Here's an interesting story. You may know that there have been some mysterious drone swarms in the EU recently. Seven German journalism students took some OSINT training and then tracked down the source of the swarms.
Cool stuff. The article explains how they did it, including the tools they used.
Article 12 applies to persons who are either members of the armed forces or who belong to the other categories of persons mentioned in Article 13 of the Second Convention. In the context of the Second Convention, it is important to recall that, pursuant to Article 13(5), civilian members of the merchant marine (who are wounded, sick or shipwrecked) are also protected persons.[17] Article 12(4) contains an additional obligation with a specific personal scope of application: the wording of this provision indicates that female members of the armed forces or of the categories of persons mentioned in Article 13 are entitled to specific protections.
These are obviously not members of the armed forces or the merchant marine, nor were they females. Thus, we have to look at Article 13 to see who fits in the "other categories." Those of us who have been involved in what we used to call the GWOT since the beginning will know this one well, because it covers the same categories that have been an issue since the very first days when we were trying to decide who was a POW and who could be detained at Guantanamo Bay or in other facilities outside the American court system.
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
These are not covered under (1) as they are not members of an armed force or any sort of volunteer corps or militia formally part of an armed force. (2) does not apply because they lack fixed distinctive signs/insignia, the habit of being openly armed, and the habits of carrying out their operations in accord with the laws of war. (3) is irrelevant as these are not members of any regular forces at all; (4) is also not relevant as these were not accompanying any armed forces; (6) is not relevant because it covers only spontaneous guerrillas protecting home territory, not people traversing the open ocean. (That was often relevant to us in Iraq and Afghanistan, however.)
So we are down to (5). In order to argue that (5) did apply, you would have to argue that these constituted a "crew" of a ship (or aircraft) "of [one of] the Parties to the conflict."
The lawyers among you -- we used to have several military lawyers in the audience, and among my co-bloggers as well -- can discuss whether or you not you think that there's sufficient cause to grant that condition. Usually a crew would have a degree of formality, ranks and positions and jobs; and the tie to the Party to the conflict would be formalized in some way as well. But perhaps receiving pay is sufficient to formalize the relationship; and perhaps even if this was a one-off group, the fact that they were operating a boat together would make them a "crew" for that purpose.
I'm not sure about the value of all of this these days. In the beginning of the GWOT, this all made perfect sense to me: these groups were analogs of pirates, hostis humani generis, that anyone might kill because the world would be better off without them.
Yet the reason we have not wanted to apply these laws all along has been that the courts provide an additional field for conducting a kind of warfare ('lawfare') to bedevil American efforts using asymmetrical and irregular capabilities. I'm not sure how effective that has been pragmatically; the Guantanamo Bay detainees have in fact managed to tie up American courts for decades in spite of the precaution. If there isn't a good pragmatic reason for doing it, why kill them? Survivors washing ashore would also provide a helpful warning to deter the behavior of running drugs; or if you provided them with aid and assistance, you'd also collect evidence. Even if you couldn't interrogate the men under the Conventions, you could analyze the physical evidence and generate intelligence. The only cost would be a cost you're going to end up paying anyway, i.e., letting their ideological allies fight you in court while you also try to fight them physically abroad.
Perhaps the United States simply can't avoid that cost, in which case it could at least have the good of abiding by the Convention and extending the protections of the laws of war to the conflict. As it is the government still gets the asymmetrical bedevilment in the press and court while also clearly killing helpless men at sea.
We understand the importance of a full and thorough investigation and make no presumption about the final determination. The VFW’s only request is that, should federal investigators conclude this was an act of terror, the Administration be ready to ensure these members of the National Guard receive the recognition their sacrifice deserves.
The VFW has always defended the integrity of the Purple Heart; it must remain reserved for those wounded or killed resulting from hostile enemy or terrorist action. Our position applies only when the facts clearly meet that definition under law.
Mr. President, this tragedy cuts deeply across the veteran community – especially considering the circumstances, and what it means for veterans of Afghanistan whose lives were saved by local Afghan allies who escaped prosecution during the fall of Kabul. Many veterans are wondering how this could have happened and are seeking appropriate justice.
Spc. Beckstrom and Staff Sgt. Wolfe answered their nation’s call and wore the same uniform as every American who has been called away from their families to stand a post, whether at home or abroad. If this investigation confirms terroristic intent, recognizing them under the Purple Heart is not just a matter of law, it is a matter of honor.
The U.S. Department of Education awarded a $908,991 grant to the college this year to develop what university officials have promised would be “historically grounded school curriculum on the Second Amendment.”The money came from more than $137 million in federal funds that were redirected by President Donald Trump.The University of Wyoming hosts the nationally known Firearm Research Center, which is one of very few college programs that do not add a leftist “gun-violence” perspective to everything they study and teach.Instead, the FRC’s mission is to “foster a broad discourse and produce meaningful change in how firearms and the Second Amendment are discussed and understood in America through research, scholarship, legal training, and publicly available resources.”FRC officials said the funds would create nationwide tools that will allow educators “to better understand the constitutional right to bear arms.”
FRC is a good organization. It gives me some confidence that they are involved.
At-will is the opposite of for-cause, meaning that employees can be fired for any reason. You can read the best version of the argument for public sector at-will employment in this discussion between Judge Glock and Santi Ruiz. The general claim as I understand it is that:
- managerial flexibility in hiring, firing and payments generally leads to better personnel outcomes
- some state governments experimented with moving to at-will hiring, while sometimes weakening unions, and the best evidence we have is that it worked reasonably well
On the first part of the claim, difficulties in hiring has been a long-standing concern. There is broad consensus that public employee hiring is too slow and does not generate outcomes.
Obviously if you are me, public employee hiring at any speed it too fast because we should be shrinking rather than expanding the role of government. Yet if you are a liberal, in the old sense, you believe that the government can do good things and improve society through its functions. You might want a bureaucracy that is removed from the winds of politics, just as the Founders wanted a Senate that wouldn't be driven by similar strong winds. The House can be, but the Senate cools; so perhaps could an independent, nonpartisan board.
A problem is that the Constitution doesn't in any way allow for such things. Congress could set up a board that reports to Congress and performs Congressional functions however it wants, short of actually delegating the legislative function to it. It can't handcuff the Executive with 'nonpartisan' experts, who of course are always really partisan anyway: they're from the Party of Government. Article II sets up the Executive as fully independent, and vests its power in the one elected President.
That might not be the best way of setting things up, but it is the only Constitutional way to proceed. If the Supreme Court recognizes that, well, we'll have to sort our the problems of that approach as we go. So too all the other problems. It's still helpful to have bright lines on the edge of the playing field.
With maritime historian Sal Mercogliano
Graham Priest has this idea that there can be true contradictions that some contradictions are true. His view is not that all contradictions are true, but just some, and he thinks that we should only accept contradictions to be true if we have no other options in thinking. He, for example, thinks the liar paradox is a good example of a true contradiction. So, if you say, ‘this sentence is false’. If ‘this sentence is false’ is true, then it's false, but if ‘this sentence is false’ is false, then it’s true, so it's always contradictory.
My friend Jim Hanson* and I looked over the photos of the 'bombs' that the FBI posted and determined we didn't think they were in fact functional bombs. The use of a kitchen timer, which just rings a bell instead of setting off an electrical charge that could trigger an explosion, was one tell: they look like time bombs, having a timer, but they'd then need significant additional mechanics to set off a charge.If we're talking about 'the chemical building blocks of black powder,' well, that's charcoal, sulfur, and saltpeter (as Star Trek fans know). Those aren't explosive unless properly mixed.
The component parts included a 1-inch by 8-inch pipe, end caps affixed to the pipe, 14-gauge electrical wire in red and black, alligator clips to connect the wires, a nine-volt (9v) battery, a nine-volt (9v) battery connector, a white kitchen timer, paper clips, steel wool, and homemade black powder.
I had known el Mammun when he was our vassal. Loaded with official honors for services rendered, enriched by the French Government and respected by the tribes, he seemed to lack for nothing that belonged to the state of an Arab prince. And yet one night, without a sign of warning, he had massacred all the French officers in his train, had seized camels and rifles, and had fled to rejoin the refractory tribes in the interior.Treason is the name given to these sudden uprisings, these flights at once heroic and despairing of a chieftain henceforth proscribed in the desert, this brief glory that will go out like a rocket against the low wall of European carbines. This sudden madness is properly a subject for amazement. And yet the story of el Mammun was that of many other Arab chiefs. He grew old. Growing old, one begins to ponder. Pondering thus, el Mammun discovered one night that he had betrayed the God of Islam and had sullied his hand by sealing in the hand of the Christians a pact in which he had been stripped of everything.Indeed what were barley and peace to him? A warrior disgraced and become a shepherd, he remembered a time when he had inhabited a Sahara where each fold in the sands was rich with hidden mysteries; where forward in the night the tip of the encampment was studded with sentries; where the news that spread concerning the movements of the enemy made all hearts beat faster round the night fires. He remembered a taste of the high seas which, once savored by man, is never forgotten.
On that model, Lakanwal despaired of his betrayal of God and God's promises of a martial glory for his people; and this was an attempt, as it were, at reconciliation with the divine model. I can see how that might sometimes be the case in these green-on-blue killings. It is true that witnesses report that he shouted "Allahu Akbar" at the time of the shootings.
My experience in Iraq suggests that it is usually more personal, that it is some direct connection within the tribe that either draws someone out of the insurgency and to us, or out of fellowship with us and into the insurgency. Those speculating that the Taliban might have gotten physical control of his family in Afghanistan are on this thread, but they might not be right either.
It's a weird story. He was right there through the evacuation of Kabul, taking only one of the last planes out. He seemed like a true believer, which is how you get picked for what Blade Runner called "a kick-murder squad" in this case what has been identified in the press as a "Zero Unit" or a "Scorpion Unit" run by a combination of Western intelligence agencies, originally including the CIA but also Scandinavian intelligence agencies.
An aside: this Scorpion Unit is not to be confused with the Serbian war-crimes 'police' unit; nor also the various police units worldwide that have adopted the name 'Scorpion units' for various dodgy "police" purposes that somehow always seem to lead to people dying at police hands. It may be that one should just not set up armed units with names like "Scorpion Unit," whether paramilitary or police -- this seems to be triggering a negative mythic pathway in the minds of those so organized.
To return to the curious case: for some reason he drove across the country to kill American soldiers for no apparent reason. This he did with just a .357 Magnum revolver, not a rifle with a detachable magazine and multiple additional filled ones: thus, he wasn't planning for even a short battle with authorities, just a murder and then probably to be killed by responding police. Instead he was captured by a National Guard Major responding with only a pocket knife(!).*
Somehow and for some reason yet to be explained, Lakanwal had stripped almost naked by the time he was injured and captured. I've seen speculation that there was some sort of Islamic purpose for that, but also that he was destabilizing mentally for months here in America. It might be as simple as the last: being removed from his own culture, dropped without much support into an alien one but with a lot of memories of a brutal war (and possibly some PTSD or similar), he might just have come apart.
In any case there's plenty of room for more understanding to develop out of this mysterious case. It doesn't presently make much sense. I do think there's probably a clear lesson that we shouldn't allow our government to set up murder squads, though that will be difficult since the CIA refuses to acknowledge that it had anything to do with the Zero Squad program and no one seems to be able to hold them to any account -- nor does this seem to be a one-off project by the Agency, but rather an ordinary part of its contribution to counterinsurgency operations. Others might prefer that we just not import the murders back home to America. That was, after all, the Blade Runner solution: yes to kick-murder squads of replicants, but no to letting them back on Earth. The morality of using either humans or replicants to carry out such dirty work, while keeping them at arms length, was not deeply explored by the story: it was raised as an exercise for the viewer to consider on his or her own. It might be worth thinking about.
* This incident of the pocket knife is another wild aspect of this story. The Guards are armed, famously, and after killing the Specialist Lakanwal picked up her weapon and continued firing on the crowd. The Major apparently preferred the knife at close range to his 9mm service weapon, which actually makes perfect sense to me -- knives are better close up than handguns if you know how to use both things well, especially if you are limited to full metal jacket ammunition like the military. He apparently wanted to rush in and grapple with the killer to avoid allowing that man to finish reloading the stolen weapon, in which case a knife is actually a much better choice as well. He was victorious, which is what really counts in such a moment. It's good to see a military officer who knows his business.
