Official Touts Nonlethal Weapons for Use

I ran across this earlier but forgot to post. Lots to ponder - especially on the use of NLW on our own citizens before deploying this capability OCONUS.

12 September Associated Press - Official Touts Nonlethal Weapons for Use by Lolita Baldor.

Quote:

---

Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before they are used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.

Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions in the international community over any possible safety concerns, said Secretary Michael Wynne.

"If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."...

---

As a cop, I carry expansive small-arms rounds to be used against American citizens but I have to employ full-jacket rounds against my nation's enemies because of an outdated convention. I can utilize oleoresin capsicum against an American citizen to bring him under control to safely effect an arrest yet I cannot carry it in Iraq because JAG lawyers consider it a "chemical weapon" even though it is merely a non-lethal irritant.

Non-lethal options are a tool whose time has come... and the military still fears it (at least, from my experience, the Army does). They are not, and should never be, a replacement for lethal weapons... but in the limited wars and counter-insurgencies that we're facing, non-lethal can be a valuable tool in many situations.

Think of OC or CS being employed on a crowd being used as human shields for insurgents. Unprotected civilians would scatter... even if they're more fearful of armed insurgents, their physical reaction will be to get away from the irritant... and would expose the armed insurgents (who themselves would also likely be incapacitated) to soldiers or Marines who could bring lethal fire to bear with minimal chance of collateral damage.

I agree that NLW could be a valuable tool in a small war environment, particularly OC and other riot control agents as you've described. Your JAG probably does too.

However, it is not your JAG that considers OC a chemical agent and, therefore, unlawful as a method of warfare, but international law and executive authority. The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, of which the US is a party specifically proscribes the use of riot control agents in war. Executive Order 11850 proscribes "first use" of riot control agents in an armed conflict. The US classifies OC as a riot control agent. Thus, your JAG is merely quoting you the law, not making it. Don't fault the JAG for laws made by politicians.

A point to consider on the use of riot control agents is the unintended effect. We've already seen how insurgents use perceived violations of the law of war against us (e.g. shooting from a crowd in hopes that we fire back, or using collateral damage as a propaganda tool). If we used the riot control agents in Iraq, the next day's headline would read something like "US uses WMD, hundreds die" or something like that. Lost in the sensationalism would be the fact that these are non-lethal agents. After that, we'd probably hear about how the only WMD found in Iraq was in the US Army arsenal.

The enemy's tactics and strategy in Iraq violate the Geneva Conventions in several regards and the media does not care. However, they are pretty compliant when following his propaganda scripts. Evidently our lawyers need to do a better job of making the case against the enemy violations.

979797, have you heard or seen any use of the TASER. Just before I retired these were coming on line, not the older model but the newer ones M26 or newer. Anyone else can answer as well. I think NLW show a lot more promise than is realized in a COIN environment.

Excellent point from LawVol re source of issue in law not JAG -- though in my book it is classic absurd / strange-but-true.

The WMD propaganda angle is similarly very real and I have heard that often as one line of reasoning supporting the status quo. However, I disagree. First, seems the spin artists are pretty good no matter which way we go, so I'm willing to concede them that small arrow in their quiver if I get a much more useful one in mine. Second, the utility is HUGE and this is not some reefer madness slippery slope, just something with a bit more resolution than in the '93 convention. We are woefully ill prepared to do anything less than kill but more than build schools and shake hands.

Finally, I do have some very real concern about slinging a bunch of stuff on a soldier or Marine, or a squad/team, and having them have to lug it all around and/or keep sorted out which weapon has the bean bags and which grenade is a real frag. There are some real implementation issues. But bring it on! Concur w/ 979797, the time has come.

JAG needs to find a way to get around that part of the Conventions then... or start finding a way to change them. I'm not a lawyer... they are. That's their lane. In combat arms, grunts have to get creative. I've seen plenty of "creative lawyering" in my time as a policeman. JAG needs to get on it.

I have not personally used a TASER, but I have seen them. My department was going to adopt them until that one cracked-out fat guy had a heart attack when one was used on him a few years back. Besides, the department was going to require any officer who wanted to qualify in it to get shocked by one. I had to endure OC... that was enough for me.

I don't see it as "burdening our troops". An OC canister weighs ounces, not pounds and can be carried in a pants pocket. If you want a "crowd control" version, it too is light and is the size of a small fire extinguisher (like those little home-protection jobs you see in a Lowe's). The TASER would probably be the most cumbersome in terms of carrying it. It's the size of a large pistol and weighs a pound or two.

Yes, non-lethal's time has come... in fact, it's WAY overdue. Let's equip our soldiers and Marines for success on the ground instead of burdening them with tough ROE's and equipping them with only lethal options... and then prosecuting them when they make a mistake.

This isn't without battlefield precedent, either. The military made use of CS-type gas in Vietnam after 1968-69 on a fairly regular basis. All that "Tailwind" garbage aside, they were found to be successful when used properly.

Concur w/ 979797 on this, for the most part:

Quote:

---

I don't see it as "burdening our troops". An OC canister weighs ounces, not pounds and can be carried in a pants pocket. If you want a "crowd control" version, it too is light and is the size of a small fire extinguisher (like those little home-protection jobs you see in a Lowe's). The TASER would probably be the most cumbersome in terms of carrying it. It's the size of a large pistol and weighs a pound or two.

---

The broader family of NLW includes a lot more, that does start to drive to volume, weight, and ConOps issues. Examples:
- the precious multi-million $$ non-lethal mobile toaster microwave (or there's an acoustic one, too) needs some very-lethal FP to go with it. Where does that come from?
- do you room clear with Taser drawn, M-16/shotgun, teams of 2 w/ 1 each, etc.?
- the non-lethal escalation of force options with some stand-off (e.g. checkpoint, fleeing person, etc.) don't weigh ounces and fit in your cargo pocket

It's very easy to get all paralyzed by the issues, and we shouldn't. But it's also wrong to just dismiss them. There's more to getting good at this than just buying the gear and making it legal -- although that sure would be a good first step.

Sure some JAGs are intelligent enough to engage in creative lawyering and could present a viable argument "to get around" a convention or law. However, do you really want to risk your career or freedom on an argument that sounds good in the heat of the moment but might not work when it comes time for your court-martial?

I am a firm believer in the principle that JAGs should find a way to yes whenever possible. However, when it comes to international treaties and conventions, care must be taken. It's not the same as providing advice for a search and seizure. If the JAG screws up a search and seizure, the worst that can happen is a criminal goes free. If he screws up an interpretation of the law of armed conflict or some other relevant international law, much more is at stake. For example. let's assume your JAG comes up with a good argument and you deploy your CS. First, you and he are likely to face disciplinary action for disobeying a law order (Art 92, UCMJ). Second, you've given the enemy a propaganda tool to use in recruiting and to convey the "injustice" of our actions (comparisons to Saddam's gassing of the Kurds and Shiites?). Third, you could possibly affect the overall strategy of the campaign since coalition partners may rethink their participation given our inability to adhere to international law.

All of this because some JAG thought he could paly Perry Mason and you bought into it because it served your short-term goals. Sometimes, the best thing is for the JAG to say no. Obviously, the final call rests with the commander and he can always proceed against legal advice. I've seen this on lesser issue but never on anything as significant as international law.

Also, the JAGs at your level do not have the ability to change international law. That happens at the State Department level and usually occurs at a glacial pace given the fact that changes in conventions and treaties first require agreement among several nations, then agreement from the nation's legislature (and they're much too busy giving us a whopping 2.2% pay raise).

The problem as I see it is that too many NGOs have gotten involved in the process and have hijacked it to serve their own needs. They fail to realize that some of the weapons they seek to ban are actually more humane than they think. An example is landmines. Under the Ottawa Convention (not signed/ratified by US) even self-deactivating landmines are impermissible. However, wouldn't the use of airdropped landmines to seal off a potential nuclear facility be a more humane way of rendering it unusable until it could be brought under US control? Or must we use infinitely more explosive munitions because people who influence international law have failed to think ahead? For now, unfortunately, we must resort to certain measures because of a failure of some to truly see the ramifications of their positions on the law of armed conflict. As I've said though, don't blame the JAG for this. I'm a great number of them would love to get involved with the redrafting of international law as it related to war. However, captains and majors don't get that opportunity.

For the record, I'd be interested in hearing of specific instances where an interpretation of international law (law of armed conflict) has hampered operations or instances where insurgents have used it against us (unclassified of course). It may help with a paper I'm working on.

Quote:

---

It's very easy to get all paralyzed by the issues, and we shouldn't. But it's also wrong to just dismiss them. There's more to getting good at this than just buying the gear and making it legal -- although that sure would be a good first step.

---

Absolutely correct. This tracks with the Strategic Corporal issue in that it is in its very core a training issue. For example, how complex do we really want to make room clearing? And MOST IMPORTANTLY how do we sustain what we decide to do?

Best

Tom

Quote:

---

Also, the JAGs at your level do not have the ability to change international law. That happens at the State Department level and usually occurs at a glacial pace given the fact that changes in conventions and treaties first require agreement among several nations, then agreement from the nation's legislature (and they're much too busy giving us a whopping 2.2% pay raise

---

LawVol is correct.

International Law is a very slippery and morally incoherent subject. At certain points there is absolute clarity and at other points no consensus exists because nations are adhering to entirely different standards. One example being the supplementary protocols to Geneva that privilege irregulars cooked up in the 1970's by the Soviet bloc and Western European Social Democrats; the U.S. is not bound by these, not being a signatory, adhering to the earlier standards. Even when there is general consensus, the exact interpretation of terms is a sovereign prerogative and that makes what should be a common sense matter a question of what political and diplomatic costs the administration in power elects to pay for greater freedom of action.

State generally prefers the military do less in the field than an aggressive but technically legal reading of IL would allow unless the administration has actively prioritized doing otherwise. A military lawyer really can't overrule a deputy or undersecretary of State on these questions.

And I also agree that NGO's are waging "Lawfare" aganst the U.S. -- to the point of misrepresenting their client advocacy to the public and press as if their, often radical reinterpretated, position were customary International Law. Too often, the media takes these activist hustlers at their word instead of asking tough questions. Creative lawyering happens more frequently on the side of the enemy synpathizer than ours.

International law has no real enforcement mechanism. Thus when adversaries ignore it there is little consequence. Take for example the Geneva Conventions that have been totally ignored by our adversaries in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is the consequence to the enemy for ignoring these conventions? None, that I can tell. The Conventions have become a unilateral contract binding only our side because of some perceived PR benfit among people who are not concerned about our national security. Such international laws would be more likely to be followed if an adversary that ignored them suffered consequences, like losing the benefits provided under the agreement. Right now we have the worst of both world. The enemy ignores the law and still gets the benefits of it. This makes no sense as a matter of contract law or common sense.

International law has plenty of enforcement mechanisms. It's just that most of them are political (like international law itself). When thinking of international law, it's best to remember that it was originally designed for "nations" that were run by sovereign kings. The king, whose very word is law, and who may well claim a divine mandate, is not bound by any rule he doesn't want to be bound by.

The International Court of Justice, for example, is one of the world's highest judicial bodies. However, in most cases the ICJ has no jurisdiction to hear a case unless all parties agree to it.

The World Trade Organization actually has considerable enforcement power. If they find that a member nation has violated the rules, they can authorize other nations to break them right back. For example, a couple years ago US tax laws were ruled to give an unfair advantage to domestic manufacturers - the WTO authorized all countries to impose tariffs on US goods in retribution. The European Union, which has a bigger economy and larger population than the United States, set out tariffs intended to impact the Bush administration politically by punishing his constituents economically. They hit steel, among other things, if I recall. Those tax laws were changed pretty quickly.

If one country pulls out of a treaty, the other signatories to the treaty can ignore it, too. Sometimes all together, sometimes just with regard to the offending nation.

Prestige, consensus and reciprocity are actually powerful tools to corral nations. As the world's economies are more interrelated, it's easier to influence a regime that violates the law. For example, people had thought we couldn't affect North Korea with any kind of economic sanction - there's no trade between the US and DPRK so nothing to sanction, right? Turns out the Treasury Dept. stepped in a big mess when it threatened a Macau based bank which was involved in a DPRK counterfeiting and money laundering scheme. That caused a host of other financial institutions to pull out of deals with the 'Norks, which may, in fact, be the reason they decided to test a nuke just now. Heavy stuff for a bunch of bankers.

The Geneva Conventions are harder to enforce, just because so many countries privately violate them (including the US, in my private opinion). However, political pressure over those "unenforceable" conventions is causing the Bush Administration no end of headaches. It's not like there's some international jail (actually there is, but the US is pretty well exempt), but these rules do matter. US troops are usually scrupulously careful to follow them, even though if any country could get away with a violation it's the United States - we're exempt from mandatory jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, have a Veto on the UN Security Council and have sufficient economic and military clout that sanctions run the risk of seriously backfiring.

International law may look powerless, but appearances can be deceiving.

979797 and Ironhorse here is the military website for taser, it's worth a look.
http://www.taser.com/

As for my personal experience this weapon gives new meaning to the word strategic paralysis. I carried the first version the m18 (looks like a glock) on active duty with an LE municipal unit. I have seen it used and been involved all the way through court with it and won. It has built in electronics to download a shoot profile to protect the officer from scumbag defense attorneys. It works!!

Since I retired (security manager in a hospital) I now carry the x-26, weighs 7 ounces has a built in flashlight and laser pointer. It has been used over 30 times on every type of individual there is and we only had one partial failure.

9797 yes you have to get popped with it, but it is worth it to truly understand the fact that you cannot move your muscles!! I had to do it twice once with the m18 and again with x26. The x26 can be attached to the forearm grip of the m16 (see website). If you get a chance try it, you want like it, but you will learn to love it.

Frow Wired:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology...l?tw=rss.index

Wow! I want one for Xmas.