Cops or Police in Counterinsurgency COIN

[jmm99]

between Law of War advocates (the "military" approach; often coupled with "Let's take the gloves off") and Rule of Law advocates (the "law enforcement" approach) is phony, introduces an artificial dichotomy that does not exist under present US law, and has become a "litmus test" for whether you support the Obama administration or not. In short, a lot of smoke and political spin.

Under US law as it presently exists (subject to change primarily by the executive and legislative branches), we are in a state of armed confict with certain named or defined groups. As such, the US LOAC (Laws of Armed Conflict) apply. Under them, people who are security risks may be detained or interned for the duration of the conflict or until they cease to be security risks: regular combatants under GC III (EPWs); irregular combatants under Common Article 3; and civilians under GC IV. Interrogation across the board is subject to the Army Field Manual. The DTA (Detainee Treatment Act) generally applies.

Detention and internment are separate from prosecutions, whether under domestic criminal law, "war crimes" legislation, or "anti-terrorist" legislation. Here are the two US paths:

1. Prosecution in the Federal courts.

2. Prosecution before military commissions under the MCA (Military Commissions Act).

Frankly, the proponents of each pump up its supposed advantages; and the opponents of each its supposed disadvantages. In so doing, they often manage to expose their abject ignorance of the subject matter.

I believe it is a good thing that we (US) have two arrows in our quiver. The trick is to use wisdom and discernment in picking which arrow to shoot in each particular case.

The foregoing is obviously a personal opinion commentary.

Regards

Mike

[Steve the Planner]

David:

Attackerman writes for Washington Independent, and from his perch high over the DC Canyons, frequently drops down on issues associated with congressional actions re: federal funding, foreign policy/affairs initiatives, and intergovernmental stuff.

When his gaze shifts to our areas, he is very informative and effective' althought his prey is usually left strewn all over the road.

One day, if he keeps at it for a decade or two, he could become the next Ken White (with Ken's consent, of course), or, at least, the journalistic equivalent of Chuck Norris's cousin twice removed.

Steve

[jmm99]

under Blog Roll: "Dave Dilegge and His COIN Jedi Knights". We can now all be addressed as "SIR" - have to dream up a good Jedi domain to go with that.

I find Ackerman's 3-para piece to be basic mush. Here are the last two paras of the piece:

And here’s where it’s become unfortunate that mainstream political discourse has created negative connotations around a “law enforcement approach to terrorism.” I can guarantee you that if you said to someone, “Hey, do you think that in terrorism investigations, we should create the perspective amongst counterterrorists that their job doesn’t stop until someone is neutralized?” they would say “Yes.” Well, you goddamn hippie: you’ve got a law enforcement mindset. I guess people don’t understand this enough, but intelligence analysts approach their craft rather differently. They look for patterns in information, and pass those patterns up the chain. They do not investigate in the sense of the word that you and I understand from TV. That’s why there was no APB inside the CIA or the National Counterterrorism Center on Abdulmutallab after his father’s walk-in. Abdulmutallab, in the intelligence world, is a data point. He is not a suspect.

Now, if you had the FBI handling the Abdulmutallab portfolio, or people who think like FBI agents, maybe it still doesn’t go anywhere. But maybe they start compiling information and building a case and new information turns up and the guy gets yanked before he’s on the plane. I gather that’s what John Brennan meant when he said yesterday there was “no one intelligence entity or team or task force [that] was assigned responsibility for doing that follow-up investigation.” None of this is to say the FBI has to be given the lead for these sorts of things. A joint approach is the right approach if you want to see everyone’s information. But it is to say that within that joint entity, analysts need — wait for it — a law enforcement approach to terrorism.

Ackerman is hung up on the need for some kind of criminal prosecution in these cases. Whether he opposes military commissions as an option, I can't tell from the piece. However, even if military commissions are used, evidentiary standards have to be met - in Ackerman's jargon, "a law enforcement approach to terrorism."

It is interesting that he uses the term "neutralized" (in the sentence I bolded). Whether he knows it or not, the readers here of threads dealing with Vietnamese Pacification and the Phoenix segment of it, know that "neutralize" meant "kill, detain or convert" (roughly in 1/3 ratios) in that program, which combined the LOAC and law enforcement rules.

The bottom line is that under LOAC (per the US), Abdulmutallab does not have to be prosecuted. He could simply be detained or interned (depending on his status determination under the GCs); and interrogations could proceed or not according to the Army Field Manual.

The general run of those I called above, the Law of War advocates (the "military" approach; often coupled with "Let's take the gloves off"), are equally confused by asserting that reference must be to milkitary commissions. No "gloves off" there - he'd be just as lawyered up (and perhaps with counsel more competent in "Small Wars" issues).

The option not to prosecute in either venue seems to escape both sets of political spinners - as it has also escaped the Obama administration, except as a last resort.

Regards

Mike

PS: detention, as a standalone, often escaped the Bush II administration - depending on the direction of the wind blowing into the Oval Office.

[Steve the Planner]

jmm:

Like I said, a decade or two.

Ain't it funny how, after you've been in a field awhile, the same issues come around again and again.

He looks young enough that most things are his first impressions.

Steve

[Bill Moore]

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/201...ategy/#c006641

For some reason my post on "Obama needs a new strategy" posted as anonymous, but the jest of my response is that we need a new national defense strategy for AQ and like threats that seamlessly blends law enforcement, intelligence and special operations forces. All three would have to undergo a significant culture change, and all three need to.

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/u...ag/terrogence/

As for Attackerman's post that there wasn't sufficient intelligence available to connect the dots, that may be true, what also may be true is that all the intelligence available wasn't considered due to established procedures.

ABC News reports details on an Israeli intelligence company that monitored jihadist web discussions about plane bombing tactics weeks before the Detroit attack.

Most of the analysts at Terrogence are former Israeli intelligence operatives. From a converted chicken coop in a village in central Israel they monitor Islamic internet sites devoted to global jihad and terrorism. Their mission is to identify new and credible threats against western targets.

According to Terrogence founder Gadi Aviran the online discussion ran to 25 pages and continued until a critical posting in late November by a known extremist with a proven track record in explosives. This individual has been monitored for several years and is widely respected by participants in the forums. His posting in Arabic read:

“You can ignite a detonator using a medical capsule and put concentrated sulphuric acid into it, and then put it over the explosive materials.”

They believe the “medical capsule” mentioned in the post could easily refer to a syringe as used in the attack on North West Flight 253.

Law enforcement brings a critically important set of investigative skills to the fight, investigations that yield intelligence that frequently doesn't get into intelligence channels because it must be protected to ensure the case is not compromised prior to prosecution. The intelligence community is pretty impressive in what they can collect, but less so when determining what it means. Special operations forces obviously bring unique capabilities to act upon the intelligence unilaterally or in partnership with foreign partners if they're given the authority to neutralize the threat if it is beyond the scale of law enforcement to handle. There is much room for improvement on how we can better blend the capabilities of these great organizations to defeat terrorist and terrorist related threats.

[jmm99]

STP:

It's like Clemenza's (IIRC) line in the Godfather to the effect that every 10-15 years we have to go to mattresses. So, we now have to re-learn the lessons from Vietnamese Pacification (what worked and what didn't; and the whys for both).

Bill Moore:

Law enforcement brings a critically important set of investigative skills to the fight, investigations that yield intelligence that frequently doesn't get into intelligence channels because it must be protected to ensure the case is not compromised prior to prosecution. The intelligence community is pretty impressive in what they can collect, but less so when determining what it means. Special operations forces obviously bring unique capabilities to act upon the intelligence unilaterally or in partnership with foreign partners if they're given the authority to neutralize the threat if it is beyond the scale of law enforcement to handle. There is much room for improvement on how we can better blend the capabilities of these great organizations to defeat terrorist and terrorist related threats.

No argument as to the above (I think Slap will join us), as you know from what we've discussed publically and privately.

You know that, sooner or later, we are going to get into that "irrregular combatant" and "unconventional wafare" thread - setting out the "best practices" in a unified military-legal schema in the context of comtemporary realities.

Cheers

Mike

PS: yup, you have to wonder about that "Anonymous" (with whom I agreed). Maybe, you need to introduce yourself.

[slapout9]

No argument as to the above (I think Slap will join us), as you know from what we've discussed publically and privately.

Yep!

[slapout9]

For some reason my post on "Obama needs a new strategy" posted as anonymous, but the jest of my response is that we need a new national defense strategy for AQ and like threats that seamlessly blends law enforcement, intelligence and special operations forces. All three would have to undergo a significant culture change, and all three need to.

We must do this! I don't understand this whole argument about it's a LE problem or it's a Military problem or it's all Intelligence. It's all three and the only way to win is with all three......combined into one organization that becomes our Main Effort against Terrorist Organizations. Need to fire about half those temporary Political Appointees that couldn't even find and arrest their Grandmother much less a Terrorist..... let the Professionals do it. Pisses me off

Billy Jack would know what to do. His first movie "The Born Losers" was essentially CT-Counter Terrorism........Fight Like Injuns!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLAKEM0bO2A

[Ken White]

And like Slap, I'm

However, the problem is that Bill's right:

defense strategy for AQ and like threats that seamlessly blends law enforcement, intelligence and special operations forces. All three would have to undergo a significant culture change, and all three need to.

and that's just the problem -- all three need major changes in culture -- but all three (cops at the Fed level) will fight any changes.

Does Billy Jack do Rice Bowls?

[jmm99]

from Slap
... combined into one organization that becomes our Main Effort against Terrorist Organizations.

cuz we have a model that combined "law enforcement, intelligence and special operations forces" (not always seamlessly, but they were good) - the KGB.

The issue would be how to create that organization and not end up with a KGB on the domestic front (except for chasing down TVNSAs who cross or attempt to cross the border). Have to give some thought to that.

Careful Slap - you might end up with a lot of lawyers (e.g., Putin and Ivanov).

Cheers

Mike