The Jawans do a necessary job that our government is unable to do: fighting to shut down propaganda and support networks of those supporting Private War.

There are a few takes I have done on Private War which is based upon not only the law of nations (lowercase, working understanding law) but also instantiated by Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations. This serves as one of the founding three bodies of work in the US Constitution that we are not taught about in school. One gains direct mention as Law of Nations and is not only used at the time to reference de Vattel's work, but also in the early SCOTUS to define the limits of such things as the 'high seas' which is set by another body of work first manifest in The Black Book of the Admiralty. Both of these are incorporated into the English common law as demonstrated by Blackstone in his Commentaries on the English Law.

When looking at 'terrorism', I do find myself in agreement with those on the Left that describe it as a tactic. It is a form of attack within a field of warfare. What the Left does not, will not, and cannot do is describe the type of warfare that it happens in: Private War. This comes from examining the history of Private War from... well, I start at Josephus' army but the concept goes back to at least the 14th century BC and was fully established by the 12th century BC as non-State actors going to war on their own. The 'Sea People' of the eastern Med. are the first well described and known incidence of this on a large scale ranging from the Achaean Greeks to Hittites to Assyrians to Egyptians. While some of the Egyptian accounts as these as 'nations on the move' and in 'conspiracy', none of those were given imprimature of a State (City State in this realm) coalition working in unison.

From that era onwards the hallmark of Private War becomes that war which is not authorized, permitted nor allowed by a State. The Romans would institute this into their maritime trade law, passed down to the northern coastal European peoples and they would make a variable system on that which would be seen in The Black Book. Roman trade and maritime law, as codified in that book and understood to be a part of National oversight was the *first* regularized systems of understanding what Nations and citizens can do against those waging Private War going under the guise of Piracy. Thus, because these are non-State ventures using military means to attack civilian populations (to get slaves and loot by and large) and fall under the category of Private War.

This is an aspect of pre-Classical Law that was passed down nearly unchanged through the Classical Greek period and improved upon by the Romans, which then served as a basis for helping to define how the Law of War and Law of Nations differed from the primal Law of Nature. Some of it, as de Vattel points out, is just a natural outgrowth of the concept of State (be it City or Nation) and the functions between States to allow them to function. A primary part of this is that things like 'foreign relations' and 'military affairs' are relegated to the State *only* and normal citizens have no right to make war on their own save if attacked. That very primal law, seen not only in Law of Nations,Blackstone's Commentaries and The Black Book is fully supported in the US Constitution Art. I, Sec. 10 and the negation clause for the separate States to defend themselves if the danger is paramount and no delay can be justified. That understanding, then, is for the States to have their *own* defensive systems which are *not* standing armies, but are fully allowed for the State to survive in under imminent Danger... or the federal government can't do anything.

In the cyber-realm, as there are no boundaries between Nations but damage can be done *to* Nations by individuals, the citizenry, invoking its English common law right and that which is seen in Law of Nations are fully allowed to defend themselves and their Nation when it is attacked beyond mere rhetoric. Additionally, as those that are waging Private War on the US have sought to use the cyber-refuge as ways to recruit, plot and coordinate plans, ordinary citizens are fully allowed to go after such things when the National or State response is lacking and only the citizen is left to actually try to stop such things. The US Code, while very clumsy in this realm, offers the Private War view on Piracy (as a type of Private War and umbrella for certain types of activities) that those helping Pirates are liable for response, also.

While there is the ability for Congress to make Civil Law on Private War (under the same clauses as defining punishments under the Law of Nations) it cannot do so under Military Law as the offenses of those waging Private War are outside of the Public realm for international codification. That is why the US cannot sign the GC 1977 version looking at 'terrorism': it is against the Law of Nations and US Constitution to do this. This fits fully in the Executive realm as given by the first President to define the activity when seen against the military and how the forces were to conduct themselves: President Abraham Lincoln. The President as 'Head of State' and 'Commander of the Armies and the Navies' gets the maritime and military prosecution power against those waging Private War on land or at sea.

By not being taught about such things, we get such questions as to 'why don't terrorists belong in civil court?'. The answer is: they were caught waging Private War against the US, and that is outside of the Civil realm of Public War. Civil Law is given for this for the primary reason of allowing an individual to demonstrate that they have NOT done this.

The primal case on this is Captain Morgan's (of spiced rum fame) sea transported but land based attack on a Spanish fort after a treaty had been signed. He went back to London to stand trial before the High Courts Admiralty and demonstrated that neither he nor any in his crew knew of this treaty nor did the Spanish. He cleared his name and reputation and got *Knighted* to boot: it was a damned daring raid to pull off in wartime. The US Code for this of 18 USC 1651 and following, are very pointed, short, straightforward and rarely over one sentence long *each*. They are meant to give a chance for an accused Pirate to clear their name and those associated with them to demonstrate they are not so associated. If Congress ever go their butts off their high horses and actually bothered to read the Constitution and the US Civil Code, they might actually understand this... but high horses make for great perches, and keep one's feet from getting muddy.