text: Chapter 2
   Delivering ammunition to the front lines; or
   Outfitting and preparing a suicide bomber to conduct an attack.
  EXAMPLES OF ACTS NOT CONSIDERED TAKING A DIRECT PART IN HOSTILITIES
  The following acts are generally not considered taking a direct part in hostilities that would deprive
  civilians who perform them of protection against direct attack. These examples are illustrative and not
  exhaustive.
  * Expressing mere sympathy or moral support for a party’s cause;
  * Making general contributions to a State’s war effort (for example, buying war bonds or paying
  taxes to the government that will ultimately be used to fund the armed forces);
  * Providing police services (for example, police officers maintaining public order against common
  criminals during armed conflict);
  * Engaging in independent journalism or public advocacy (for example, opinion journalists writing
  columns supporting or criticizing a State’s war effort);
  * Working in a munitions factory or other factory supplying weapons, materiel, or other goods
  useful to the armed forces of a State but not in geographic or temporal proximity to military
  operations; or
  * Providing medical care or other impartial humanitarian assistance.
  Although performing these activities does not make a person liable to direct attack, performing these
  activities does not immunize a person from attack if that person through other activity takes a direct part in
  hostilities or is otherwise lawfully made the object of attack (see DOD Law of War Manual, 5.8.3.2).
  DURATION OF LIABILITY TO ATTACK
  Civilians who have taken a direct part in hostilities must not be directly attacked after they have
  permanently ceased their participation because the military necessity for attacking them has passed. The
  assessment of whether a person has permanently ceased direct participation in hostilities must be based on a
  good faith assessment of the available information. For example, a civilian might engage in an isolated
  instance of taking a direct part in hostilities. This isolated instance is likely to involve multiple acts because
  taking a direct part in hostilities includes deploying or moving to a position of attack and exfiltrating from an
  attack. If this participation, however, was an isolated instance that will not be repeated, then no military
  necessity for attacking that person exists after that individual has ceased taking a direct part in hostilities.
  Accordingly, the civilian must not be made the object of attack after he or she has ceased taking a direct part
  in hostilities. Other legal consequences from this participation may continue, however. For example, civilians
  often may be detained, interned, or prosecuted because of these actions.
  LOAC, as applied by the United States, gives no “revolving door” protection; that is the off-and-on
  protection in a case where a civilian repeatedly forfeits and regains his or her protection from being made the
  object of attack in the time period between instances of taking a direct part in hostilities (DOD Law of War
  Manual, 5.8.4.2). Thus, civilians who are assessed to be engaged in a pattern of taking a direct part in
  hostilities may be made the object of attack without waiting for them to begin their next instance of taking a
  direct part in hostilities. A “revolving door” of protection would place these civilians who take a direct part
  in hostilities on a better footing than lawful combatants, who may be made the object of attack even when
  not taking a direct part in hostilities. The United States has strongly objected to efforts to give the so-called
  “farmer by day, guerilla by night” greater protections than those afforded to lawful combatants. Adoption of
  such a rule would risk diminishing the protection of the civilian population.
  CIVILIANS WHO TAKE A DIRECT PART IN HOSTILITIES AND THE LAW OF ARMED
  CONFLICT
  Although the concept of direct participation in hostilities may be discussed in contexts besides
  targeting, such as in the context of criminal liability or detention, “taking a direct part in hostilities” for
  targeting purposes often differs significantly from the standards used for assessing whether a civilian may be
  detained or prosecuted. For example, domestic criminal statutes prohibiting support to enemy armed groups