AF General Counsel - Latest Comments

Re: Ethics in the Real World: Sports Edition

funspottrampolines — Thu, 03 Jul 2014 01:21:22 -0000

I think use of trampoline for the military training is a good option.

Re: The “Future” Trends in Global Warfare – No Longer in the Future

Robert Berg — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:46:07 -0000

A couple of my old articles that cover much of this subject matter:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr...
and
p.20 here: http://www.smdc.army.mil/AS...

Re: On the “Future of War”

Robert Berg — Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:03:12 -0000

Much seems to be very similar to previous articles I wrote for the Army Space Journal and the US Army Fires Journal with the titles starting with "The Future of Warfare"
See here:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr...
and starting on p.20 here:
http://www.smdc.army.mil/AS...

Re: “Rules of the Road” for US and China?

Michael J. Listner — Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:19:12 -0000

This brings to mind the Incidents on the High Seas Agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union, Basically, it was a TCBM and not legally-binding, but it is still in force today and has arguably been successful. Perhaps such a TCBM with China might be in order.

Re: Proposed Changes to UCMJ Article 32

Lowell Tenpas — Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:43:10 -0000

These changes all sound good when assessed from the viewpoint of the victim; however, we need to remember than enhancing the victim's rights will result in a corresponding curtailment of the rights of the accused. In years past, rather than being ridiculed as an outdated travesty of justice, the Article 32 process has been hailed as a system far more fair than its civilian counterpart, the grand jury proceeding, which usually occur without the accused's presence or even knowledge. Most of the Article 32 hearings I was involved in were relatively mundane, with the government representative submitting enough evidence, predominantly documents, to establish a prima facie case, and defense counsel in 'receive-only' mode, saving his/her strategy for trial. Occasionally, when the evidence was particularly shaky, the defense would risk disclosing their strategy by attempting to win the case at the Article 32 stage. With all the pressure on commanders to prefer charges in sexual assault cases, regardless of weaknesses in the evidence, I'm afraid these changes will result in more meritless cases going to trial with two undesirable effects: more acquittals, which the media will cite as evidence of the 'good old boys' network, and more wrongful convictions by court members afraid to vote for acquittal despite their reasonable doubts. Those tainted findings will then likely be approved by convening authorities reluctant to follow their conscience for fear of facing the Franklin/Helms scrutiny. I'm in favor of putting significant limitations on defense counsel questioning, but allowing the victim to avoid the witness stand until trial I believe is a mistake. The Naval Academy fiasco could have been avoided by reigning in the defense counsel, but these bad facts should not result in bad laws.

Re: Combatting Chinese Hacking Post-Snowden

Brian Weeden — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 07:58:39 -0000

Why is this article about how Snowden damaged America's attempts to stop Chinese hacking of its companies and not the NSA being the ones who did the damage? Snowden didn't put in place America's offensive cyber policies. China and other countries were very much aware of America's state-sponsored hacking activities before Snowden (although perhaps not the full extent). What's different is the media and the public is now aware of them, and that is making it difficult for the US to build credible narratives as to why its activities are ok but China's are not

The US and China are using the exact same techniques for offensive cyber operations to support their national security goals. The difference is that the US claims that its national security goal of counterterrorism is morally just and good, but China's national security goal of catching up in science and technology is morally wrong and evil. Of course we really shouldn't talk about that period of time early in our history when the US was behind Europe in technology and we resorted to wholesale IP theft and state-sponsored piracy on the high seas to catch up. That's just ancient history and not really relevant today.

The real issue here is the decision by the USG to prioritize exploitation of cyber security weaknesses instead of prioritizing fixing those weaknesses. While that means that the USG can collect all sorts of useful intelligence, it also means that China can suck up vast amounts of IP from US companies.

Re: First in Flight Controversy Unites Two Rivals

2 Km N of GZero — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:47:54 -0000

The photo in question has been blown up several thousand percent and is still far too blurry to definitively identify whether the aircraft is Whitehead's (some researchers show convincingly that it is not), or whether the aircraft in question is powered (it could just as well be a glider), or whether in fact it is in flight (let alone controlled flight). The end result is that the photo serves not as proof but as fodder for a flight of fancy, with Connecticut looking foolish for not practicing its own due diligence.

Re: A Developing Case Law of Liability for Software Design Flaws?

Charles Williamson — Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:03:28 -0000

A tort regime would seem quite helpful. It would help grow the nascent cyber-insurance industry, which could create and enforce standards much like the insurance industry does for building codes and auto safety. Results can naturally be uneven, but market forces can help properly allocate costs. See, e.g., http://www.dhs.gov/sites/de....

Re: What Do Israeli Strikes Tell Us About Syrian Air Defense

dan — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 11:26:48 -0000

"relatively novel and extensive use of electronic warfare" ? where do you live ? these means have been used in the first israeli-lebanese war, during clashes between israel and syria, in which 40 syrian airplains were shot down. 0 israeli airplains were shot down by the syrians.

the u.s has an extensive array of electronic warfare means which can bring a state like syria to its knees within hours. we have seen it done in Iraw - twice!!!

it is all about the Political. claims about military aspects are just diverting attention from the political compromises http://www.israelipolitics1...

and these compromises will cost the lives of many one day, just as past compromises with tyrants have.

Re: Would Conscription Be a Check on The Use of Military Power?

Chuck Blanchard — Thu, 19 Sep 2013 20:29:22 -0000

Deymond: We post on items that would be of interest to our readers--regardless of whether we agree. Indeed, sometimes the most useful posts are from articles that express points of view very alien to those we hold. In this case, I agree wholeheartedly with you. The All-Volunteer military has been an unquestioned success in terms of professionalism, effectiveness and discipline. By every measure, the men and women of the current Armed Forces are better than ever before. I also think that the unfortunate by-product may be a civilian community disconnected from the sacrifices made by the few who choice to serve. Nonetheless, even with that downside, I would much rather go to war with the All-Volunteer force than a conscripted force .

Re: Would Conscription Be a Check on The Use of Military Power?

Deymond Lashley — Thu, 19 Sep 2013 10:35:27 -0000

The article linked to is fine, as Guardian articles go. However, that which "ought to be considered as part of a progressive political agenda" is not necessarily relevant to the mission of the US Armed Forces. I was surprised that there is no mention in the General Counsel's introduction of mission accomplishment or military effectiveness, which I thought would be the primary concern of Air Force leadership. For what it's worth, I don't believe the democratization of foreign policy (which is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution that we are sworn to uphold) is a guarantee of better foreign policy, but more importantly I am not willing to say to my brothers and sisters who voluntarily risk their lives for our collective safety that we are going to de-professionalize the people watching their backs in the name of political experimentation.

Re: Chemical Weapons: A Taboo Worth Protecting?

Big Al — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 16:48:19 -0000

We also have to guard against overinflating the importance of the nuclear, biological, and chemical "taboos." Discussions on the impact of WMD during the Cold War are not as relevant in the current and future multipolar international system. Small-scale, limited attacks are possible today, where mass casualties are not the goal. Military troops are not protected against chemical weapons if they don't get the right equipment and they don't train (see period Aug-Dec 1990 for illustration). It is unwise to overstate their persistency, as each CW and BW agent has distinctly different characteristcs.
Last, we should be careful about attaching moral values to weapon systems. The US military is criticized for its continued use of incendiary munitions, cluster bombs, and antipersonnel mines. It's easy to let the emotional argument go unanswered, but "war is hell." There's no good way to die, civilian or military.

Re: Ethics in the Real World: Sports Edition

Michelle Simms — Wed, 11 Sep 2013 15:03:19 -0000

Some have opined that it shouldn't be allowed. However, the NBA apparently doesn't prohibit a coach also being an owner. Pat Riley is a more well-known example of a coach/owner.

Re: Ethics in the Real World: Sports Edition

Renee Crews — Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:51:54 -0000

Funny, but isn't Jason Kidd in the same perdiciment right now. Can the coach own a part of this team?

Re: Would Conscription Be a Check on The Use of Military Power?

Garrett — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 12:01:03 -0000

I believe this topic to be very worthy of discussion and have engaged in the debate many times. As the author of the post says, it is easier (certainly politically, perhaps morally) for the nation to send a volunteer force into harm's way because those in the military knew what they were signing up for and agreed to the consequences. Spreading the risk across to everyone would provide a check against using military intervention only when fighting is truly necessary. It may also have the consequences of lowering the per capita personnel costs for those drafted (regular pays, allowances, entitlements, and incentive pays can be lowered/eliminated as we would no longer need to entice people to join) and, being more patronizing, military service may help young Americans learn skills. On the flip side, of course, a check on the use of military power could have huge consequences as hesitation might prove disastrous in some situations, and good order and discipline problems would likely increase dramatically in a non-volunteer force. If used wide-scale, it may create too large and unwieldy a force and be more expensive overall. Also, without an urgent need for conscription (a major military outbreak), there may be 13th Amendment constraints. Good points on both sides and worthy of debate.

Re: More on Syria & International Law

Charles Williamson — Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:54:31 -0000

Rules ought to be extensible, enduring, evenly applicable, and hard to abuse. Can these rules pass those tests?
Hypothetical Past - Could Hitler's Germany have plausibly invaded Poland due to abuse of German nationals?
(i) There was undeniable evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief [At least that's what Hitler claimed - that one million German men were displaced, and Austria would likely have agreed];
(ii) it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved [It was "objectively clear" to the Third Reich that there was no alternative, and again, Austria would likely have agreed]; and
(iii) the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian need and must be strictly limited in time and scope to this aim (i.e. the minimum necessary to achieve that end and for no other purpose) [Hitler likely would have claimed that there was ongoing risk that required ongoing occupation].
Hypothetical Future – Iran’s Justification for Attacks on Israel
(i) There was undeniable evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief [Even the UN has condemned Israel in the past for treatment of the Palestinians; UN reports in the past have condemned Israel for misuse of force in armed conflict; the current crisis is worse];
(ii) it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved [Massive rocket attacks by Israel require response (conveniently ignoring any preceding attacks by the Palestinians)]; and
(iii) the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian need and must be strictly limited in time and scope to this aim [An intense, short-duration strike could serve well].
Granted, each of the justifications above were written with a huge dose of cynicism, but isn't that how they would be written? Should aggressors be given additional arguments to claim legitimacy? And haven't aggressors typically found some ally to give them political backing?
Humanitarian intervention, absent UNSC approval or even a colorable argument for self-defense, including collective self-defense, seems a slippery slope from a legal standpoint. Syria's actions may be a perfect reason to modify the Chemical Weapons Convention to build in consequences for use, but rewriting the humanitarian intervention doctrine, which is only vaguely outlined and not thoroughly accepted anyway, rewrites the UN Charter sub silentio and writes Chapter VII out.

Re: Syria & Presidential Power

BernardKingIII — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 08:16:53 -0000

Obama cannot unilaterally make war against Syria absent compliance with the War Powers Act (WPA), which in this case means prior Congressional approval. Section 1541(c) limits the President's authority to introduce armed forces into hostilities to the following three circumstances: (1) where a declaration of war is made, (2) where specific statutory authorization is given, or (3) in the event of a national emergency created by an attack on the United States. Contrary to Mr. Thompson's summary view, the 60 day limitation is intended for this third exception when Congressional authorization cannot be first obtained. A "national emergency created by an attack on the United States" is the only scenario contemplated by the statute where the President could introduce armed forces into hostilities without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization.

Re: Using DNA to Battle Counterfeit Parts

Owen — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:02:32 -0000

Given that SigNature DNA has proved itself in concept and execution how long will it take other DoD components to embrace the technology and perhaps get ahead of the counterfeiters. At least it seems the approach is working, and industry is looking for specific guidance, it could be a valuable asset to all. What's the "hold-up"?

Re: Children’s Books and Military Strategy

Ellen Herr — Mon, 05 Aug 2013 12:15:33 -0000

I must take issue with the characterization of Tolkein as being for children. Although I read LOTR first as a teenager, just because a book is fantasy, doesn't mean it's just for kids. Having said that, another sci-fi/fantasy author with a good grasp of military strategy and ability to apply it to an imagined inter-galactic society is Lois McMaster Bujold in her Vorkosigan series, starting with "Cordelia's Honor". Should the Air Force ever develop worm-hole technology, her books should be come required strategy reading...

Re: Jamming GPS

scrivenerNP — Mon, 05 Aug 2013 01:13:10 -0000

Apparently, I have more faith in the internal system of military justice than do some others who lord over the cyberwar horizon. I pray that faith is not misplaced and naive.

Re: Jamming GPS

liberty_torch — Mon, 05 Aug 2013 00:46:52 -0000

I hate it when that happens.....
woops.

Re: Lincoln’s Most Extreme Order

Chuck Blanchard — Sat, 03 Aug 2013 15:18:34 -0000

John, I agree, and the author of the article pretty much comes to the same conclusion.

Re: Lincoln’s Most Extreme Order

John Chilton — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:54:57 -0000

Just to reiterate: Davis's was more extraordinary, a greater breach the code of war and was carried out.

Re: Jamming GPS

scrivenerNP — Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:20:28 -0000

Is there a jammer that can protect innocent Americans against a U.S. Cyber Command- administered celltower radio frequency weapon system (U.S. Pat. 7629918, Raytheon) being used by Lockheed Martin cyberwarriors to silently attack, torture, impair, subjugate and harm extrajudicially targeted "dissidents" and "undesirables"? Yes, this is a U.S. military slow-kill GENOCIDE and this veteran journalist is but one of many thousands of victims: viclivingston.blogspot.com/...

Re: Should Contractors Do Intelligence Analysis Work?

Teka Thomas — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 19:36:59 -0000

The reality is that the government does not have enough personnel trained and organized to do all of the statistical analysis needed. Those in truly inherently governmental functions (e.g. a general acting on an intel report, or a judge getting a probably cause statement about financial fraud) will need refresher courses in statistics.
Furthermore, any discussion about inherently governmental activities leads to a discussion about the very role of government.