Category: Military Stuff

SayUncle mentions the fourth circuit decision that the feds can’t hold people indefinitely without charging them, and says it’s good. I agree that it’s good, in this case, but it does bring up an interesting problem of how to deal with the topic of prisoners in this type of warfare, which is something civil libertarians don’t spend enough time thinking about.

It’s generally been understood that the military may detain, without charges, and without recourse to the civilian courts, combatants that have been captured in a theater of war. It’s also understood that spies and saboteurs, even if captured away from the battlefield, may fall under military jurisdiction if captured. This is one of those essential things that government traditionally have been allowed to do in the exercise of their military powers.

The big problem I see with the “War on Terror” (we really need to come up with a better name) is that it paints a very fuzzy line between the state’s exercise of military power and the exercise of police power. Because we’re not dealing with the typical type of belligerent you encounter in war; because we’re not fighting any single nation, with an army who’s soldiers wear uniforms, bear arms openly, and fight in organized military units, it’s not clear where the state’s military power should end, and the police power ought to apply.

I do think in the current conflict that the military needs to retain the ability to keep prisoners of war, but when combatants should be considered POWs, held under military authority, or prisoners, held under civilian authority, I’m not sure about.

The best I can come up with is that if persons are captured as combatants in a theater of war they may be treated as prisoners of war for the duration of that conflict. If they are captured domestically, or even internationally, as part of police actions, rather than military operations, they are entitled to the same due process as anyone else subject to criminal prosecution.

But that does raise the problem of status. What’s to stop abuses by the executive branch of its military power? How does someone detained under military jurisdiction challenge his status? I think these are questions that Congress probably ought to be thinking about. In wars between organized states, and their armies, having a recourse to civilian courts could create a nightmare, as enemy prisoners of war would be trained to file lawsuits in order to drain their opponents resources. But we’re not likely to see large numbers of prisoners of war in this current conflict.

This war is different, and we’ll need different rules. But the left certainly isn’t seriously thinking about the issue in a helpful or intelligent manner, and the right certainly can’t be trusted to come up with rules that respect proper limits on the state’s military powers. It’s something for liberty minded folks to think about, because we’re going to be having this debate as a matter of consequence, whether we want it or not. With the left being intellectually out to lunch, those of us who cherish liberty and individual rights may have to tow the banner on this, but I think we have to come up with rules that respect the individual, without limiting the state’s military powers to such a degree that we can no longer prosecute wars effectively.

UPDATE: Professor Kerr has more on the subject here.

In From the Cold is wondering if Governor Corzine didn’t hit is head a little too hard in his car accident, based on his call to close to Warren Grove Range.   On the contrary, based on what I know of the Governor, I would say he’s getting back to his normal self.

Check out this link w/photo of an iPod that saved a soldiers life:

My wife’s uncle works in a military hospital and told me about this. Its pretty amazing. Kevin Garrad (3rd Infantry Division) was on a street patrol in Iraq (Tikrit I believe) and as he rounded the corner of a building an armed (AK-47) insurgent came from the other side.

The two of them were within just a few feet of each other when they opened fire. The insurgent was killed and Kevin was hit in the left chest where his IPod was in his jacket pocket. It slowed the bullet down enough that it did not completely penetrate his body armor. Fortunately, Kevin suffered no wound.

Pretty cool.  Apparently Apple got wind of this and is replacing his iPod for him.

The Times of London is reporting that the kidnapped British soldiers are going to be tried for espionage by Iran.  Witnesses claim the British vessel was in Iraqi waters when it was attacked by the Iranians.

This is an act of war under any interpretation of international law.  What I want to know is, why haven’t the British responded along the lines of

“You have 1 hour to return our soldiers.  If they are not returned by then the Royal Navy will be executing a blockade of your ports.   If they are not returned in 24 hours, the Royal Air Force will begin bombing military targets inside Iran itself.”

I don’t get why we’ve been pussy footing around with these people.  I can understand invasion would be difficult, but we could destroy most of Iran’s combat power within a matter of days.

Conservative Scalawag has an [interesting post about making your own MREs]*. I’m not a huge canned tuna fan, but it can’t be any worse than Country Captain “chicken” (it might be chicken, the jury is still out). Personally, I always like the beef enchilada.

But I think his choices here are great! I’d estimate the calories in his packet to be close to 800 calories, and probably pretty good on weight too. For backpackers, weight is a pretty big issue, so you tend to favor foods that are really calorie dense in terms of weight. Nuts are a great choice, so chocolate coated nuts are even better. One other thing to consider is the lowly pop tart. While not entirely durable, the 8oz package packs 400 calories of yummy frosted goodness.

* Dead link removed

Bitter has the skinny on something that will make the hippies go mad:

The Energy Department will announce today a contract to develop the nation’s first new hydrogen bomb in two decades, involving a collaboration between three national weapons laboratories, The Times has learned.

The interesting thing about this new warhead is that it will be the first time any nation has deployed a nuclear weapon into the field that has never been tested anywhere except inside a supercomputer.  I work in the field of high performance computing, and we run a rather large one here at my place of business, doing molecular simulations.  Los Alamos, Livermore, and Sandia have supercomputer setups that make mine look like a toy.  Anyone familiar with what goes on inside a thermonuclear warhead understands what an impressive feat it is to be able to model things things thoroughly enough to have faith enough to stick it on the end of a missile and bet the country’s nuclear detterence on it.

These warheads will not be adding to our arsenal, that will still continue to shrink.  But a lot has changed technologically since we last put a new device into the field.  These new devices will replace old ones, that are wearing out, and getting more and more difficult and expensive to keep in operational order.  New technology should make these new warheads cheaper to maintain and more reliable.

High powered lasers have the potential to completely change the nature of the battlefield.  A few years ago I read about the MTHEL – Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser, and later Northrop-Grumman’s SkyGuard.  This is a system meant to shoot down rockets and artillery shells on the battlefield before they have a chance to reach their targets.  The problem with the current systems is that they are powered by a chemical reaction, and are difficult and expensive to operate in the field.  They can also not maintain a very high rate of fire.

That’s why it was very interesting to read a few days ago that they’ve developed a 67kW solid state laser at Lawrence Livermore.  Solid state lasers would have the potential for more rapid and sustained fire, and would be vastly more practical to use on the battlefield.

This kind of thing is a transformational technology though.  If you can deploy it in sufficient numbers, it has the power to make conventional ballistic ordnance obsolete on the battlefield.