US Reverses Policy On Military Detainee Protection--Nothing Happens

[ArmyLawyer]

Financial Times

>The Pentagon has decided in a major policy shift that all detainees held in US military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions, according to two people familiar with the move.

The FT has learned that Gordon England, deputy defence secretary, sent a memo to senior defence officials and military officers last Friday, telling them that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions - which prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners and requires certain basic legal rights at trial - would apply to all detainees held in US military custody.

This memo likely will change nothing as it was already the policy to treat detainees consistent with CA3. What was prohibited before is still prohibited. What was allowed before is still allowed. (At least insofar as treatment goes--the legal process is left to Congress to determine).

NRO's Andy McCarthy agrees with me (or I with him?):

Former Military Lawyers To Testify on Gitmo and Geneva

[ArmyLawyer]

NYT
Oh this should be fun.

Beginning shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the military lawyers warned that the administration's plan for military commissions put the United States on the wrong side of the law and of international standards. Most important, they warned, the arrangements could endanger members of the American military who might someday be captured by an enemy and treated like the detainees at Guantánamo.

But the lawyers' sense of vindication at the Supreme Court's 5-to-3 decision is tempered by growing anxiety over what may happen next. Several military lawyers, most of them retired, have said they are troubled by the possibility that Congress may restore the kind of system they have long argued against.

Donald J. Guter, another retired admiral who succeeded Admiral Hutson as the Navy's top uniformed lawyer, said it would be a mistake for Congress to try to undo the Supreme Court ruling. Admiral Guter was one of several senior military judge advocates general, known as JAG's, who after objecting to the planned military commissions found their advice pointedly unheeded.

Remember where we're at, some lawyers in the military disagreed with other lawyers in the DoD and Administration. (thereby giving rise to ridiculous tactics used against William Haynes, former DoD general counsel and now 4th Circuit nominee) Neither of which, by mere virtue of their positions, are necessarily right. That being said, when the main argument in favor of expanded CA3 protections is reciprocity, you're missing the forest for the trees:

"Our central theme in all this has always been our great concern about reciprocity," General Brahms said in an interview. "We don't want someone saying they've got our folks as captives and we're going to do to them exactly what you've done because we no longer hold any moral high ground."

Our slavish adherence to some hackneyed notion of what Common Article 3 means does not protect our soldiers IN A COMMON ARTICLE 3 CONFLICT. The very nature of a CA3 type conflict (i.e. insurgents, irregulars, terrorists, civil war, etc) negates any attempts to argue for reciprocity since only one side is bound by (by law) to the restrictions of Common Article 3.

CA3 is, and has always been, a one-way obligation meant to impose norms on the only side in the conflict that was a signatory to the Conventions. The other side are not signatories and are under no legal obligation to provide reciprocity. CA3 exists only to enable signatories that are NOT part of the CA3 conflict to impose some obligations on the state that is involved in the CA conflict.

Claiming that not abiding by CA3 means we lose "the moral high ground" means nothing since the people you are fighting in a CA3 conflict are under no obligations anyway. Reciprocity works when you're fighting France, or some other signatory state. (i.e. a Common Article 2 conflict). It doesn't realistically apply outside of that framework. If we start ignoring Common Article 2 and it's attendant protections, then you can make the reciprocity argument. Until then, this is just bad legal analysis that was once in uniform.

Iraqi Tells Gold Star Mothers Their Sacrifice Not in Vain

[Soldier's Mom]

As a mother, I know this would help me if I had a child who died...

Feisal Amin al-Istrabadi, Iraq's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, served as keynote speaker and thanked the mothers for the sacrifices their sons and daughters have made for his country.

"We were a country without hope," Istrabadi said. "The intervention of the United States in my country has been a lifeline for us. It has restored hope for us that our future will be very different from our past."

Hearing laughter in Iraq's streets again and no longer feeling the need to cringe when admitting their heritage is part of what America's intervention has given back to his country, he said.

"These are not small things. These are things for which this country, and you as individuals and your children, have earned our tremendous gratitude," Istrabadi said. "Words of thanks truly seem to me to be insufficient to convey to you the thanks of a country, a grateful nation, which has lingered too long under tyranny."

Iraq's gratitude to the United States and the families who have sacrificed personally "will be eternal," he said.

Here's MORE...

Re: old guys

[Greyhawk]

While I may be young and pretty, I'm pretty damned old for the business I'm in. But while we're on the subject of real old guys and lessons learned, visit these old guys who are pretty damned interesting.

Accused rapist/murderers may face death penalty

[Greyhawk]

Military authorities have filed capital charges of premeditated rape and murder against four of the five active-duty soldiers accused in an attack on an Iraqi family in March. The four soldiers could face the death penalty if convicted. The main suspect - allegedly the killer of all the victims and one of two actual rapists - had been discharged and is facing federal (not military) charges.

It won't happen, but I'm not opposed to turning this lot over to the Iraqi government for trial. If they can handle the Saddam case they can certainly handle this one too.

Supporting the Military... AND their mission...

[Soldier's Mom]

Did you know that you can get the inside of your cheek swabbed or give a little tube of blood and actually save someone's life? Go to Blackfive and read more on the drive to save Navy Seal Justin... or perhaps someone else...

And Chaplain Bjertness of the 1/125 Strike (deployed) needs some things for Humanitarian Aid... Go HERE for the list and address...

Recruiting on Target

[Greyhawk]

We've discussed this here before - the Army shuffled its recruiting goals this year, setting lower quotas for the winter (school) months and higher for the summer months this year than last. Some - myself included - expressed concern over whether the summer quotas would be met. (Others, not including your humble scribe or any other author here, thought the exercise was a ploy to generate good looking numbers, percentage-wise, for most of the year.)

But so far, so good.

Military On Pace To Meet Recruiting Goals For This Year

The Army exceeded its recruiting goal for June, staying on track to meet its target of 80,000 new soldiers this year, the Pentagon announced Monday. Active-duty components of the other services — the Air Force, Marines and Navy — also met or topped their monthly goals. All are on pace to meet their goals for the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.
<...>
The Army signed up 8,756 recruits in June, 2% above its target of 8,600. "We have made our goal 13 months in a row," said Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Recruiting Command.

Theory Vs. Practice In Iraq

[Eddie]

Mark Safranski, the author of the excellent blogZenPundit has a fascinating guest post at Democracy Project that address the problems of theory vs. tactics.

....oftentimes there is a serious disconnect between what is being discussed on TV and the reality of combat as experienced by our troops on the ground in Iraq.

While the nature of modern media coverage is partly to blame for this discrepancy, some of the fault lies with the current upheaval in military thinking. U.S. military doctrine is running far behind the technological, geopolitical and economic shifts wrought by globalization and defense intellectuals have rushed to fill the gap to help the Pentagon make sense of the new world. To outsiders, a bewildering array of terms have been created – OODA Loops, NCW, 4GW, Three Block War, PNM Theory, Global Guerillas, Strategic Corporals, EBO – that seek to provide commanders with insights and combat advantages.

Curious, I wanted to find out what professional soldiers thought of all this intellectual effort on their behalf. The Small Wars Council is a superb discussion board associated with The Small Wars Journal, edited and published by two Marine veterans, Dave Dilegge and Bill Nagle. Most of the participants in discussions are active duty personnel or experienced veterans, though diplomats, journalists, scholars and interested amateurs are also welcome. I posed a question to the board:

“How, if at all, have these theoretical exercises impacted what you do? Do you value these intellectual paradigms relative to your personal experiences?”

There follows some well-thought out responses, proof positive of the rich home of ideas and debate the Small Wars Council has become. Mark closes the post with a call to action:

Bloggers and scholars can help the troops here most by acting as a filter for what is often an unmannageably large mass of open source information and reducing it to concise, clear and accurate messages. Information can only turn into knowledge when communication and comprehension are in play - the troops are not just short on the information they need but time for reflection as well. We at home have the luxury of such time so let's try to assist those who do not.

Re: Best 4th of July Gift Ever

[Wynton Hall]

Well, it looks like Soldier's Mom was correct.

Today, the Lansing State Journal ran an article about the MSgt. Javier Camacho
meeting Mrs. Mary Kennedy, the mother of Pfc. Adam Small, for the very first time.

Quoth Mrs. Kennedy:

"It was something that, as a mother, I had to do," Kennedy said. "I had to find that guy and thank him for what he did."

Kill, or capture?

[CDR Salamander]

With the middle ground being pulled away, after awhile what used to be discussed in the background is starting to be talked about in the clear. If you don't have other nations taking terrorists seriously enough to put them in jail after we give them over to them, and there is not system in place to keep them off the battlefield for the duration of the conflict - when do you reach the tipping point of, "Well, we could take those guys sleeping in that house prisoner - or we could call a LGB on them and call it even. What do you think?"

Ralph is thinking about it.

Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or even illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others, but by ourselves.

The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.

Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.
...
Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve the "unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With our help.

Yep, I know, its Ralph - but Ralph isn't the only one talking about it.

Re: Ahmard Hall

[Greyhawk]

Love this quote from the story:

Determining the best player in Thursday's NFL supplemental draft -- talented but troubled former University of Virginia linebacker Ahmad Brooks -- hasn't exactly drained the brainpower of NFL scouts.

Neither has the task of identifying the best person in the special summertime lottery -- onetime University of Texas fullback Ahmard Hall.

Note that Hall used his GI Bill benefits to earn a degree in physical therapy - looks like he may have a fine sports-related career in or out of the NFL.

This quote from Hall is worth noting:

"In meetings with scouts, they ask a lot of questions, but the one area they don't ever bring up is the character thing. I'm proud of that. I think teams know that, if they draft me or they sign me to come to their camp, they aren't going to have to worry about any issues of that sort, you know?"

We'll soon see if character counts for anything in the NFL. On the plus side, I believe the former Sergeant wouldn't want to be a member of an organization where it doesn't.

Protest in New York City

[Greyhawk]

.. aganist the New York Times.

The Management of Savagery - Applied

[Greyhawk]

Insurgents have posted an Internet video showing the desecration of the bodies of two American soldiers in Iraq.

The Jawa Report has an edited (but graphic) version of the video, along with still images. You can read the coverage of the story there without seeing the pictures or video - they are at the bottom of the post following several warnings.

For what its worth, the video does not depict the murder of the soldiers, who I suspect were killed in the initial attack. The fact that the actual killings aren't on the video indicates this is likely - insurgents generally don't miss such an opportunity. That there are four insurgents in view in the video implies there weren't enough to carry off the third victim, whose body was found at the scene of the original attack.

A message with the video says the soldiers were killed out of revenge for the rape and murder of an Iraqi girl in March, a crime allegedly committed by members of the same platoon. I suspect that too is an insurgent lie, they made no such claim when the soldiers were originally taken, and the story was unknown at the time. In fact, US Soldiers first revealed the details of the rape and murders - not the insurgents.

But if you've read The Management of Savagery you'll recognize many of the elements of this story as coming directly from that document. The bad guys were certainly handed a propaganda victory here, but while the alleged acts of the accused soldiers offered a golden opportunity to the enemy their playbook details exactly how well managed it was.

My thoughts on a response are here.

The Human Cost of the North Korean Missile Tests

[GIKorea]

The North Korean regime is now coming out and demanding that the US unfreeze their assets in a Macau bank as a prerequisite for restarting the six party talks:

The deputy chief of North Korea's mission to the UN on Friday reiterated the North will return to six-party talks on its nuclear program only when the U.S. unfreezes Pyongyang’s assets in a Macau Bank. The U.S. chief negotiator in the talks, Christopher Hill, commented Sunday that if Pyongyang implemented its promise under an accord to dismantle its nuclear program, it would effectively have the same amount -- US$24 million -- in its hands. Hill added the North’s demand makes no sense.

Nothing North Korea does or says makes sense in a way we would comprehend. If the North starts to dismantle its nuclear program under the accord reached in the six-party talks last September, South Korea reciprocates with 2 million kw of free electricity or US$20 million worth of energy week after week, according to Hill’s estimate. But North Korea is adamant it will only talk again when the U.S. lifts sanctions so Pyongyang can get its hands on a paltry $24 million frozen in the Banco Delta Asia. By any standards this is absurd.

The North is estimated to have spent $6 million to make the seven missiles it shot into the sea on Wednesday, initial development costs not included. In other words, the North wasted a quarter of the money it so desperately wants back on the missile test. The World Food Program has earmarked $102 million for food for 1.9 million North Koreans over the next two years. That means the money spent on the test would have fed 200,000 starving North Koreans for a full year. But Pyongyang went ahead with the launch in a harebrained attempt to get the dear leader’s bank account back at the cost of food for its own people.

The problem is that free energy does not fatten the Dear Leader's and his lackey's bank accounts like unfreezing the assets in the Macau bank. This and the human cost of conducting the missile tests tell you all you need to know about the North Korean regime.

Idaho National Guardsman Sets A Record

[Bubblehead]

Now this is impressive:

Every six minutes and 20 seconds for just under 21 hours, Air National Guard Capt. Dan Schilling parachuted 486 feet from the rusted steel of Twin Falls' Perrine Bridge into the depths of the Snake River Gorge.
With a 60-ton crane lifting him from the gorge floor and a team of sleepless parachute packers outfitting him for each jump, Schilling jumped 201 times between 8:10 p.m. Friday and just after 6 p.m. Saturday.
His effort set a new world record for the most BASE jumps in 24 hours. BASE is an acronym for the buildings, antennae, spans and earth used as a platform for daredevils in this extreme sport.
Schilling, who commands the Oregon-based 125th Special Tactics Squadron, took on this challenge to raise $20,000 for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, an organization that awards full college scholarships to the children of special operations soldiers who have died in battle.

The organization he was raising money for, the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, has a website that you can visit.

More on the story can be found at my home blog.