Deep State Admiral Convicted of Treason


A Coast Guard admiral and military liaison to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has been sentenced by a military commission to hang by the neck until dead for treason and sedition, a Guantanamo Bay source told Real Raw News.

As reported last month, Marines happened upon Rear Admiral Michael Platt while laying a trap to ensnare Mayorkas in Eagle Pass, Texas. Although Mayorkas never arrived at the embattled border city, Platt’s presence there was viewed by White Hats as a consolation prize.

Upon arriving at GITMO, Platt was offered two options: write and sign a written confession attesting to his complicity in Mayorkas’ plan to abolish physical borders and in helping the DHS track down law-abiding military personnel who were at the Capitol on J6, or answer to a military tribunal as an enemy combatant. If he had picked the former, JAG would’ve shown compassion—in the form of a 10-year sentence without the possibility of parole. But Platt had chosen the latter, which had no advantageous stipulations and carried a potential death sentence. He reportedly told JAG he’d sooner die than betray Mayorkas, the “finest lawman” he had ever known.

“I answer only to the POTUS, Joseph R. Biden, and Homeland Director Alejandro Mayorkas, and I’m innocent of your made-up crimes,” he had told JAG staff at an initial interrogation.

Our source said JAG expedited his trial date to demonstrate what fate would befall other treasonous officers who had or might have been thinking about violating their constitutional oath. JAG even denied Platt his uniform, saying he wasn’t worthy of wearing it and would appear in court festooned in a detainee’s attire—handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit, garb befitting a man of his tarnished achievements.

At trial Thursday, Platt seemed mystified, then angry, to learn that Vice Admiral Darse E. Crandall had at the last moment delegated prosecutorial responsibility to a junior officer, a 33-year-old Navy captain whose name RRN was asked to omit from this report.

“Where is Admiral Crandall? Where is the coward?” Platt said from his shackled position at the defense table.

“Admiral Crandall is attending to important matters,” the captain replied.

“So, he sends you? I’m an admiral. A rear admiral. You’re not qualified to adjudicate over me,” said Platt.

“I believe you are in error,” the captain said. “Here you are, a detainee, with the rights and privileges afforded a detainee. That’s to say we decide your rights, or who is qualified. You should consider your place, and I mean that physically, as in looking around you, see where you are right now. You’re not in Kansas anymore. Here is your right: You have a right to stay in that seat and be silent until offered a chance to speak.”

The captain faced the officer trio JAG had chosen to weigh the evidence against Platt. “I appreciate your time, gentlemen, and won’t take much of it today. On September 7, 2020, the detainee wrote and distributed letters to at least 65 Coast Guard officers in California, Hawaii, Maryland, and Virginia, reminding them to vote for Joseph Biden in the upcoming election. He wrote, and I quote, ‘I’m writing to remind you of the importance of voting for Joseph Biden and Kamala Harris in the 2020 presidential election. Trump has too much military support already, and its urgent we deny him additional support. He is destroying the United States from within, and only Joseph Biden and Kamala Harris can right the wrongs he’s inflicted on the nation. I would look favorably on officers who share my sentiment, and who share my sentiment with lower grades.’ His actions were nothing short of politicizing the uniform, weaponizing his authority, and it’s expressly forbidden. You have copies of this correspondence in your folders, and they’ve been authenticated,” the captain explained.

Platt objected, saying he could explain the letter, and the captain allowed him to speak.

“I sent the letters to friends, officers who had already told me they’d vote for Biden. I was just reminding them they told me they’d vote for Biden, and it wasn’t like I sent it to every Coast Guard member everywhere,” Platt said.

“That makes no sense,” the captain said to the panel. “Why would anyone need to be reminded who to vote for? Did his ‘friends’ have amnesia? Dementia? Did they really need a mental nudge? No, of course not. What the detainee did do is incite insurrection, treason, mutiny. And this set a pattern of future misconduct.”

Platt chewed on his lower lip, angry as a cornered beast. He stared lividly at the captain, at the panel, and at the two MPs flanking his seat. It was as though he saw enemies swimming in on him from all sides.

“Detainee Platt, did you in any capacity help DHS track down any servicemember, active or retired, that was at the Capitol on January 6, 2021?” the captain asked him.

“In 2021 Joseph Biden was president, and I did the job he and my superiors asked of me. Interpret that however you wish; I won’t help you incriminate me,” Platt said.

“You’ve been an immense help,” the captain said.

On a large screen, he displayed an image of an email, dated 3/5/2021, that Platt had sent to Mayorkas and FBI Director Christopher Wray. In it, Platt offered up the names of 15 service members who had attended President Trump’s speech on the Ellipse on J6, calling them “MAGA Trumpists,” “insurrectionists,” and “traitors.”

Of the 15, the captain said, only five marched on the Capitol in peaceful protest, and none had engaged in violence or set foot inside the building. However, that didn’t stop the DHS and FBI from arresting all 15, 12 of whom, the captain said, were still unlawfully incarcerated at secret jails in D.C.

“I did my job,” Platt mumbled, “and I’d do it again.”

“Then tell this commission, please, what job it was you were performing when you were caught in Eagle Pass on February 13. Last time I checked, the Coast Guard didn’t have any ships in the Rio Grande,” the captain said.

“My duty,” Platt said.

The captain turned to the panel. “Detainee Platt was at the border representing the Department of Homeland Security. He was there to enforce Mayorkas’ instructions: encourage Customs and Border Enforcement agents to dismantle physical barriers near the Rio Grande, and to allow the unobstructed flow of illegal immigrants into the United States.”

He showed the panel a text exchange between Platt and Mayorkas that JAG had pulled from Platt’s phone.

“We control the border, not Gregg Abbott, not the Texas Military Department. You will be my representative. You will speak for me there. Make sure that razor wire, every inch of it, comes down,” Mayorkas had written.

“I’ll do as you ask, whatever it takes to keep them open. Unifying the United States and Mexico into a single borderless country is what I want to see happen,” Platt had replied.

“Treason. Mutiny. Sedition. JAG asks you officers to find detainee Platt guilty and recommend the maximum punishment,” the captain said to the panel.

The panelists needed no time to debate a verdict; they agreed with the captain and said that Platt should hang for his crimes.

“Secretary Mayorkas will have your heads,” Platt screamed as the MPs escorted him from the courtroom. “This isn’t over!”

“It is for you,” the captain said.

Platt’s execution is scheduled to take place on March 12

Free Speech and Alternative Media are under attack by the Deep State. Real Raw News needs reader support to survive and thrive. 

Please do not give your hard-earned money to sites or channels that copy/paste our intellectual property. We spend countless hours vetting, researching, and writing. Thank you. Every dollar helps. Contributions help keep the site active and help support the author (and his medical bills)

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ken T.

Looks like they are culling out the stupid officers. The ones that doesn’t even know who the real President is. Where he is going he will find out who the real Boss is right away. There will be no doubt no matter which way he goes. They are waiting for him.


For him it is a costume.
It is only a uniform on someone who earned it.


Delusional man to think any of what he did could be supported by reasonable ppl..


Ah, March 12th, what a wonderful day for a traitorous pig coastie officer to die by hanging.

Gregg Nickens

I’m making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection that was truly astounding for me. she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using
this website… 𝐖­𝐰­𝐰.𝐌­𝐨­𝐧­𝐞­𝐲­𝐏­𝐚­𝐲­𝟏.𝐜­𝐨­𝐦


F.O. with your FREE Ad space. What makes you special? If you MAKE tons of money, you should be able to PAY for ad space. Or, are you actually supporting this channel by PAYING for the ad space? In which case I apologize & withdraw my remarks. (I doubt I have to, though.) MAGA.

Last edited 4 months ago by Paladin45

I find these deluded TRAITORS absolutely INFURIATING, as well as plain wrong. There is, normally, ONLY ONE U.S. President at a time. Start date of his tenure is usually Jan. 20, following the Nov. ‘Election’. Admiral seems sorely un-moored.

After the disputed “Elections” of Nov. 2020, Lawmakers met in the Capitol on January 6, 2021 to accept (or not) the Electors sent by the States, and to Ratify or Certify Election Results. Protesters gathered outside were THERE to PROTEST the proceedings, believing the election unacceptably flawed & corrupt and many States’ delegates therefore not legitimate. Once Congress approves Election results, the “winner” is known as the “President Elect”. Inauguration of a new president, hence the Official Transfer of Power & Office, normally occurs on 20 January. (Except, perhaps, when it Doesn’t. LOL!) So, on January 6th, Donald J. Trump WAS STILL the (ONLY) PRESIDENT of the United States. This former admiral’s ASSERTION that Joseph Biden was president on January 6th, 2021, is PROCEDURALLY UNSUPPORTED & FACTUALLY INCORRECT. Ignorant assertion or Treasonous? Is an Admiral expected to know who is the Commander In Chief? I’d expect so. 


That’s why the idiot officer is dead!!!

Bonkie 1

Get ‘em all! Amazing how loyal they continue to remain after so many tribunals have occurred. You’d think they’d wake up by now.

1904 SD

What I still need to understand is this…How is it that any president could just forgo the legal systems already put into place? It isn’t fair to all the previous aliens who did go thru the vetting and testing processes, I know someone who feels jilted after spending a whole lot of money, health exams, and educational testing, etc. I never understood Bi-Dim’s premise? Can someone please enlighten me on this one, I am so darned curious to understand how we simply stood by and let this get so out of hand. And then not being able to account for all of the missing children? Or the adults, and to have an averages of age levels and reasons for their arrival? What their skills are and if they have any criminal history? DNA samples, fingerprints, photographs, family tree, children, gang affiliations, education, work history, what compelled them to traverse all the way across several (?) countries to get help here? Isn’t it a law that individuals who seek refuge, amnesty must apply for it in the first country they arrive at other than their own? And no covid-19 vaccinations? I mean to say this border law seemed to be working for the most part especially since Trump enhanced it and was working to make it airtight and impenetrable, ( which I admit to being somewhat squeamish about because what if a rogue gov. such as the one we have now managed to gain total control / power of our country and well, like these fools almost did, and I admit that I was well on my way to locating a new country in which to reside as I had been seriously studying what was going down here at least 10 years prior to this political, pedo, elite, D-ar-pa, 3 le-tter agen-cies, Non citizen psudeo president O’Bummer, F-em-a cam-p, Wal-mart=Mart-Law ( the one near me just closed its doors, we also have a brand new police department and jail here and trains that can and sometimes do pass this way, a trolley for sure and for about 2 years or so we could hear an auger working beneath our town, everyone thought I was crazy but I was 100% correct, I know it. I also witnessed a very long train filled with nothing but humvee’s, tanks, and an assortment of military vehicles heading down south which would have been Mexico as it didn’t make any other sense to me, never seen anything like it before, it was huge and it only reinforced my belief that something very nafarious was going on in our country, ( I live in El Cajon, Ca. but was near Marina Blvd.when I witnessed the train, only a few more stops till Mex border. So can anyone explain that one too? can we also plan on a full scale invasion from our friends south of the border just when were ass out of just about everything?) How much longer till these idiots in our country wake up? This is getting old way way old and I’m just about ready to admit defeat and well, El Salvador is looking pretty darned good right about now, I mean were left with a 3rd world infrastructure due to the D.U.M.B.’s and overspending on mach 2-3 mag lift trains beneath our feet and noses, pentagons in on it all of the politicians seem to think their extra special, ( ok maybe blackmail but really? Clones? Perhaps but I am having trouble configuring them into this, human beings are complicated enough, our creator is pretty darned miraculous and not just us too all of the plant life animals insects birds etc. Amazing. sorry for my long rant.


I hope, since Taxpayers paid for it, all that subterranean infrastructure will be KEPT & USED for Good, rather than destroyed, by the New & Lawful Patriot Regime(s). But I hear you & thanks for your kindness, esp. in last remarks.

Mark David

These traitors don’t have a high IQ either. This Platt-ypus is dumber than a rock. A hanging for him is appropriate. I want to hear his last words before the rope tightens.

Last edited 4 months ago by Mark David

“I was just following orders.”


Prayer for our White Hat Warriors, Vets and Patriots fighting the cabal in Texas, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma fighting the DEW fires:
(If you are a mature Christian, please proceed.)
Dear God in Heaven, we  pray for all the men, women and children that were robbed of their farms by fires and by enemy deep state agents of FEMA, for any who may have been massacred and gunned down and burned alive in cold blood by this atrocious evil! Satan has unleashed all his demons on our  great land to destroy our  farmland, our food supply, our families and our nation through not only deep state firefights but also by invasion by enemy infiltrators at the southern border between the United States of America and Mexico. .
We call out to you, Father, for help! We pray for Your hand of justice to move swiftly to abolish, eradicate, and destroy the cabal!  In Jesus name we call on You to send rain to quench the flames on all these states under fire from these deep state traitors. We declare and decree in Jesus name with the power and authority we possess as believers that ALL evil is wiped-off the face of this earth!
We call on our warrior angelic army to send confusion into the  enemy’s camps and make arrests upon any and all spirits operating through this wave of unholy fire.  We call for Your divine intervention and protection for our brave military, patriots, firefighters, farmers  and first responders fighting this war, against the darkest forces of evil in Jesus Name. Let our soldiers, firefighters and rescuers be strong, fearless and courageous. Let them be guided by Your hands, Almighty Father! And let them be successful and triumphant, and return home safely. Let no one be dead but help the wounded victims live and recover their lands and livestock through Your abundance and restoration according to Proverbs 6:31 and Joel 2:23 in Jesus Name.
Father, we bless and honor Your name, we praise You for Your mighty works, miracles and mercy. Your throne is established on righteousness and justice according to Your holy law and according to Romans 13:4-5. Therefore,  we call for these criminals and agents of hell terrorizing and killing innocent  life and committing genocide to be brought to justice without delay in Jesus Name.
We pray for a hedge of protection around journalist Michael Baxter, too, carrying out his lonely mission in the middle of this holocaust that is every bit as evil as the Nazi concentration camps, Armenian and Rwandan genocides.
We  pray for a hedge of protection around our brave  men and women  fighting this war against the cabal. We  plead the PRECIOUS BLOOD OF JESUS over them. This is absolutely unimaginable to regular people, but Satan knows his time is very short and he is doing everything he can to destroy Your children. Strengthen us, Lord, in our prayer life to stand in the gap for those who are suffering and will suffer at the hand of these demonic people in Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas under fire. We bind and rebuke every form of evil in our great nation, the United States of America in Jesus Name. We pray Your will be done on Earth as in Heaven! In the Mighty name of Jesus Christ we pray! Amen and Amen!


God Bless You Xena….Amen to your beautiful pray.

We need the genocidal killing to STOP in GAZA.

This world is suffering Immensely!

Last edited 4 months ago by CD22

Yes. They are killing children on both sides. It must stop.


@ cd22: Funny, I thought the “genocidal” killing started Oct. 7 in – well, you know where. Don’t wanna offend your one-sidedly tender senses. The whole mess is/was TOTALLY un-necessary – unless there’s some OTHER reason for LAUNCHING this world DISTRACTION.


Sure is a Boensch of postings here.
Wonder where my comment of yesterday got to. (I wanted to add a little note.)


MB announced today that he has added a moderator to handle to influx of bots & trolls.. that should probably include egregious off-topic blather as well.


I agree your disdain for “egregious, off-topic blather.” Both you and the “moderator” will find I do not engage in such. (Long ago, I also offered some editing input, but found it rebuffed. But not to a high shine…..) Cheers!


Good job, JAG.
How challenging. What a piece of work this character is. No logic. Blind obedience to a tyrannical government. Bribes to higher future positions? Drank the Kool-Aid? Lack of critical thinking skills?




On border control, ICYMI: Epoch Times’ Josh Phillip video interviewed, the other day, the former man in charge of border control, up to 2021 (Biden regime came in, he went out). This man who came across very straight, rational, and honest, acknowledged the known reasons Dems have opened the border, such as to scrape up illegal votes (because we all know their “candidates” and incompetent, unqualified criminals, etc, and would never win any election). But near the end, this man revealed a new datum for me/us: he said the underlying and unspoken (by Biden, Mayorcus, etc) reason for flooding these illegal foreigners across the border was, ultimately, to outnumber the “white Americans” and make them into a minority! These Dem psychopaths seem to have cooled off some recently with the CRT crap due to opposition, but this border program is covertly CRT on steroids! As that would require nearly doubling the population, this also blows their “concern for overpopulation” to smithereens, doesn’t it? This data is not to scare anybody, but you gotta know the level of depravity the White Hats are facing.


Yes, social, religious & genetical POPULATION replacement of ALL ‘democratic’, Western & ‘White’ countries IS a major (but not the FINAL) OBJECTIVE. Coffee’s on.


ht tps://


Thank God we have the right to free speech!!

trendingpoliticsnews .com/federal-agency-spent-39-million-to-develop-ai-that-blacklists-voices-knab/?fbclid=IwAR30TIDJS-7Zuj9AL0L86tf5ZNDn5oLqdXVdDpdnjgqrrKzX1n-O5rEGpAQ

Robert Gregory Boensch
The Law of War as the Lex Specialis Governing Armed Conflict.

The maxim lex specialis derogat legi generali means that “[a]s a rule the special rule overrides the general law.”14

14 Colleanu v. German State, German-Rumanian Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, Jan. 12, 1929, reprinted in H. LAUTERPACHT, V INTERNATIONAL LAW REPORTS 438 (1929). See also GROTIUS, LAW OF WAR & PEACE 428 ( (“[A]mong agreements which are equal in respect to the qualities mentioned, that should be given preference which is most specific and approaches most nearly to the subject at hand; for special provisions are ordinarily more effective than those that are general”).

The rule that is more specifically directed towards the action receives priority because it takes better account of the particular features of the context in which the law is to be applied, thus creating a more equitable result and better reflecting the intent of the authorities that have made the law. 15

15 U.N. International Law Commission, Conclusions of the work of the Study Group on the Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law 2(7) (2006) (“Rationale of the principle. That special law has priority over general law is justified by the fact that such special law, being more concrete, often takes better account of the particular features of the context in which it is to be applied than any applicable general law. Its application may also often create a more equitable result and it may often better reflect the intent of the legal subjects.”).
The law of war has been developed with special consideration of the circumstances of war and the challenges inherent in its regulation by law. Thus, for example, the exigencies of armed conflict cannot justify violating the law of war.16

16 Refer to § 2.2.2 (Military Necessity and Law of War Rules).

Moreover, lawmakers sometimes have considered peacetime rules appropriate to apply during armed conflict, and in certain of these cases, they have explicitly incorporated such concepts into the law of war.17

17 Refer to § (Explicit Incorporation of Concepts From Other Bodies of Law Into the Law of War).

Thus, traditionally, the law of war has been described as the only “authoritative rules of action between hostile armies,” or as superseding ordinary law in the actual theater of military operations.18

18 See LIEBER CODE art. 40 (“There exists no law or body of authoritative rules of action between hostile armies, except that branch of the law of nature and nations which is called the law and usages of war on land.”). See also WINTHROP, MILITARY LAW & PRECEDENTS 773-74 (“By the term LAW OF WAR is intended that branch of International Law which prescribes the rights and obligations of belligerents, or—more broadly—those principles and usages which, in time of war, define the status and relations not only of enemies—whether or not in arms—but also of persons under military government or martial law and persons simply resident or being upon the theatre of war, and which authorizes their trial and punishment when offenders. Unlike Military Law Proper, the Law of War in this country is not a formal written code, but consists mainly of general rules derived from International Law, supplemented by acts and orders of the military power and a few legislative provisions. In general it is quite independent of the ordinary law. ‘On the actual theatre of military operations,’ as is remarked by a learned judge, ‘the ordinary laws of the land are superseded by the laws of war.

The jurisdiction of the civil magistrate is there suspended, and military authority and force are substituted.’

Finding indeed its original authority in the war powers of Congress

and the Executive, and thus constitutional in its source, the Law of War may, in its exercise, substantially supersede for the time even the Constitution itself

–as will be hereinafter indicated.”).

Similarly, law of war treaties have been viewed as a clear example of a lex specialis in relation to treaties providing peacetime norms concerning the same subjects.

Ok People can you see how complex War Is when the rules are played

the Law of War may, in its exercise, substantially supersede for the time even the Constitution itself

U.N. International Law Commission

President Trump Is Our Commander in Chief
25017-01-20 Till today

Result: 2599 daysIt is 2599 days from the start date to the end date, but not including the end date.
Or 7 years, 1 month, 12 days excluding the end date.
Or 85 month, 12 days excluding the end date

And He Did it freely with out accepting a wage

Robert Gregory Boensch

Your lone wolf That can and Will protect You And teach you the Way to freedom

Knowledge is more important and only second to Us Knowing.

That their is Guidance And love from our Heavenly Father

And He always Provides For Us everything that We always need

To travel down this Path to his Kingdom



“That THERE IS Guidance…”


Geez, stop it . They will come and get you before any of us respectable trolls


Hey Robert, scrolling past your drivel is just like unrolling a whole package of toilet paper, one roll at a time!

Lorenz Manner

Very good job to hang again a manure first class. We hope the disgusting and delusional Mayorkas will follow very soon. He deserves the noose, too. Get rid of this kind of trash that has destroyed America. Good riddance.

Robert Gregory Boensch

The Law of War’s Relationship to Other Bodies of Law.

An issue that often confronts law of war practitioners is the relationship of the law of war to other bodies of law, especially when rules in those bodies of law may appear to conflict with rules reflected in the law of war. These apparent conflicts are often resolved by considering the principle that the law of war is the lex specialis governing armed conflict.11 How a law of war rule relates to a particular rule that is not grounded in the law of war may depend on the specific legal rule in question. In general, the law of war may relate to other bodies of law through: (1) law of war rules superseding rules in other bodies of law with respect to armed conflict; (2) construing the rules in other bodies of law to avoid conflict with law of war rules; (3) law of war rules informing the content of general standards in other bodies of law, should such standards be construed to apply to armed conflict; and (4) law of war treaties explicitly incorporating concepts from other bodies of law. In some cases, it may be difficult to distinguish between these approaches, and different entities may apply different approaches to achieve the same result.12 Although there are different approaches and although the ultimate resolution may depend on the specific rules and context, the law of war, as the lex specialis of armed conflict, is the controlling body of law with regard to the conduct of hostilities and the protection of war victims.1


Dear RGB, I just saw that you posted t-h-i-r-t-y o-n-e consecutive comments, taking up page after page of space, all at the same time apparently, which I did not care or bother to read. We do not get on this website to read your extremely verbose viewpoints – that is far, far beyond “comments.” While your brief comments are welcome, as are the comments from all readers, if you want to download all your thoughts, etc, and have these read, please publish a book so people can access it by choice. Pleased do not use this site as your personal publications outlet. That is not its purpose.

Robert Gregory Boensch

Please count over again

I have counted 139


Yeah, I recounted more after my above post. Are you just another troll?? You seem to be missing the whole point about monopolizing the space on RRN. Do you really think all the RRN readers want you as their self-appointed mentor?? Your comments and input as comments are fine – the books we can do without.


The troll Czar


SECOND THAT MOTION. (He actually might be well worth a read – in “book” form, online or otherwise, but NOT HERE.) Cheers!

Last edited 4 months ago by Paladin45
Robert Gregory Boensch
Law of War Versus International Humanitarian Law and Law of Armed Conflict.

The law of war is often called the law of armed conflict. Both terms can be found in DoD directives and training materials. International humanitarian law is an alternative term for the law of war that may be understood to have the same substantive meaning as the law of war.9 In other cases, international humanitarian law is understood more narrowly than the law of war (e.g., by understanding international humanitarian law not to include the law of neutrality).

Robert Gregory Boensch

Law of War – Notes on Terminology.
Different Definitions of the Law of War.

The law of war may be defined slightly differently in other publications. For example, DoD issuances have defined the law of war more narrowly than the definition discussed in this section (e.g., by omitting reference to that part of international law that regulates the resort to armed force).

Robert Gregory Boensch

For the purposes of this manual, the law of war is that part of international law that regulates the resort to armed force; the conduct of hostilities and the protection of war victims in both international and non-international armed conflict; belligerent occupation; and the relationships between belligerent, neutral, and non-belligerent States. 6 For the purposes of this manual, the law of war comprises treaties and customary international law applicable to the United States. 7

Robert Gregory Boensch

Use of Signals in This Manual.
This manual uses signals to introduce the sources and cross-references in the footnotes. The table below identifies the signals used in this manual, describes their function, and provides examples of their use.

Signal Function and Examples of Use [no signal] Directly states the proposition If a person joins a levée en masse, he or she may be held as a POW even if he or she actually took no part in fighting. 1 1 1958 UK MANUAL ¶100 (“If it is shown that they joined the levée en masse, but took no part in the defence, they may be held as prisoners of war.”). Identifies the source of a quotation As the Supreme Court has explained: “Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces.” 2 2 Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 31 (1942). Identifies an authority referred to in the text There are additional provisions of the CCW Amended Mines Protocol addressing international exchanges of information and cooperation in this respect.3 3 CCW AMENDED MINES PROTOCOL art. 11. See Clearly supports the proposition but does not directly state it In addition, observers on military reconnaissance aircraft have not been regarded as acting clandestinely or under false pretenses.4 4 See HAGUE IV REG. art. 29 (“Persons sent in balloons for the purpose of carrying despatches and, generally, of maintaining communications between the different parts of an army or a territory” are not considered spies.). See also Elaborates on the proposition This means that a combatant’s “killing, wounding, or other warlike acts are not individual crimes or offenses.” 5 5 LIEBER CODE art. 57. See also WINTHROP, MILITARY LAW & PRECEDENTS 778 (“The State is represented in active war by its contending army, and the laws of war justify the killing or disabling of members of the one army by those of the other in battle or hostile operations.”). 

Cf. Supports the proposition by analogy, i.e., discusses a different proposition that is sufficiently similar to support the original proposition A person must engage in acts of espionage in the zone of operations of a belligerent to be considered a spy. “Zone of operations” has been construed broadly to include areas supporting the war effort.6 6 Cf. Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37 (1942) (“The law of war cannot rightly treat those agents of enemy armies who enter our territory, armed with explosives intended for the destruction of war industries and supplies, as any the less belligerent enemies than are agents similarly entering for the purpose of destroying fortified places or our Armed Forces.”). Refer to Refers to another manual section that supports or elaborates on the proposition Certain categories of persons are not members of the armed forces, but are nonetheless authorized to support the armed forces in the fighting: • persons authorized to accompany the armed forces, but who are not members thereof; 7 7 Refer to § 4.15 (Persons Authorized to Accompany the Armed Forces). Compare Refers to another manual section that is analogous to the proposition Persons authorized to accompany the armed forces who provide security against criminal elements generally would not be viewed as taking a direct part in hostilities (and do not forfeit their protection from being made the object of attack).269 269 Compare § 4.23.1 (Police as Civilians). Consider Identifies a treaty that relates to the proposition but to which the United States is not a Party (e.g., AP I) Under international law, every treaty in force is binding upon the Parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.10 10 Consider VCLT art. 26 (“Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.”). 

For example, Illustrates the proposition with an example drawn from historical practice Adjusting the timing of an attack may reduce the risk of incidental harm. For example, attacking a military objective when civilians are less likely to be present may be appropriate. 11 11 For example, Jennifer O’Connor, General Counsel, Department of Defense, Remarks at New York University School of Law: Applying the Law of Targeting to the Modern Battlefield, Nov. 28, 2016 (“Given the facts of this specific situation, including the intelligence that the cash was being used to pay ISIL fighters and conduct terrorist operations, the targeting authority determined that the bulk cash was a legitimate military objective. The next step then for the targeting authority before approving the strike was to conduct a proportionality analysis. This bulk cash storage site happened to be in an area where civilians were often present—as you might expect from a building that used to be a civilian bank before ISIL turned it into a cash storage site. As a result of the high number of civilians in the area, the targeting authority took specific steps to minimize potential harm to civilians by ordering the attack to occur at a time when the potential for any civilian casualties was deemed to be the lowest.”); FINAL REPORT ON THE PERSIAN GULF WAR 100 (noting that during Operation DESERT STORM “attacks on known dual (i.e., military and civilian) use facilities normally were scheduled at night, because fewer people would be inside or on the streets outside.”). e.g., Added to any of the other signals when the cited authority is one of several authorities (some of which remain uncited) that stand for the same proposition International humanitarian law is an alternative term for the law of war that may be understood to have the same substantive meaning as the law of war. 12 12 See, e.g., Overview of the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, 6, Enclosure to Condoleezza Rice, Letter of Submittal, Jun. 11, 2007, MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRANSMITTING AMENDMENT TO THE CONVENTION ON THE PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL (THE “AMENDMENT”). A CONFERENCE OF STATES PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON THE PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL, ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 28, 1979, ADOPTED THE AMENDMENT ON JULY 8, 2005, AT THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY IN VIENNA, TREATY DOC. 110-6, 6 (2007) (“(2) The United States of America understands that the term ‘international humanitarian law’ in Paragraph 5 of the Amendment (Article 2 of the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, as amended) has the same substantive meaning as the law of war.”)

Wasn’t reading this fun

Robert Gregory Boensch

Use of Cross-References in This Manual.
This manual uses cross-references in the footnotes to point the reader to other sections of the manual containing relevant discussion of a particular topic. In particular, an effort has been made to use cross-references rather than to repeat discussion of a recurring issue or duplicate citation of legal sources. In sections in which a law of war rule is only mentioned tangentially or as an example, a cross-reference is used to direct the reader to the section of the manual in which a more in-depth discussion of that rule and supporting sources are provided. 5 Cross-references are linked to enable the reader to access the referenced section quickly.

Robert Gregory Boensch
Citation Forms.
An effort has been made to make citations forms consistent throughout the manual, and to provide enough information about each cited source to reflect its significance and to enable readers to find it. 4 This manual has not strictly adhered to an established system of citation. Although certain citation systems were consulted, modifications were made as deemed appropriate for this type of resource, to make the citation forms straightforward and simple and relatively easy for readers to understand. In regard to abbreviations, for example, this manual generally does not abbreviate the names of academic journals. Moreover, it is hoped that the quotations from the cited sources that have been included in footnotes will help readers find the cited sources electronically.

Robert Gregory Boensch
Citation of Policies and Regulations.
Policies and regulations of the U.S. Government or particular DoD components are sometimes cited as examples of past practice. This manual, however, seeks primarily to address the law and not to address applicable U.S. Government or DoD policies or regulations. Many policies and regulations are not addressed in this manual, and the discussion of some policies, where relevant, should not be understood to indicate that other pertinent policies or regulations do not exist. Moreover, policies and regulations are constantly updated, so practitioners are advised to ascertain whether more recent versions of cited policies and regulations have been issued. In some cases, cancelled issuances or superseded policies or regulations are cited to show the past practice, and, at times, a series of issuances are cited to illustrate a continuity in practice. Policies and regulations often exceed the requirements of applicable law, and the mere citation of a policy or regulation in this manual should not be understood to reflect the view that the policy or regulation’s requirements have been promulgated out of a sense of legal obligation for the purposes of assessing customary international law or otherwise intending to reflect legal requirements.

Robert Gregory Boensch
Quotes Provided From Sources.
Quotes from sources are sometimes given in parentheticals within footnotes. These parentheticals are provided to help practitioners, such as by facilitating comparison between the main text of the manual and the language used in the sources. Every effort has been made to quote sources accurately. Practitioners, however, should verify quotations using the original source. Certain formatting rules have been followed for quoted material. Two spaces have been placed after each period ending a sentence. Footnote numbers and carriage returns have been omitted from quoted text. Otherwise, quotes have not been changed unless noted through the use of ellipses, brackets, or parentheticals after the quotes indicating the changes made.

Robert Gregory Boensch
Use of Older Sources.
Older sources are sometimes cited:
(1) because that source is particularly influential; (2) to demonstrate the origin of a legal proposition; or (3) to illustrate that a particular rule or formulation has a long history. The citation of an older source should not necessarily be interpreted as an endorsement that every aspect of that source remains current law. For example, the Lieber Code is a canonical law of war document for the United States, but parts of it no longer reflect current law.3 Moreover, an older document produced by a State does not necessarily reflect its current legal views. For example, the 1958 UK Manual, although a particularly influential law of war manual prepared by distinguished experts Hersch Lauterpacht and Gerald Draper, has been superseded by subsequent UK Manuals, which reflect more recent developments in the law for the United Kingdom (e.g., its ratification of AP I).

Robert Gregory Boensch
Selection of Sources.
The sources cited in the footnotes have been chosen for a variety of reasons. For example, a source may contain a particularly helpful explanation or illustration. A source may have been chosen to illustrate U.S. practice or legal interpretation. A source may have been selected because its author was a particularly influential and respected international lawyer. For example, the 1956 Department of Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, has been a source of legal guidance for the U.S. armed forces for more than 50 years, and was published in connection with the U.S. ratification of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. One of the persons who helped prepare the 1956 manual was Richard Baxter, a highly respected DoD lawyer, who later became a judge on the International Court of Justice. Citation to a particular source should not be interpreted to mean that the cited source  represents an official DoD position, or to be an endorsement of the source in its entirety. For example, parts of a source, such as an opinion by the International Court of Justice or a commentary published by the International Committee of the Red Cross, may reflect the DoD legal interpretation, while other parts of the source may not. Similarly, the citation of the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights should not be understood to indicate that the United States has accepted the competence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to apply the law of war.2 

Robert Gregory Boensch

Use of Sources in This Manual.
This manual cites sources in the footnotes to support or elaborate upon propositions in the main text. These sources are cited in the footnotes to help practitioners research particular topics discussed in the main text. Reviewing the cited sources in their entirety may provide additional contextual information, especially where sources are only partially quoted in the footnotes. 

Robert Gregory Boensch

Use of Footnotes in This Manual.
This manual uses footnotes to provide sources or cross-references to other sections of the manual in order to clarify, elaborate on, or support the main text. An effort has been made to avoid introducing discussion in the footnotes that addresses different propositions than those discussed in the main text. Although providing tangential information in footnotes is common in academic legal writing, this practice has been avoided to the extent possible for principally two reasons. First, it was desirable that this manual’s main text convey as much information as possible without the reader needing to read the footnotes. For example, it was desirable to avoid the possibility that a reader might misunderstand a legal rule addressed in the main text because a notable exception to that rule was addressed only in a footnote accompanying the text. Second, tangential discussion on a given issue in footnotes would have made it much more difficult to keep the manual’s treatment of that issue consistent from section to section and to allow the reader to find all the relevant information about a single topic. Thus, tangential discussion in footnotes has been avoided, to the extent possible, in favor of cross-references to the appropriate section of the manual that addresses that topic in more detail.

Robert Gregory Boensch

1.1.2 Scope.
This manual is not a definitive explanation of all law of war issues. This manual focuses on jus in bello – law relating to the conduct of hostilities and the protection of war victims. This manual seeks to address the law of war that is applicable to the United States, including treaties to which the United States is a Party, and applicable customary international law. It provides legal rules, principles, and discussion, particularly with respect to DoD practice. Although the views of other States may be referenced in this manual, it is not a purpose of this manual to describe the views of other States, which may differ from views expressed in this manual. This manual is not a substitute for the careful practice of law. As specific legal issues
arise, legal advisers should consider relevant legal and policy materials (e.g., treaty provisions, judicial decisions, past U.S. practice, regulations, and doctrine), and should apply the law to the specific factual circumstances. This manual is intended to be a description of the law as of the date of the manual’s promulgation. In this vein, much of this manual has been written in the past tense to help ensure that the text remains accurate, even after subsequent developments have occurred. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the manual, but it must be read in the light of later developments in the law.

Last edited 4 months ago by Robert Gregory Boensch
Robert Gregory Boensch


1.1.1 Purpose.
The purpose of this manual is to provide information on the law of war to DoD personnel responsible for implementing the law of war and executing military operations.1 This manual represents the legal views of the Department of Defense. This manual does not, however, preclude the Department from subsequently changing its interpretation of the law. Although the preparation of this manual has benefited from the participation of lawyers from the Department of State and the Department of Justice, this manual does not necessarily reflect the views of any other department or agency of the U.S. Government or the views of the U.S. Government as a whole. This manual is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

Robert Gregory Boensch

The Department of Defense Law of War Manual (June 2015, updated May 2016) incorporates the changes described in the attachment. The original online version of this Manual (June 2015) should no longer be used.

I am using this one because the PDF are text and I can copy and past
the 2023 published one appears to be images which is good and can’t be altered

People Please Go through these slowly
And share with your Family and friends.

And then you should have a better chance of survival in this war.


This Chapter addresses the law of war rules applicable to armed conflict not of an international character, or non-international armed conflict (NIAC). Non-international armed conflicts are those armed conflicts that are not between States. 1

In particular, this Chapter addresses the rules applicable to State armed forces conducting military operations against nonState armed groups. The application of the law of war to non-international armed conflict may be complex.2

In U.S. practice, in certain cases, the rules applicable in international armed conflict have been applied as a matter of policy to military operations in non-international armed conflict.

1 Refer to § 3.3.1 (International Armed Conflict and Non-International Armed Conflict).

2 Refer to § 17.2 (Application of International Law to NIACs). 

Robert Gregory Boensch

Last edited 4 months ago by Robert Gregory Boensch
Robert Gregory Boensch

 XVII – Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC)
Chapter Contents
17.1 Introduction
17.2 Application of International Law to NIACs
17.3 Special Agreements Between Parties to the Conflict
17.4 A State’s Use of Its Domestic Law and NIAC
17.5 Principle of Distinction in NIAC
17.6 Respect and Humane Treatment of Persons Taking No Active Part in
Hostilities in NIAC
17.7 Rules on Conducting Attacks in NIAC
17.8 Impartial Humanitarian Organizations and Humanitarian Activities During
17.9 Protection of the Civilian Population in NIAC
17.10 Protection of Children in NIAC
17.11 Protection of Cultural Property in NIAC
17.12 Use of Captured or Surrendered Enemy Personnel in NIAC
17.13 Weapons in NIAC
17.14 Protection of the Wounded, Sick, Shipwrecked, and Dead in NIAC
17.15 Protection of Medical and Religious Personnel and Medical Transports in
17.16 Display of the Distinctive Emblem in NIAC
17.17 Detention in NIAC
17.18 Non-Intervention and Neutral Duties in NIAC

Robert Gregory Boensch

Non-International Armed Conflict –Notes on Terminology.

Non-international armed conflict is commonly referred to by the acronym “NIAC.” Although there has been a range of views on what constitutes a non-international armed conflict, the intensity of the conflict and the organization of the parties are criteria that have been assessed to distinguish between non-international armed conflict and internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature. 3
A variety of terms have been used to describe factual situations that often may be characterized as non-international armed conflict.

3 Refer to § (Distinguishing Armed Conflict From Internal Disturbances and Tensions).

Last edited 4 months ago by Robert Gregory Boensch
Cargo Beep beep

Oh my gosh shut up already

Robert Gregory Boensch
NIAC and Civil War.

Civil war is a classic example of a noninternational armed conflict. For example, a non-international armed conflict could involve the open rebellion of segments of a nation’s armed forces (sometimes called dissident armed forces) against the incumbent regime, each claiming to be the legitimate government. 4 In some cases of civil war, the insurgent party has been recognized as a belligerent, and, at least in some respects, the law of international armed conflict would be applied by the States choosing to recognize the insurgent party as a belligerent. 5

4 See, e.g., LIEBER CODE art. 150 (“Civil war is war between two or more portions of a country or state, each contending for the mastery of the whole, and each claiming to be the legitimate government. The term is also sometimes applied to war of rebellion, when the rebellious provinces or portions of the state are contiguous to those containing the seat of government.”).

5 Refer to § 3.3.3 (State Recognition of Armed Groups as Belligerents).

Robert Gregory Boensch
NIAC and Internal Armed Conflict.
In some cases, the term internal armed conflict is used as a synonym for non-international armed conflict. Such usage may reflect a traditional definition of non-international armed conflict as only those armed conflicts occurring within the borders of a single State.6 Non-international armed conflicts, however, are classified as such simply based on the status of the parties to the conflict, and sometimes occur in more than one State. 7 The mere fact that an armed conflict occurs in more than one State and thus may be characterized as international “in scope” does not render it “international in character.”8

8 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 630 (2006) (“The Court of Appeals thought, and the Government asserts, that Common Article 3 [of the 1949 Geneva Conventions] does not apply to Hamdan because the conflict with al Qaeda, being ‘‘international in scope,’’ does not qualify as a ‘‘conflict not of an international character.’’ 415 F. 3d, at 41. That reasoning is erroneous. The term ‘conflict not of an international character’ is used here in contradistinction to a conflict between nations.”). 

Robert Gregory Boensch
Transnational or Internationalized NIACs.

Sometimes the terms of “transnational” or “internationalized” are used to describe certain non-international armed conflicts. “Transnational” has been used to indicate that the non-international armed conflict takes place in more than one State. 

“Internationalized” has been used to indicate that multiple States may be involved in a non-international armed conflict.

Robert Gregory Boensch
NIAC and Guerilla or Unconventional Warfare.

Guerrilla warfare may be understood to be military and paramilitary operations conducted in enemy-held or hostile territory by irregular, predominantly indigenous forces.9 Guerrilla operations or unconventional warfare are common during non-international armed conflict. Such operations, however, are a method of warfare that has been employed in international armed conflicts and occupation as well.  

9 JOINT PUBLICATION 3-05.1, Joint Special Operations Task Force Operations, GL-11 (Apr. 26, 2007) (“guerrilla warfare. Military and paramilitary operations conducted in enemy-held or hostile territory by irregular, predominantly indigenous forces. Also called GW. (JP 3-05.1)”). See also FRANCIS LIEBER, GUERRILLA PARTIES CONSIDERED WITH REFERENCE TO THE LAWS AND USAGES OF WAR 7-8 (1862) (“[B]ut it may be stated here that whatever may be our final definition, it is universally understood in this country at the present time that a guerrilla party means an irregular band of armed men, carrying on an irregular war, not being able, according to their character as a guerrilla party, to carry on what the law terms a regular war. The irregularity of the guerrilla party consists in its origin, for it is either self-constituted or constituted by the call of a single individual, not according to the general law of levy, conscription, or volunteering; it consists in its disconnection with the army, as to its pay, provision, and movements, and it is irregular as to the permanency of the band, which may be dismissed and called again together at any time.”)

Robert Gregory Boensch
NIAC and Rebellion or Insurrection.

Rebellion, insurrection, or insurgency may also be types of non-international armed conflict.10 Counter-insurgency operations generally occur in the context of non-international armed conflict, but could occur in the context of an international armed conflict and occupation as well.

10 See, e.g., LIEBER CODE art. 151 (“The term rebellion is applied to an insurrection of large extent, and is usually a war between the legitimate government of a country and portions of provinces of the same who seek to throw off their allegiance to it and set up a government of their own.”).

Robert Gregory Boensch
NIAC and Terrorism.
Issues surrounding terrorism and the activities of terrorist groups can arise in the contexts of non-international armed conflict, international armed conflict, and, of course, can arise outside the context of armed conflict altogether. Acts of terrorism are prohibited during international armed conflict and during non-international armed conflict. 11

11 Refer to § (Collective Penalties and Measures of Intimidation or Terrorism); § 17.6.5 (Prohibition on Acts of Terrorism).

Robert Gregory Boensch
NIAC and Small Wars or Low-Intensity Conflict.

Non-international armed conflict has sometimes been discussed using the term “low-intensity” conflict. 12 The term “small wars” has also been used in military doctrine to describe situations that may be characterized as non-international armed conflicts.13 “Low-intensity conflict” and “small wars” are not synonymous with non-international armed conflict, but there is a high degree of overlap between those categories and non-international armed conflict.

Robert Gregory Boensch


Important Commonalities Between the Law Applicable to International Armed Conflict and the Law Applicable to Non-International Armed Conflict. 

Last edited 4 months ago by Robert Gregory Boensch
Robert Gregory Boensch
Common Baseline Rules.

Certain baseline rules, in particular relating to the humane treatment of detainees, must be observed regardless of the character of the armed conflict.14 The fact that certain baseline rules are common to international armed conflict and non-international armed conflict means that it may be unnecessary to determine the character of the armed conflict in order to assess whether the law has been violated

Robert Gregory Boensch
Foundational Principles of the Law of War.

The foundational principles of the law of war are common to both international armed conflict and non-international armed conflict.15 Thus, reference to first principles in the law of war may be most useful in assessing the rules applicable during non-international armed conflict.16

Robert Gregory Boensch
Rules for Conducting Operations Against Unprivileged Belligerents.
Rules for conducting operations against unprivileged belligerents are found in both the law applicable to international armed conflict and the law applicable to non-international armed conflict.17 The rules for States conducting military operations against unprivileged belligerents in international armed conflict are not significantly different from the rules for States conducting military operations against non-State armed groups during non-international armed conflict.

Robert Gregory Boensch

Important Differences Between the Law Applicable to International Armed Conflict and the Law Applicable to Non-International Armed Conflict. 

Robert Gregory Boensch
Nationality and Territoriality Exclusions in the Law of International Armed Conflict.

Certain rules applicable to international armed conflict reflect concepts (e.g., nationality and territory) that preclude the application of those rules to internal armed conflicts. For example, nationals who are in the power of their State of nationality would not be provided POW status under the GPW or protected person status under the GC.18 Thus, even if the GPW and GC could otherwise be deemed applicable to a civil war, these exclusions based on nationality would limit the application of many of the provisions of the GPW and GC (as a matter of treaty law) to internal armed conflicts. In any case, it remains true that fundamental principles guaranteeing humane treatment (e.g., Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions) would apply in any such circumstances. Similarly, it is the essence of belligerent occupation that it should be exercised over foreign, enemy territory;19 thus, occupation law rules would not apply to internal armed conflict.20 Certain non-international armed conflicts, however, are not internal armed conflicts.2

Robert Gregory Boensch
Prevalence of Customary Law Applicable to NIAC as Opposed to Treaty Law.

There are fewer treaty provisions that address non-international armed conflict than that address international armed conflict.22 Put another way, practitioners are generally more likely to encounter situations regulated by customary law in non-international armed conflict than in international armed conflict. Certain guidelines may be helpful in assessing customary international law applicable to non-international armed conflict.

Robert Gregory Boensch
Important Substantive Differences Between the Law Applicable to International Armed Conflict and the Law Applicable to Non-International Armed Conflict.

There are important substantive differences between the law applicable to international armed conflict and the law applicable to non-international armed conflict, including the following three examples. First, the different circumstances that typically arise in non-international armed conflicts as compared to international armed conflicts may need to be considered in applying the principle of distinction.24 Second, States have greater latitude to compel enemy persons to switch allegiance or to serve the State in hostilities during non-international armed conflict than States have to compel enemy nationals during international armed conflict. 25 Third, States have greater latitude to use their domestic law against enemy armed groups in non-international armed conflict than States have to use their domestic law against enemy forces or enemy nationals in international armed conflict.