So, I'm reneging on a promise...

I said I'd write on a lighter topic, but obviously the big story in the world today is not light.

Less than 900 nautical miles from the artificial prosperity and land of dreams we call Disney World, Haiti is anything but. The target of strife since the beginning of modern history, the tiny island nation has been hit repeatedly by violent coups, corrupt governments, and natural disasters. It is among the world's poorest nations, the last in food security, and the least capable of dealing with even a small natural disaster, much less a catastrophe on the scale of this week.

Why should we care?

Of course, there are altruistic reasons. Some might cite the Golden Rule, or teachings from other religions regarding charity for our fellow humans. Others may even cite the self-serving benefits of service to others in their times of need. I am not disputing these. In fact, I encourage and even champion them.

However, let's talk practical matters for a bit.

Some have already spoken of the danger of a humanitarian crisis so close to our own borders. Even before this escalation in the scope of their national tragedy, the complications arising from unsanctioned immigration by Hatians, whether "boat people" or others, has been significant in southern Florida and beyond.

I am a strong proponent of opening immigration rather than restricting it further; however, under our current laws, illegal immigration creates a class of workers who are not integrated into society and are easy targets for exploitation. This exploitation may be by criminal elements that both welcome and corrupt immigrants, victimize them through various forms of human trafficking, or pay dirt-poor wages that the illegal immigrant has no way to contest (while saving the taxes that could help pay for the added load to our systems such as education and health). This causes economic, moral, and criminal impact on our society. On top of this, add the danger of the trip itself, which thousands upon thousands have decided to brave, finding the risk of death at sea better than the conditions of their home country. The scope of the tragedy and misery in today's Haiti will only increase this flow of immigration, legal and otherwise.

But the other danger is one I wrote of in November (Why should we care about starving kids in Africa). "In our country, we debate the increased risk of gang activity and violence in a society endangered by a lack of effective parental role models, poverty, homelessness, and sexual predation. These are significant concerns, but they pale in comparison to other parts of the world." How much more should we be concerned with our neighbor, Haiti, where thousands upon thousands are now orphaned, in extreme poverty, without housing, and subject to exploitation as I described above?

Conditions such as these create the fertile ground in which criminal and terrorist organizations thrive. Even if the altruistic reasons didn't exist (but they do), we would be ill-advised not to take action.

So... what are you doing? Go take action. Right now, the best way for most of us is to donate through well-established NGOs and charitable organizations - Doctors without Borders and the Red Cross are two that come to mind easily, but there are many others out there*. Get out and do it!

*A word of caution - just as the criminal element will be out to exploit the Hatians, many despicable individuals and organizations are capitalizing on their plight. Make sure you do a good check on any organization to which you donate.

Check 6,

Pat

Combatant or Criminal?

The buzz around the decision whether to try the underwear bomber, Gitmo detainees, and others as combatants at military tribunals, criminals in civilian courts, or not at all has been dominated by emotion and opinion rather than reason. That is understandable, as the nature of our current conflict involves two of the most primal elements: fear and hate.

As a republic guided by laws, ideas, and values, our national defense must involve not only physical protection of our citizens and borders, but also the defense of those laws, ideas, and values under which we have agreed to live. It is tempting, due to our emotional desires for revenge and restitution, or even in the name of physical security, to seek some sort of "justice" outside of the constraints of those standards, expressed by established domestic and international laws. However, by doing so, we give up the defense of those ideals which define our civilization and community in the first place.

If it sounds like I'm talking in rhetorical circles, perhaps it's because I haven't introduced specific examples. Here goes...

Under the Geneva Conventions, specifically the third and fourth (GCIII and GCIV), there are two classes of people during a war - combatants and noncombatants. Noncombatants are not only civilians, medical personnel, and the like, but can include persons actively involved in the conflict who don't meet the conditions of a combatant. Some of those conditions include: being under the command of defined leadership, wearing of a distinctive uniform or displaying insignia, and open carriage of arms.

The importance of combatant status is most relevant after capture. Any person who meets all of these criteria who is captured by a signatory of the GC is classified as a Prisoner of War (POW) and holds privileges and protections defined by GCIII. One of these privileges is that, if the POW is accused of a crime (including violations of the Laws of Armed Conflict), he or she will be tried under the same court system and standards as a military member of the detaining power would be subject to if accused of the same crime. In our case, that means the court-martial system, what recently has been called "military tribunals."

Arguments also could be made that some or all Gitmo detainees do not meet the conditions of a lawful combatant. Under established precedent going back to the 50s, that makes them "unlawful combatants," and they must be treated under GCIV under the same rules as noncombatants, notably including the requirement that they be tried under the same laws as civilians of the detaining power for crimes for which they are accused. In other words, if we declare them unlawful combatants, they must be tried under our civil legal system.

As stated above, arguments could be made for either status for Gitmo detainees, particularly those who were not captured during overt force-on-force military action. The status of the "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, however, is much more clear. Although one might debate as to whether he was under the command of Al-Qu'aida (or if that leadership meets GCIII standards), at no time was he carrying arms openly or wearing a distinctive uniform or insignia. He was either a civilian carrying out a violation of civil law, or an unlawful/non-combatant engaged in violation of civil law. As such, the only answer is trial by civil court, which is where we are headed in his case.

One way or the other, once we decide on the status of those we are detaining, our goal should be to ensure their humane treatment while we seek one the three goals below as expeditiously as possible:

1. An end of hostilities followed by repatriation of POWs.

2. Fair and speedy trials via military tribunals for lawful combatants accused of unlawful acts.

3. Fair and speedy trials via civilian courts for unlawful combatants/noncombatants accused of unlawful acts.

No matter what, endless detention without trial cannot be our strategy, because even if it is perceived to meet our needs for physical security, it violates our ideological security. In effect, it does the enemy's job for him.

Next post... something lighter. I promise!

F-22s vs. Exploding Underwear, part 2

Last post, I wrote about the interesting and sometimes dangerous disconnect we have between our post-DESERT STORM mindset and our current-day threat. The tease was that we could somehow find a way to solve the dilemma of balancing security and freedom with a combination of technology and human resources.

OK, Pat. Time to put up or shut up.

First, let's look at the extremes.

Extreme 1: Protect freedom at all costs, leaving security to the good will of the passengers. Leave the doors open and hope that no wolves sneak in the pen with the sheep. The most common example of the weaknesses of this approach is the late 1960s, which combined with the turmoil of that time to make hijackings commonplace, peaking in 1969 when there were 34 hijackings between Cuba and the United States alone! This phenomenon was one of the main catalysts for the institution of metal detectors in airports, the precursor to the security gauntlet we have today.

Extreme 2: El Al. Take a flight on the Israeli Airline, and you'll be required to report three hours early. Every passenger will be interviewed individually by a trained interrogator. Your luggage will be put in a decompression chamber to simulate altitude changes and hopefully trigger any pressure-sensitive device. Your pilot will be a former IDF military pilot. You likely will sit within a few rows of an armed Israeli security agent. El Al has had one successful hijacking in its entire history. It happened forty years ago.

Though some will disagree with me, I don't think we want to be at either extreme. Clearly, we must take precautions to increase security of our air transportation system. On the other hand, trying to implement El-Al security levels nation-wide would be cost-prohibitive. El-Al flew 1.9 million passengers in 2008, less than a quarter of one percent of the total 809 million passengers flying within, to, and from the US that same year. The cost of 100% El-Al level screening for that many passengers would be unsustainable, and the loss in convenience would drive more passengers to find other options, further crippling our struggling airline industry.

On the other hand, relying purely on technology to save us time and resources isn't the right answer either. Already, rumors are circulating that even the highly-touted body-scanners wouldn't have detected Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's exploding underwear. "Puffers" and other chemical scanners can be fooled. And it's probably only a matter of time until someone figures out how to make an exploding Twinkie or suppository that can evade all but surgical searches. How much do you think we'll need to pay someone to look for those?

The answer needs to involve both technology and people. Technology to do mass scans of travelers and luggage, and highly-trained and qualified professionals to conduct focused surveillance as well as interviews both of random samples of travelers and those matching certain profiles and behaviors. This, of course, must be combined with another mix of technology and people to detect and disrupt terrorist actions before the attackers even arrive at the terminal. I won't disparage the current cadre of TSA agents performing some of these tasks today. When you think of it, it's pretty impressive how quickly the agency stood up its operations. However, next time you travel on an airline (as I will tomorrow), take a good look at those people and tell me if they or their procedures meet this intent.

Do the agents look like this?

Or this?