Gitmo and the lawyers!

[Ken White]

What commands ? The context of JW's example suggested a group of good guys acting independently in fact - thus, no assumption of "legalisms" or ROEs for that matter.

Not so, he gave no context, you assumed that -- and it's incorrect.

So, good guys decide what to do individually or do what their commander tells them.

The 'good guys' will determine what to do individually only so much as the situation allows, if the ROE governing contacts say capture, the commander on the ground will almost certainly follow the rules. However, if Joe decides that a given person he sees had been seen before, he may ignore his commanders desires and the ROE -- IF he thinks he can get away with it. That is far from an unknown phenomenon.

Aside from capture (detention), accepting surrender and leave in place is another (lots of variations here if you have an imagination - which you do).

Thank you for the acknowledgment of my imagination; an accolade from the cretaor of the Chimps...

I see - OK to kill them (#3), but not disable them (BTW a necessary wounding assuming your team cannot detain prisoners). More humane to kill than to maim. Perhaps true to a majority of Americans.

Correct in my observation and experience -- not in my imagination; yours is the one that went to maiming.

Nope, won't let you cop out so easily

Watch it. I'm not trying to cop out of anything.

- BTW: agreed that there is a lot of slack in a firefight & so, a surrender is a risky proposition until the situation becomes stable. I'm assuming a stable situation after the firefight, where the choice has to be premeditated and deliberate.

There you go with the ass u me bit again. That is very unlikely to occur, the chances of detection are too great and penalties for doing that are too severe. If it occurs, it will be in the heat of a firefight or not at all.

(omitted as unnecessary)... let's simplify this. Mission (one person team) is to get from point A to B. AQ retread (one person) fights and surrenders. Your (or my) choice is (1) detain AQ as captive, bring AQ back to A and abort mission; or possibly leave him in place in some way so he won't screw up you getting to B; or (2) disable him so he probably won't screw up you getting to B; or (3) kill AQ so he will not screw up you getting to B (and also correcting the screwup in someone releasing him in the first place). Add to it: no Operational Law Handbooks, ROEs, etc. - in short, only White's Law (or McCarthy's Law) applies.

I strongly doubt anyone can say what they'd do in your hypothetical situation; you say "'one person team" and if that means an individual operating alone (improbable but possible) then none can accurately say what they would do in a situation until they're in that situation, there are simply too many variables.

I don't think that situation is that simple - and probably has no correct answer. However, your move ...

It never is; few do; and I'm not moving anywhere.

What is your factual basis for the assertion that the book is fiction. Since I'm a Dalton Fury neutral, I stand to be educated by facts. If the man is "not factually accurate" (he says the book is fact), I'd like to hear the facts.

My factual basis is that he could not tell everything that occurred in the book due to the classification of the actions involved, that his was not the only unit that had that mission and thus that his book may be mostly fact -- but cannot be totally so. I used the word 'fiction' simply to point out that his book, like many others will ALWAYS leave out some things and will be a one person view of what occurred and thus not all encompassing. Memoirs and "I was there" books are seldom totally factual, they cannot be for a variety of reasons, thus there's always an element of fiction or "I think what happened was...' I can also say that I hear among his former compatriots there are mixed emotions about that specific book

...I would add that our troopers see even less reciprocity where American detainees in AQ hands are beheaded, mutilated, etc.

Based on what I hear, they seem to be very much aware of that; the word is that avoiding capture is paramount...

Trying to figure why you read me wrong.

It's an imperfect medium for communication; my excessive wordiness is an attempt to add clarity in view of the lack of expression and context due to the medium; even that frequently doesn't work as this exchange shows -- as one of my kids says, the internet doesn't do nuance...

[jmm99]

Thank you for the acknowledgment of my imagination; an accolade from the creator of the Chimps...

Nope, I can't claim credit for invention of the Chimps and the Gorilla. That credit belongs to this guy, whose post #70 (13 Nov 2008) can be found here; and who said:

That does not mean that we need to continue our current approaches and 'strategies.' No one messes with 600 pound Gorillas -- unless the gorilla proves himself so utterly lacking in agility that he can be annoyed to distraction if not defeated by a young chimpanzee...

That's where we are. If I weighed 600 pounds, I'd stay out of the Chimps cage but if one got close to me, I'd just kill him. Other than that, I'd leave them alone if they left me alone. Some of them -- not most -- would be likely to respond by standing off at a distance and throwing whatever came to hand. Not a prob; I can throw also -- and bigger stuff, harder -- and should be willing to prove that to them at the slightest provocation. They'll soon quit...

I liked this zoo example then and still do - gets down to the basic equation, without evasion and escape.

As to the rest of your "Counter factual?", I'll be back after a little bit of simian contemplation.

[jmm99]

always too many variables - in real life.

My factual basis is that he could not tell everything that occurred in the book due to the classification of the actions involved, that his was not the only unit that had that mission and thus that his book may be mostly fact -- but cannot be totally so. I used the word 'fiction' simply to point out that his book, like many others will ALWAYS leave out some things and will be a one person view of what occurred and thus not all encompassing. Memoirs and "I was there" books are seldom totally factual, they cannot be for a variety of reasons, thus there's always an element of fiction or "I think what happened was...'

Totally agreed. BTW: "fiction" IMO is a bad word (sound bite) in this situation, since some would read it as a charge of fabrication and lying on the author's part. Perhaps, "factually incomplete" or "context incomplete" would be better - nuff said, since I don't like semantic arguments.

So, what do we do when the context is incomplete and there are too many variables - I suggest that applies to all real life situations ? Thus,

1. Freeze like a deer in the headlights - "Oh, I just don't have enough facts. There are just so many variables. Oh God, what shall I do ?" Not a good place for complex planning.

2. Jump right or jump left. One or both options may be wrong - you still may be dead. Perhaps better if you'd a thunk out some options (simplified hypotheticals) ahead of time and practiced them. Anyway, not a time and place to re-invent the wheel.

-----------------------
and I agree with your kid:

It's an imperfect medium for communication; my excessive wordiness is an attempt to add clarity in view of the lack of expression and context due to the medium; even that frequently doesn't work as this exchange shows -- as one of my kids says, the internet doesn't do nuance...

We could get to the point(s) much better and quicker if we were sitting on your back porch with beers and bourbons - "candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker". Not on my back porch, cuz we's a heading for 200" right quickly. Have to eat something and blow snow.

PS: No problem with your "excessive wordines" cuz I don't think it's excessive. But, you certainly are a master of verbal escape and evasion - not a bad thing BTW. Working backwards from the bottom to the top of your post - "I shall return".

[Ken White]

..you certainly are a master of verbal escape and evasion - not a bad thing BTW.

Attorneys. Sort of a learn by doing thing...

If anyone wants a straight answer from me, all they have to do is ask a straight question. Attempts to tap dance on the head of a pin OTOH will usually draw a broadly similar response. I really prefer straight talk as opposed to dazzling with footwork but am prepared to play either way. Always remember, snark draws snark as they say...

[jmm99]

I have many friends who are ... Attorneys. Sort of a learn by doing thing...

I like that one also.

This also seems a factually accurate statement (unfortunately based only on what you write - neither one of us can accurately assess the realities that attach to the other one - an Internet defect).

I really prefer straight talk as opposed to dazzling with footwork but am prepared to play either way.

Also accurate:

... but it doesn't seem to me that it equals in imagination the adoption and multiple uses???

Which can be a strength or a weakness. Usually a strength for me, but sometimes running with the ball ends up in getting clobbered.

Snow !!

[Ken White]

Snow !!

But please, please, keep it up there. It's 29°F here now and that's enough winter wonderland stuff, thank you...

[reed11b]

But please, please, keep it up there. It's 29°F here now and that's enough winter wonderland stuff, thank you...

Perhaps you should move up here to Alaska, Ken. It is currently 43 degrees here in Anchorage.
Reed

[Ken White]

Nope, I can't claim credit for invention of the Chimps and the Gorilla. That credit belongs to this guy, whose post #70 (13 Nov 2008) can be found here; and who said...

a simple one shot metaphor may be credited for the invention thereof but it doesn't seem to me that it equals in imagination the adoption and multiple uses??? LINK, Many, many LINKS -- I suppose one could argue that for hours on end...