On the 31 documents listed in the indictment that Motherfucker stole (Part 2)

[moniss]

26. Open hostility

could be applied in the Taliban case as well as others. But I don't know if I would rely on a Wiki entry as opposed to the actual court case citations from Findlaw etc. and then reading the actual documents for those cases. There is much here in this whole discussion that bears examination as to whether it is founded in case law or whether charges not being brought has simply been a practice. If it is just a general practice sort of thing then other applications are not precluded per se. Just because 100 cases before didn't get charged doesn't mean that another cannot be charged. I am simply saying that case law is what is supposed to guide us here and not just relying on a "memo" sort of understanding as an example like we use with not charging a sitting President. That particular memo as an example hasn't really been run through the courts. The reason being that nobody tried it. Doesn't make it a sound way to proceed it only makes it an "out" for not taking action.

I believe my discussion is based not on personal opinion and animus but a questioning of the actual existence and meaning real citations from court cases rather than an opinion of someone writing for NBC or any organization. Usually these articles will state things and make claims about who said or did what but I have no way of checking the voracity of those claims without the actual court case citations. An opinion in DOJ or Congress or State Department or Pentagon is just exactly that and is not law. It may be customary practice but it is not law. I raise questions and I am not claiming to have definition one way or the other. To the contrary, I am asking for definitive legal decisions based on case law because absent all of that I am merely reading opinion no matter the source.