Were The OTIS Fighters Diverted?

[Oystein]

I see a slippery slope and some unwanted, counter-productive drawbacks when you start declaring attackers "combattants of war" that were previoisly "criminals".

One is the danger of eliminating due process, and establishing powers for the military to turn their guns at domestic subjects - smoething that should raise alarms with everybody.

Then comes the problem that recognizing the foe as a combattant runs the risk of accepting that what he does is legitimate. It might open terrorists a door towards methods of violence that arent't even illegal, as war as such is not illegal.

And finally, as per UN Charter (which is, as a ratified treaty, a Supreme Law of the Land in the USA), the UN Security Council is the political body that ultimately ought to decide how an armed conflict is to be handled, and by whom. In practice, of course, the USA as a veto power can and does stall any motion by the SC if and when it goes against her will, but there we have the international diplomatic repercussions again. And the reason why the USA has not ratified the Statue of the International Criminal Court.

 

[gumboot]

I see a slippery slope and some unwanted, counter-productive drawbacks when you start declaring attackers "combattants of war" that were previoisly "criminals".

It really comes down to whether you consider a particular act to be simply a crime, or whether it constitutes an Act of War.

Interestingly, if I were KSM and I were planning to plead guilty to the charges (which seems likely) I would refute the count of "murder" for the deaths at the Pentagon, as I would argue that was a legitimate military target. (See? It goes both ways).

One is the danger of eliminating due process, and establishing powers for the military to turn their guns at domestic subjects - smoething that should raise alarms with everybody.

Well, I didn't bring it up, because we were merely speculating on matters relating to the Laws of War, but there's a layer above that, which is that when action occurs within your own state your own laws apply as well. Which can mean that while you can justify an action under the Laws of Armed Conflict, that doesn't mean you get away with it under your own domestic laws.

This is where something like a civilian airliner shootdown would be a legal quagmire. I think you could actually make a case that it was legitimate under the ILAC, but arguing it's legitimate under domestic law is another problem entirely, and I don't think it would pass the sniff test on that point.

Then comes the problem that recognizing the foe as a combattant runs the risk of accepting that what he does is legitimate. It might open terrorists a door towards methods of violence that arent't even illegal, as war as such is not illegal.

If they're a combatant they're required to adhere to the Laws of Armed Conflict. KSM, for example, is specifically being charged with failing to follow the Laws of Armed Conflict. All you would really be doing is accepting that you couldn't prosecute people for terrorist attacks against military targets. But the flip side of that is you also don't have to investigate, prosecute and prove guilty those who attack military targets; you can just shoot them.

So it's kind of a win-some lose-some scenario. I think one of the big problems the west has is a great deal of inconsistency in how they approach this, but it's a complex and messy issue, and very difficult to deal with, as our entire culture's posture with regards to war is simply out of touch with the nature of fourth generation warfare.

And finally, as per UN Charter (which is, as a ratified treaty, a Supreme Law of the Land in the USA), the UN Security Council is the political body that ultimately ought to decide how an armed conflict is to be handled, and by whom.

The UNSC has an obligation to resolve international armed conflict, but every state has a right to collective self-defense, and this right is enshrined in Chapter VII of said Charter. In the absence of appropriate and effective action by the UNSC, any state is entitled to use whatever means it deems fit (within the restrictions of the ILAC) to protect itself from aggression.

 

[Oystein]

It really comes down to whether you consider a particular act to be simply a crime, or whether it constitutes an Act of War.

Of course

Interestingly, if I were KSM and I were planning to plead guilty to the charges (which seems likely) I would refute the count of "murder" for the deaths at the Pentagon, as I would argue that was a legitimate military target. (See? It goes both ways).

But once you define a civilian domestic airliner with unidentified attackers aboard (whose intentions and affiliations may well be unknown) a legitimate military target, then that opens the door to the other side to also define previously civilian targets as "military" on similar grounds - say, that one unidentified occupant may have ties to groups that wage war on Palestine. Or whatever you deem to be the military conflict that you are engaging in.

Well, I didn't bring it up, because we were merely speculating on matters relating to the Laws of War, but there's a layer above that, which is that when action occurs within your own state your own laws apply as well. Which can mean that while you can justify an action under the Laws of Armed Conflict, that doesn't mean you get away with it under your own domestic laws.

Good point.

This is where something like a civilian airliner shootdown would be a legal quagmire. I think you could actually make a case that it was legitimate under the ILAC, but arguing it's legitimate under domestic law is another problem entirely, and I don't think it would pass the sniff test on that point.

Ok

If they're a combatant they're required to adhere to the Laws of Armed Conflict. KSM, for example, is specifically being charged with failing to follow the Laws of Armed Conflict. All you would really be doing is accepting that you couldn't prosecute people for terrorist attacks against military targets. But the flip side of that is you also don't have to investigate, prosecute and prove guilty those who attack military targets; you can just shoot them.

KSM's plan this time around surely had no consideration of fine legal detail, and no provision to slip under any sort of legal protection on clever claims of intent. I am saying that offering to treat terrorists as combattants may open up the possibility to fight the USA, even civilians, in ways that aren't even illegal. If you then find a way to avoid being shot... (In war, you can't freely shoot your enemy if you can as well capture him. Once he surrenders and puts down arms...)

So it's kind of a win-some lose-some scenario.

Exactly. And people notoriously overestimate the wins and underplay the losses, or fail to anticipate them.

I think one of the big problems the west has is a great deal of inconsistency in how they approach this, but it's a complex and messy issue, and very difficult to deal with, as our entire culture's posture with regards to war is simply out of touch with the nature of fourth generation warfare.

True.
But I am not quickly convinced that the solution is to accept their rules and play dirty.

The UNSC has an obligation to resolve international armed conflict, but every state has a right to collective self-defense, and this right is enshrined in Chapter VII of said Charter. In the absence of appropriate and effective action by the UNSC, any state is entitled to use whatever means it deems fit (within the restrictions of the ILAC) to protect itself from aggression.

Yes, but explicitly only until the UNSC becomes seized of the matter. Once the UNSC decides on a collective effort to restore peace and order, the country under attack is obliged to go along.

Yeah I know. As if that ever happened. And the USA, as pointed out, can and will make sure that the UNSC never becomes seized of matters concerning the USA herself.

 

[gumboot]

But once you define a civilian domestic airliner with unidentified attackers aboard (whose intentions and affiliations may well be unknown) a legitimate military target, then that opens the door to the other side to also define previously civilian targets as "military" on similar grounds - say, that one unidentified occupant may have ties to groups that wage war on Palestine.

It's not that there are hypothetical attackers on board, it's that the attackers have seized control of the airliner and turned it into a weapon. And yes, if an Israeli soldier (for example) is using a bus full of civilians (for example) to attack Gaza, Hamas are perfectly within their rights to fire upon said bus.

KSM's plan this time around surely had no consideration of fine legal detail, and no provision to slip under any sort of legal protection on clever claims of intent.

I can't even begin to imagine what's going on in his head.

I am saying that offering to treat terrorists as combattants may open up the possibility to fight the USA, even civilians, in ways that aren't even illegal.

I can't think of a tactic that a terrorist might utilise that would be permitted under the ILAC, which would be more problematic than the standard methods they use (which are not permitted under the ILAC). And no I don't see how they could get away with attacking civilians.

If you then find a way to avoid being shot... (In war, you can't freely shoot your enemy if you can as well capture him. Once he surrenders and puts down arms...)

In war, the only situation in which you are prohibited from engaging the enemy is if they are taking no part in hostilities. That means if they're taking any part in hostilities they're free game. And that's a rather broad brush. The really fun thing about terrorists is it's pretty easy to argue you thought they were taking part in hostilities in any scenario imaginable, including a scenario where they dropped their gun, stuck their hands in the air, and shouted "I surrender". In fact, some Radical Islamic combatants have managed to take part in hostilities when they're dead.

Exactly. And people notoriously overestimate the wins and underplay the losses, or fail to anticipate them.

While we, discussing this matter academically on a web forum, might make those mistake, I think the people who actually have to make these sorts of decisions are generally a bit more clued into the reality.

But I am not quickly convinced that the solution is to accept their rules and play dirty.

They don't have any rules. What we do need to do is admit that our current rules are woefully unsuited to reality, and then decide what we want to do about it. (That is a rather interesting topic for discussion)

Yes, but explicitly only until the UNSC becomes seized of the matter. Once the UNSC decides on a collective effort to restore peace and order, the country under attack is obliged to go along.

Becoming seized of the matter is not really sufficient. The UNSC is always "seized" of matters. It's the foreign relations equivalent of saying "sorry" at a funeral. The right to collective self-defense lasts "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security". Which means, until you, as the aggrieved nation, feel secure and peaceful, you're welcome to keep on fighting.

And the USA, as pointed out, can and will make sure that the UNSC never becomes seized of matters concerning the USA herself.

Or Israel...

At this juncture I'd like to point out that my nation - as one of the founding members of the UN - was ferociously opposed to veto power in the UNSC.

 

[Oystein]

It's not that there are hypothetical attackers on board, it's that the attackers have seized control of the airliner and turned it into a weapon. And yes, if an Israeli soldier (for example) is using a bus full of civilians (for example) to attack Gaza, Hamas are perfectly within their rights to fire upon said bus.

Using a weapon is not in and of itself an act of war.

Suppose we are dealing with a lone deranged psychopath who is turning a civilian airliner into a weapon.

Can an individual be said to be at war? I think that would a rather perverted way to twist the term.

Next thing, bank robbery, armed assault, rape and auto theft are redefined as acts of war. Not sure we wanna go there. I'd rather want to stop the redefining early on.

I can't even begin to imagine what's going on in his head.

Don't think that's so difficult, really.

I can't think of a tactic that a terrorist might utilise that would be permitted under the ILAC, which would be more problematic than the standard methods they use (which are not permitted under the ILAC). And no I don't see how they could get away with attacking civilians.

Doesn't mean that they can.

And also, I would not have been able to see 20 years ago how the USA could get away invading countries at will at the flimsiest and most contrived of excuses. But hey...

In war, the only situation in which you are prohibited from engaging the enemy is if they are taking no part in hostilities. That means if they're taking any part in hostilities they're free game. And that's a rather broad brush. The really fun thing about terrorists is it's pretty easy to argue you thought they were taking part in hostilities in any scenario imaginable, including a scenario where they dropped their gun, stuck their hands in the air, and shouted "I surrender". In fact, some Radical Islamic combatants have managed to take part in hostilities when they're dead.

I have little qualms about attacking dead terrorist

While we, discussing this matter academically on a web forum, might make those mistake, I think the people who actually have to make these sorts of decisions are generally a bit more clued into the reality.

Phhhh - a very optimistic, even naive, expectation!
The moment a citizenry draws back to a position where it accepts that whatever a government does will be ok because they know what they are doing, democracy is finished. What's the point then?

They don't have any rules. What we do need to do is admit that our current rules are woefully unsuited to reality, and then decide what we want to do about it. (That is a rather interesting topic for discussion)

Exactly! If their rules are "no rules", that's precisely where you don't want to go!

You want your government to ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS play by rules - called "laws", restrained by a "constitution". Once you free your government, and particularly her armed branches, from the rule of law, democracy is finished.

Becoming seized of the matter is not really sufficient. The UNSC is always "seized" of matters. It's the foreign relations equivalent of saying "sorry" at a funeral. The right to collective self-defense lasts "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security". Which means, until you, as the aggrieved nation, feel secure and peaceful, you're welcome to keep on fighting.

Yeah. Let's not split words. The point ist that, according to the UN Charter ("theory") member states are NOT free to do whatever they are happy with. So if, say, the UNSC fields an armed police force to go after Al Qaida and decides that this is the way to go ahead after 9/11, then the USA sustaining a war of self defense on Afghanistan / on "terror" would act illegally.
Of course that's theory only.

The real fallout of this is that everybody can (and does) point fingers at the USA and say "you don't practice what you preach". The most important victim of the war between USA and "terror", in my opinion, is international d'Accord.

At this juncture I'd like to point out that my nation - as one of the founding members of the UN - was ferociously opposed to veto power in the UNSC.

Your Haka wasn't terrifying enough

 

[gumboot]

Using a weapon is not in and of itself an act of war.

It is if you're a combatant fighting a war.

Suppose we are dealing with a lone deranged psychopath who is turning a civilian airliner into a weapon.

Can an individual be said to be at war? I think that would a rather perverted way to twist the term.

Next thing, bank robbery, armed assault, rape and auto theft are redefined as acts of war. Not sure we wanna go there. I'd rather want to stop the redefining early on.

There are rather obvious problems with viewing terrorism as an act of war, the first of which is, as you rightly point out, how do you determine that it actually is terrorism?

Phhhh - a very optimistic, even naive, expectation!
The moment a citizenry draws back to a position where it accepts that whatever a government does will be ok because they know what they are doing, democracy is finished. What's the point then?

I think you misunderstood. Maybe it's an American thing, because you appoint politicians to head your executive branches (a bizarre practise, if you ask me). Our civil servants are not part of the government, and are not politicians. They're professionals, with a particular area of expertise, and I think it is only sensible to recognise that their knowledge of their particular area of expertise is going to be substantially greater than the layman on the street. That doesn't mean they're infallible, but it does mean that their opinions should, and do, hold more weight.

Exactly! If their rules are "no rules", that's precisely where you don't want to go!

You want your government to ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS play by rules - called "laws", restrained by a "constitution". Once you free your government, and particularly her armed branches, from the rule of law, democracy is finished.

Absolutely. But if history has taught us anything, it's that laws are not infallible. The current laws of war are wholly inadequate for the nature of modern warfare, and that needs to be addressed.

Yeah. Let's not split words. The point ist that, according to the UN Charter ("theory") member states are NOT free to do whatever they are happy with. So if, say, the UNSC fields an armed police force to go after Al Qaida and decides that this is the way to go ahead after 9/11, then the USA sustaining a war of self defense on Afghanistan / on "terror" would act illegally.
Of course that's theory only.

If, after said armed police force had been deployed, Al Qaeda continued to execute terrorist attacks out of Afghanistan against the USA, the USA would be perfectly entitled to take unilateral measures to protect itself.

The real fallout of this is that everybody can (and does) point fingers at the USA and say "you don't practice what you preach". The most important victim of the war between USA and "terror", in my opinion, is international d'Accord.

I think Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston summed up the foreign policy of great powers:

Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.

It should also be pointed out that the war against Radical Islam (let's call a spade a spade, shall we?) is not America's war, but western civilisation's war, and while much of the west don't entirely approve of all of the USA's methods (*cough* Iraq *cough*) the vast majority of the west is very much on board.

In fact, if anything about the "war on terror" (snicker) is remarkable, it's just how strong the "International d'Accord" is.

 

[BCR]

Just a quick update on the AAL11A issue. A number of very talented individuals are working to 'decipher' all of the juicy details in the DART file. We are progressing, but I still need one data point for conversion of the positional data to lat/long.

I need one point (any point will do) where the ZNY X,Y coordinate is known as well as it's lat/long. If any of you happen to have that information (or where I can find it) it would speed things up a little.

 

[Oystein]

Yesterday, the following was posted at 911Blogger by Paul Schreyer with the introduction "Following the core points of this discussion, based on 7 questions Schreyer raised, published now with the approval of both at 9/11 Blogger and at JREF."
Discussion with Miles Kara about 9/11 air defense

Except, I don't see it at JREF yet

Interesting exchange - Kara showing Schreyer his place.

 

[BCR]

Okay, I used a RIV radar return as my reference and generated the following. Anyone interested in the kmz file can send me a message and I'll email it to you.

A very rough match, but does illustrate what folks were seeing on the TSD (blue triangles).

 

[cjnewson88]

So just a question; the track ends a few miles South of New York. How long after AA11 hit the North Tower did the TSD stop displaying the AA11A tag?

 

[BCR]

So just a question; the track ends a few miles South of New York. How long after AA11 hit the North Tower did the TSD stop displaying the AA11A tag?

130015 (9:00:15) - last position is indicated on the GE plot above. Did not change position on the TSD (40.48400544, -74.23560495) after 125111 (8:51:11).

 

[BCR]

Okay, I used a RIV radar return as my reference and generated the following. Anyone interested in the kmz file can send me a message and I'll email it to you.

A very rough match, but does illustrate what folks were seeing on the TSD (blue triangles).

[qimg]http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/aal11a_plot.jpg[/qimg]

Just a progress update. The 'team' has pretty much sorted out the details of the AAL11 'ghost track'. We like to work independently on the data crunching and then compare notes. Something of a learning curve for us on the DART files as well. However, after months of number crunching by multiple individuals, the 'ghost' track that generated the confusion that morning has been confirmed and reproduced.

http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/suspected-simulated-radar-target-near-aal-11-view-rotated-90-deg-ccw.doc

Reconstruction by GHS. Word format.