Legal Aspects of Guerrilla Warfare: Guerrilla warfare is bound by the rules of the Geneva Conventions as much as is conventional warfare. As outlined in appropriate intnat'l agreements: four important factors give a guerrilla legal status:
(Do Antifa/BLM fit?) Insurrection Act

(1) be commanded by a person responsible for the actions of his subordinates; (2) wear a fixed & distinctive insignia or sign recognizable at a distance; (3) conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war; & (4)
carry arms openly.

If these four factors are present, the guerrilla is entitled to the same treatment from his captors as the regular soldier.
But what if they don't meet all the above? How are we supposed to deal w/ them? This is the crux facing @POTUS today. There will always be those...

& I must add here "rightfully" concerned w/ the use of Federal Troops on US soil. The legal questions are beyond my expertise. The concern from Civil Libertarians is a real one and deserves serious consideration. Any tool being used by Government can be used against YOU.

So the idea that Guerrilla's fit into a legal Internationally recognized status is important. One could make a valid case that given the troop formations we've seen from some of the BLM grps as well as the Antifa groups that they meet the distinctions made above. Others will be

quick to give as many reasons as to why they don't meet them. Why is this important? If the public is unaware of these distinctions, any action taken by the US Gov, can readily be subjected to ridicule and used against it. If done effectively enough, it can make taking action

more damaging than doing nothing---in the short term---This is what the Opposition uses to it's advantage. The longer the delay, the more advanced, organized, and in some cases the more legitimate the "Movements" become. That we haven't had the discussion if Antifa or BLM etc

Fall into these categories & have only focused on "terrorism" charges shows a clear lack understanding of the threat to the Republic. While the Hill & their staffers wring their hands of possible election outcomes, the Marxist further advance their position. Remember, they are

Committed to victory. When the enemy announces their intentions, organizes assets, array's them on the field & declares war, maybe--just maybe--we should listen. There is an old adage, the Best Defense is a Good Offense. Now that may be Fraught w/ peril. But it's certainly worth

Public discourse. Do the forces arrayed meet the Legal Definitions outlined above? The administration should be talking about this, openly. By not doing so, we are denying those citizens currently subjected to violence their Constitutional Rights. To put a finer point on it

`Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law--`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a
result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident,

or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that–
`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in para (2).

`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that–`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege,

immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, Fail OR REFUSE
TO that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

The above language is relevant to our situation. That we aren't discussing this is a failure. @POTUS is only one man. We have plenty of who claim the

Mantel of "National Security Expert" yet none of them have introduced these actions into the public discourse. The enemy is very aware of the above. A quick search of the Insurrection Act will return all the usual suspects dangling it out there, Wash Post, NPR, NYT, The Hill, all

got out in front of it quickly in hopes of deterring it's use or if implemented, how to turn it against the administration. They did their job. The adage of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" comes to mind. Well, if we are to be subjected to a Marxist led revolution,

I submit it is high time our National Security "Experts" earn their keep. A little less Social Justice and maybe just a tiny bit more of Justice. Have the debate. Make the other side declare what they are: (a) Combatants subjected to the Laws of Land Warfare (b) Terrorists

which opens up a who different set of tools and repercussions (c) Criminals which brings about RICO statutes. The distinctions are important. They must be made. We are long overdue for some action.

Just sayin.