While the previous RUF stated: "Deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity," (66) the current SRUF provides only that "[d]eadly force is to be used only when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.
However, the cumulative effect of omitting many of these limiting terms is an SRUF that reads much more aggressively than previous versions.
The current SRUF, however, provides for the "Inherent Right of Self-Defense.
84) As such, the inclusion of "inherent right and obligation" instead of the previous "when reasonably necessary" language in the self-defense portion of SRUF may not comport with the more nuanced application of force in domestic operations.
Another addition to the current SRUF acts as an ambiguous qualifier to the use of deadly force in certain circumstances.
First, no where in the SRUF or accompanying documents is a definition of "directly related to the assigned mission" found.
92) The new SRUF defines a "hostile act" as "[a]n attack or other use of force against the United States, U.
While these new definitions do provide additional clarity to the definition of a hostile person, they also introduce international law concepts into SRUF.
This right of self-defense is present regardless of whether the SRUF gives express permission to use force against those impeding the mission.
Although the answer should be no, the SRUF would not assist in arriving at this conclusion.
The current SRUF language fails to make that clear.
Before determining the proper application of SRUF to domestic crises, one must first explore the capacities in which U.