Now that the fog of war is clearing in Pakistan, we’ve learned that what we were originally told—that Osama bin Laden was armed and hid behind his wife—isn’t correct.  It appears a Navy SEAL shot bin Laden in the head when he was unarmed.  Predictably, people are now questioning whether shooting bin Laden was justified, or even legal.

After 9/11, Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force.  It gave the president the power to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against nations, organizations or individuals who played a role in 9/11.  The act passed by Congress was drafted with bin Laden in mind:

“That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

(more…)

Posted in: Uncategorized 2 Comments »

It used to be that launching a hundred Tomahawk missiles into a country killing numerous people would be an act of war. Imagine if Cuba launched a hundred missiles into Florida. I believe we would consider that an act of war. The United States Constitution has provisions on how we are to conduct war. It says in Article I Section 8 that Congress shall have the power to declare war. It seems that we have constructed a new way of declaring war. Here are the requirements:
1) Have one or more UN Security Council Resolutions;
2) Form a “coalition”; and
3) Attack whomever you want.
I’ve been writing novels about the tension between the legal requirements for conducting war and what we actually do since my first novel, Balance of Power.  Things are not getting better. President Obama is as comfortable with adventurous military activity as President Bush was going in to Iraq (and for the record, I supported going in to Afghanistan as that was where the 9/11 attacks originated and were ordered—but Iraq? Why Iraq? Because they violated UN Security Council resolutions?).

President Obama consulted with the UN,  and sent diplomats all over Europe and the Middle East to form a “coalition.” (That’s where others make it look like they support what we’re doing, but we end up doing seventy-five percent of whatever has to be done.) This coalition includes the Arab League–an association of dictators–and several European countries. So our government, formed and bound by the Constitution, consulted with the UN, the Arab League, European countries, but not Congress. How can that be when Congress is where the power to declare war resides?

But regardless of who has the power, is what we’re doing in Libya a good idea? In short, no. We are violating one of the fundamental rules of military conduct. Do not become involved in a civil war absent a compelling national interest.  We may hope Gaddafi topples, and we may hope for democracy. But what right do we have to impose our will by military power on the country of Libya?

(more…)

Posted in: In the News, Uncategorized 3 Comments »

As many of you know, one of the books I wrote (before 9/11) is FALLOUT. It is about a Navy pilot who starts his own private TOPGUN school at Tonopah, Nevada. Several of the students in the first class are Pakistani, and have more in mind than learning to fly better. They plan on attacking a nuclear power (San Onofre in San Diego County) from the air. In researching that book, I learned a lot about nuclear plants, and storage of nuclear waste (almost all of it is stored outside the reinforced “domes” in pools of water in not very strong buildings (like the ones leaking in Japan)). There is much more to say on the subject, but for now, Logan Jenkins of the San Diego Union-Tribune is asking what many are asking–how safe are US reactors near fault lines? In my opinion, not very. He mentions FALLOUT. See his column here .

Posted in: In the News No Comments »

Switzerland, that beautiful, peaceful, mountainous, neutral country. The country that couldn’t find it in itself to oppose Nazism, or do anything about the Holocaust in World War II. Because after all, they were a tadpole, and would have gotten run over by Germany. So better not to say anything. Whether it is ever right or moral to remain neutral in the face of evil is a discussion better left for another day. But today, that Switzerland has finally stood up for a moral cause, or at least has allowed others to stand up for a moral cause on their turf, with their legal system. What great moral cause?That President Bush must be jailed. For what? For agreeing to allow water boarding of terrorists while he was president (a total of three men were water boarded, for the record. Read about them here .)  The possibility of arrest was apparently serious enough that President Bush cancelled his trip to Switzerland to speak at a fundraiser.

I have studied World War II history quite a bit, and my father fought from Normandy all the way to Germany to the end of the war (I guess he decided not to remain neutral). I don’t recall reading about demonstrations against Hitler, or the Holocaust, or the invasions of Poland, or Czechoslovakia, or Austria, or Russia, or England, or anywhere else. Sure, there were some newspapers that condemned Nazism. But the government was thought by many to be too pro-Nazi. But now? The Swiss are outraged by President Bush and his endorsement of “torture.” Not only the Swiss, who were planning large demonstrations, with each demonstrator armed with a shoe to throw at Bush, but also by The (US) Center for Constitutional Rights. You can read ABC’s story here. A Swiss Justice Department spokesman said that after it’s “initial assessment of international law”, Bush would have enjoyed immunity from the criminal prosecution. Hmmmmm. “Initial assessment.” Those are words we in the practice of law call non-binding. And based on the “final assessment”, once he arrives, it turns out…he can be prosecuted! Who knew! Predictably, Bush cancelled his trip.

What is this Center for Constitutional Rights? They are the self-appointed human rights activists (attorneys) who blaze with righteous indignation for their causes. This cause, against President Bush, has been joined by sixty other “Human Rights” organizations to put Bush in prison for accepting the advice of his legal advisors. You can see how proud they are on their website here.  Or read the op/ed on CNN yesterday, by Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights here.  He states clearly that he believes Bush violated the Convention Against Torture and therefore international law (the treaty though simply requires that each country pass laws against torture under their own jurisdiction, it is not self executing) by authorizing water boarding, among other things. The “other things” are not identified, so let’s deal with water boarding.

(more…)

Posted in: In the News, Uncategorized 6 Comments »

The first time I heard about The Hurt Locker I was a little jealous.  What a great title.  I wished I’d thought of it for a book.  Saying you’re in the “hurt locker” or we’re going to put someone else in the “hurt locker” is a very common term in the military.  And it’s a perfect title for a book or a movie.  So I was immediately intrigued.  I didn’t get around to watching it in the theaters, but did watch the Oscars as it won best picture.  Wow.  A military film winning best picture?

It’s extremely rare for a military or war movie to win best picture.  But something that is growing even more rare, is for Hollywood to make a movie that portrays the military positively, and the conduct of a given war as reasonable, or even honorable.  If the film is about war, the general rule (not universal, see We Were Soldiers Once, and Young, and Saving Private Ryan) you can be fairly well assured the Hollywood of today will be against it, and the movie will show it.

In the last forty years there have been only four “war” films that have won best picture. The first, and the best known, is Patton.  1970.  It may have been the last one to imply that a given war may be worth fighting, and the men involved were honorable.  You could argue that they were showing Patton as crazy; but I’ve seen it several times and never came away from it with the idea that the movie was anti-war, anti-World War II.

(more…)

Posted in: General 1 Comment »