Slashdot Mirror
Weapons of War Now Include Lightning Guns
An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post is running a lengthy article today about Xtreme Alternative Defense Systems, an Indiana-based company that says its developed a nonlethal weapon that shoots lightning bolts. This article is an in-depth look at a company that's stirred up some controversy on Slashdot in the past. From the article: 'Lightning guns, heat rays, weapons that can make you hear the voice of God. This is what happens when the war on terror meets the entrepreneurial spirit.'"
It only outlaws lasers explicitly designed to damage sight or cause permanent blindness.
Temporary blinding.. while it's questionable if such is very possible without risk of permanant injury, isn't forbidden.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
This has been around for a while. These "electricity shooting" weapons usually use ultra-violet lasers to ionize a column of air to the target, which acts as a conducting pathway for the electricity. So yes, you can actually aim it with some degree of accuracy.
Of course they are. Geneva conventions (plural) cover all classes of participants in warfare, one of them is "non-uniformed" combatants (GC3) or alternatively civilians (GC4). There is no possibility of anyone in a war not to be covered by one of the Conventions. The "unlawful combatant" bullshit is wholly invented by the Bush Administration.
Regarding these lightning guns and dazzlers, there's a good reason that nonlethal weapons exist, at least in the TSA's case. I've heard of a study done by the TSA that in a hijacking situation, it was judged to be quite traumatic for the passengers to see an air marshal rip out an attacker's throat, break his neck, or gouge out his eyes. Those are pretty much the exact words my friend quoted from the study.
Instead, it was judged to be easier on the passengers for the air marshal to point a blinking light at the guy and then bonk him nicely over the head while he's blinded.
This has the potential to be a big market.
'Be always mindful, even when ditch-digging.' --D. T. Suzuki
In which case the US is not at war and they are merely criminals to be tried in accrodance with international law standards. You cannot have it both ways! Either they are para-military caught during military operations or they are criminal suspects. What the Bush Administration has done is to invent a whole new category of "no-rights-whatsover-because-we-say-so" oponents. This is only giving factual ammunition to those who had long claimed the US to be a hypocritical warmonger whose oh-so-pious regard for law extends only as far as its interests.
The Federal Courts, the Supreme Court, the members of both houses of Congress, all know and say this is perfectly legal.
No, but they do they know on which side their bread is buttered and we are talking about some inconsequential brown people of whom a number are actual terrorists so who cares. Its not like they are going to get a TV campaign going during elections or something that would actually hurt these members of Congress.
But a little fool on the Internet, living in Hyper-reality, has no explanation as to [i]how[/i] the Bush Administration is, in his view, doing something illegal.
Explanation is really simple, dimwit: none of the Geneva Conventions allow for this, they don't even mention an "unlawful combatant" as a valid class of prisoners. And they apply to all signatories regardless if they are fighting a non-signarory, as long as they are at "war". Its dead simple. And if you are not at "war" then they are criminal suspects and suject to internationally accepted laws, including access to a lawyer etc.
There is one possibility you and your liberal blogs have not considered: that it is perfectly legal and proper to do so (after all, terrorists don't attend conventions).
Proper? Proper?! You mean to sink to the level of murderous, beheding, torturing, child-killing thugs because you are fighting them is proper?! In that case you have not only already lost that fight but you will be counted among those very barbarous enemies of civilization, democracy, law and freedom. And that would be proper indeed.
>> "nonlethal" weapons
> The only place I've ever actually heard of them being used is in roit or crowd control situations.
"Nonlethal" is a misnomer for many of these weapons.
The problem inherent to these less-then-lethal weapons is that the police or the military will be more inclined to use them in situations that may not call for such use of force.
Crowd control situations are particularly problematic. I live not far from Boston, and was appalled at the way the Boston police handled the celebratory crowds after last year's Red Sox World Series win. A young woman was shot and killed by a "nonlethal" pepper-spray bullet. From the article:
"Nonlethal" _isn't_...and those using these weapons must understand that they're not playing with Nerf guns.
@ASP.NET's parent-teacher meeting: "Little Johnny.NET is very bright, but he doesn't play well with others."
You should note that I only responded to ad-hominem attacks in kind.
According to this [wikipedia] article 2 of the third geneva convention states: That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until such time as the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "
Wikipedia lies. Please do not quote Wikipedia on anything political because it is utterly unreliable as a source and its data depends on whose political bias happens to be dominant at the moment in the "edit wars".
The actual GC3 text is:
Which is quite different (i.e. no opt-out clause). The question is rather academic as both Afghanistan and Iraq were signatories. However consider this: if the Wikipedia interpretation were true it would allow one to start acting arbitrarily barbaric in respect to captured soldiers just because you are fighting someone who does not subscribe to the Conventions. In this line of reasoning, one could argue you are entitled to set up gas chambers for the members of Al-Queida just because they are not officially a party to the Geneva Conventions and are not following their rules. But US still must adhere. Such is the burden of the defender of Liberty. Either you believe in it or you are just an obnoxious opportunistic pretender. No other options exist for the US.What you can argue (and which is the point of view I hold) is that Al-Queida is not an armed force of a Power but a criminal organization to be dealt with via criminal courts the very same way you deal with the Mafia or some of the european leftist rebels of the 1980s and similar social malcontents. They cannot be considered a nation or any other sort of Power which the GC3 would apply to in a war-like scenario, because you simply cannot be at war with them (GC4 still applying to those found in Iraq/Afghanistan). Thus Gitmo is simply illegal as the US is not at war with Al-Queida. In the context of Iraq and Afghanistan the Conventions apply as usual and the US has to stingently follow the rules.
GC3 explicitly states you only get protection if you wear uniform, so why should one demand protection if you don't wear uniform?
The article 4.A.1 makes no such distinction:
It makes no note of uniform. These additional provisions apply to a different category described in 4.A.2. Also note that if you do not fall under GC3 then by default you are covered by GC4. The "insurgents" are then either POWs (if they were in Saddam's army and still believe they are in it), armed resistance under 4.A.2 (all they need is command structure, some basic rules of engagement, a head-band and a weapon worn in the open - see the battle for Falluja) or they are war criminals (that is POWs until their trial in a civilian court or in Hague under the supervision of a Protecting Power) or civilian criminals in which case they get tried in their own country (that would be all those Al-Queida foreign idiots who blow up schools if they are not deemed to fall under 4.A.2).