[JackFromTexas]

"Any person subject to this chapter who attempts or offers with unlawful force or violence to do bodily harm to another person, whether or not the attempt or offer is consummated, is guilty of assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

Jeepers! when I was in the Army, that's what we tankers were SUPOSED to do!
Does this apply to Spies, Sabetours, and Traitors?
The 'victim' was a Police Officer on 'our' side, wasn't he?

[HiTech RedNeck]

I'm real torn about this one.

This obviously doesn't apply to combat action in a war zone.

However, I would be quite opposed to the expansion of "combat action in a war zone" to mean just about anything and everything. We already have an open-ended, non-war "war" going on in the continental USA, by virtue of the Congressional use-of-force-resolution. This has already been used to justify detentions under the Patriot Act which, however judiciously and carefully President Bush may be exercising this power, could be a nightmare under a President Hillary Clinton or President Janet Reno. Do we want the loosened fetters of "combat action in a war zone" to devolve, in a slippery slope, upon our police in peacetime?

I say keep the principle, but temper justice with prudence -- a LOT of prudence. Fine the good colonel $5 and forget about it.