances. Relevant circumstances may include the time and resources reasonably available, the risks to civilians from an erroneous decision, risks to friendly forces, and the military advantage expected from the attack. Attacks, however, may not be directed against persons or objects based on mere speculation regarding their possible current status as a military objective. For example, although an individual’s age and gender may be relevant in determining whether a person is a military objective, the mere fact that a person is a military-aged male with no additional information would be speculative and insufficient to determine that person to be a military objective.
Based on the Available Information. Commanders and other decision-makers must determine whether a potential target is a military objective based on the available information that is relevant to whether the potential target meets the applicable legal standard for a military objective.102 Such relevant information includes the characteristics of the potential target (e.g., the conduct or status of the person or the nature, location, purpose, or use of the object), as well as other information that indicates whether the potential target is a military objective (e.g., the military advantages or disadvantages offered by where the target is situated, intelligence estimates of enemy forces’ presence or anticipated action, enemy tactics, or assessments of civilian presence and behavior).103 In addition, it may be feasible to gather more information about the potential target, as discussed in the following paragraph
It goes on and on with more info just look at the PDF.
Thank you so much!!
Old Bomber Harris sure did not operate by that rule. Think Dresden.
Dresden was a legitimate military target. There is a recent book on the subject. It was a major rail center for German army transport, a holding ground for troops, and had a multitude of machine shops and workshops for the manufacture of torpedo and missile guidance systems. Pattern bombing was the only feasible method for night bombing, as there were no visible landmarks. The firestorm was one of the few occasions where outcome resulted.
Thank you for posting the old and new here!
ChatGPT to summarize the major differences in the old law vs new for 5.5.3:
The major differences between the old law and the new law can be summarized as follows:
Focus on Feasible Precautions: The new law emphasizes taking "feasible precautions" to verify whether the objects of attack are military objectives. Feasibility depends on the context, including time and circumstances. It recognizes that the specific verification measures may vary depending on the type of target and the resources available.
Implementation of the Principle of Distinction: The new law highlights that these feasible precautions to verify targets as military objectives are essential in implementing the principle of distinction, which requires distinguishing between military objectives and protected objects or persons during attacks.
Incorporation of Proportionality: The new law mentions that these verification measures also contribute to implementing the principle of proportionality. By reducing uncertainty in armed conflict, they help avoid attacks that would serve no military purpose.
Specific Examples of Verification Measures: The new law provides specific examples of feasible precautions to verify targets as military objectives. These examples include reviewing accuracy and reliability of information, checking no-strike and sensitive site lists, visual identification through intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms, and issuing communications to elicit reactions.
Recognition of Decision-Makers' Authority: The new law acknowledges that decision-makers, such as commanders, are not prevented from making decisions and taking actions based on their good faith assessment of available information at the speed of relevance, especially in high-intensity conflict situations.
Overall, the new law places greater emphasis on the importance of taking feasible precautions to verify targets as military objectives during attack planning and execution. It provides specific guidelines and examples to help ensure compliance with the principles of distinction and proportionality in armed conflict.
Worth analyzing the Q Posts that go along with these chapters / subchapters . . .
Q Post 543
u/#q543
Q Post 553
u/#q553
Interesting that we are being pointed in the direction of FISA, one of the three films along side Guardians of the Pedophiles, and PANIC IN DC that are all playing out simultaneously on the world stage.
It is worth noting also that the number 553 contains a Five by Five reference, which is code for a signal being loud and clear. In other words, an affirmation of comms.
link to Law of War Manual:
https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.PDF
Details of changes start on pg 1207. Post 1207 is a pic of BO and Wendy?
1207 is the title page, 1208 is actually the first page of change details. Post 1208, expand further is interesting
CHATGPT3 - "Based on the title you provided, it seems that the Department of Defense has made an update to its Law of War manual regarding two important aspects: "Presumption of Civilian Status" and "Feasible Precautions to Verify Military Objectives."
In layman's terms, this update likely focuses on clarifying guidelines for situations involving civilians and military objectives during armed conflicts. The presumption of civilian status means that individuals not actively participating in the conflict should be treated as civilians, and their safety should be protected accordingly. Feasible precautions to verify military objectives suggest that efforts must be made to confirm the target is indeed a military objective before taking any action to minimize harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure. This update aims to emphasize the importance of protecting innocent civilians during wartime"
Biden signed an executive order changed the Uniform Code of Military Justice on Friday.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/07/28/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-sign-executive-order-implementing-bipartisan-military-justice-reforms/
Taking UCMJ prosecutorial discretion out of the hands of commanders, sounds like a complete disaster. The military has privatized and outsourced everything else, so why not the legal system. Lowest bidder gets the contract.
They are not outsourcing this, they are setting a new office called Offices of Special Trial Counsel It will still be military prosecutors.
The webpage for the OSTC is up and they have begun staffing it. Changes go into effect Jan 1.
Roger that, poor choice of words on my part, while it may not be outsourced in the traditional sense bottom line they are taking the responsibility and authority away from commanders. I think anyone who has served as a commander and administered UCMJ will understand my intent and the negative impact on the unit when a commander’s authority is removed.
So, it's probably going to take significantly longer than X more weeks (fill in the X).
The executive order is based on a Law Congress passed in 2022. Part of the military funding bill. The Pentagon opposed these changes at first, but eventually supported them. I think Jan 1 was in the Bill.
Anytime there is a change to the UCMJ, the changes are always published before they go into effect, because then everyone needs to be trained starting with the JAG corp.
I don't trust a damned thing where this administration is concerned. All that superfluous language but it's still at the discretion of the bosses given the information "they have at the time". Sounds like they can open fire on anybody given the correct amount of misinformation.