Stay out of trouble.

September 15, 2006 4:58 AM

One link political newsfilter.Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne says non-lethal weapons should be tested on US crowds first. Riots dont ensue.
posted by wilful (53 comments total)

I read that in the paper here a day or two ago. I was singularly struck by the lack of any dissent to the idea. "Well, we're not really sure it's 'non-lethal', so we'd better test it out on some unruly hippies in Philly before we piss of the Iraqis too bad."

Wha??
posted by Devils Rancher at 5:04 AM on September 15, 2006

Apparently taken out of context. (via)

I would take the time to read it all but
A. I'm too lazy
B. I've given up hope
posted by chillmost at 5:06 AM on September 15, 2006

This one totally wins the out-of-context prize for 2006. It was obvious from the first time the quote was published that the guy was saying something not-bad, but for a week now everyone's been crapping themselves over the (incorrect) sinister interpretation.
posted by rxrfrx at 5:08 AM on September 15, 2006

I don't know that it's taken out of context at all. I've read the transcript now, twice, and he clearly thinks the outcry from overseas would be louder than it would here. It's not that he is advocating it that bothers me as much as the view that the outcry from abroad would be louder than it would be here. We'd have to worry about, say, the BBC, more than The Washington Post. Or am I missing something?
posted by etaoin at 5:09 AM on September 15, 2006

I think the context is quite clear. "So I think we should use it, if we're not willing to use it here, against our fellow citizens then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation."

If he's advocating against their use whatsoever, then great. But I sure don't see that as being the point.
posted by Devils Rancher at 5:13 AM on September 15, 2006

Well, you can interpret it as "if we use it once here that will immunize us to irresponsible use overseas," or you can interpret it as "we are trying to maintain a shred of moral authority in order to keep our people safe." The latter is the theme of this week's intra-GOP debate about subjecting foreigners to torture and trial by kangaroo court, which is why I figured this interpretation is more likely the correct one.
posted by rxrfrx at 5:13 AM on September 15, 2006

I read the transcript too, and I can't see how this extra bit of "context" vindicates this guy at all. He is flat out saying that American citizens should get zapped first so that he can't/won't be "villified in the world press". WTF? Hopefully the domestic press will get the hell on with the villification pronto. His comments deserve nothing less.

And then there's this, for a little bit of extra, um, context: "And I say that knowing the way the world works right now is that - the Indians as you remember in the early 1800s and mid-1800s thought you were stealing their soul when you hit them with a flash camera."

Double WTF!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:27 AM on September 15, 2006

The only part of the FPP that was out of context is the use of the word "first". He should have used "also" instead. Besides, it's already been deployed at the 2004 RNC Convention. They don't ask for permission for these things. These guys only have problems with the UN and black helicopters, we're the good guys, remember.

What Wynne said:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.

The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.

"If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."

Besides, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
posted by rzklkng at 5:29 AM on September 15, 2006

He was indeed taken out of context but it does raise a wider point.

(So-called) Non-lethal weapons have a much lower threshold of use than potentially lethal weapons. You see this in Tazers all the time. I've seen so much footage where the cop basically thinks 'ah, screw it, Tazer them' when the the subject doesn't comply *immediately* to an instruction.

The use of broad spectrum non-lethal weapons for crowd control (ie weapons which are relatively indiscriminate in their effect, like tear gas) worries me, because it makes it less likely that regular Joes like me will participate in political marches or rallies where any kind of 'trouble' is likely to break out. And as most people who have been on, say, an anti-war march know, there is a smal cadre of fuckwits in hoodies who are generally jonesing for a meaningless skirmish with the cops.

If the use of Tazers is anything to go by, anti-crowd non-lethal weapons will be busted out by cops at every available opportunity. The net result is a further stifling of visible political dissent (see: 'free speech zones').

Which I know is win-win for some people.
posted by unSane at 5:29 AM on September 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

To clarify, I'm not enthusiastic about the use of these types of devices, partly for the reasons unSane noted.
posted by rxrfrx at 5:34 AM on September 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

We've got the makings of a great jobs program here. You're unemployed, and the gummit says: "hey! we'll give you $1000 dollars to be part of our testing mob for a weapon that's probably non-lethal!"
posted by DenOfSizer at 5:54 AM on September 15, 2006

Is he talking about using it on people who have spontaneously taken to the streets to vent their anger about government abuses?

Or is he advocating testing it on prententious assholes who meticulously plan their expressions of righteousness in pursuit of hippy punani?

I'm very opposed to one scenario and rabidly in favor of the other.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:01 AM on September 15, 2006

I was staying in a hostel in New York one time and one of my roommates was this woman from San Francisco who talked on and on about how the government tested some kinda biological weapon that only affected black people by spraying it over San Francisco. Also whenever she went out she left a discman with speakers playing the Coldplay album "Parachutes" buried deep in her personal effects. Oo I wanted to kill her so bad.
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:01 AM on September 15, 2006

BoingBoing has this from some guys blog regarding an official transcript. Interesting that this is part of the F-35 (fighter jet), the replacement for a whole bunch of aircraft (A-6E, F-18, AV-8, etc.):

SECAF COMMENTS ON NON-LETHAL WEAPONS

Context: Defense Writers Group, 12 Sep
Current line of questions concern F-35

15 minutes, 13 seconds into interview

Q. Why haven't you sold the capabilities, the non-lethal, the HPM, capabilities of this (the F-35) airplane? I went to talk with the Australians and that was one of the big things they wanted out of it, was the weapons and jamming capability and the communications capability and the radar. The Italians said the same thing, they said 'our parliament hates dropping bombs on people' they want a non-lethal weapon, but yet, nothing is said about those capabilities and your desire to push them. Do you want to push them? Is there resistance against it?

A. Non-lethal weapons are still being reviewed by the medical group. It's a kind of an interesting thing about non-lethal weapons. I will tell you that having seen the high-powered microwave that is a crowd disperser, the ADS system, used in a system and actually being invited to put your finger in the hole and by golly you'll see that your resistance is somewhat weakened when the beam hits you. Basically my point to them was (that) we need to start using that here in the United States on Americans. And if we start using that here in the United States on Americans and you start getting relief from people, because if the first people you use it on are your enemies, then unfortunately the first thing they will do is cry out that you have hurt them medically in a way that is pejorative.

posted by rzklkng at 6:05 AM on September 15, 2006

While surprising, it is only fair. It is a step closer to an ideal world when the weapon makers get to taste the business side of non-lethal.

It hurts?? No shit, Sherlock!
posted by CautionToTheWind at 6:06 AM on September 15, 2006

I propose that all new non-lethal crowd control methods be tested on Congress.
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:11 AM on September 15, 2006

I'm with Mayor Curley on this one.

I feel so dirty
posted by antifuse at 6:12 AM on September 15, 2006

I'd avoid doing anything to a foreigner that I would not do to a citizen.

That said, there's an important distinction to be made between unruly mob and opposing army.
posted by The White Hat at 6:14 AM on September 15, 2006

I'm pretty sure US armed forces will quickly switch to lethal weapons when facing an opposing army.
posted by CautionToTheWind at 6:16 AM on September 15, 2006

posted by Mayor Curley: Is he talking about using it on people who have spontaneously taken to the streets to vent their anger about government abuses? Or is he advocating testing it on prententious assholes who meticulously plan their expressions of righteousness in pursuit of hippy punani?

I imagine the guys in R&D are working right now on a "smart" weapon that will easily differentiate between these 2 types. It'll still zap 'em both, though...
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:17 AM on September 15, 2006

Is he talking about using it on people who have spontaneously taken to the streets to vent their anger about government abuses?

Or is he advocating testing it on prententious assholes who meticulously plan their expressions of righteousness in pursuit of hippy punani?

Neither. In context you can see clearly that he's advocating using it on smug douchebags who fancy themselves too cool for political action, but instead hide behind keyboard generated snark in a lame attempt to mollify their own sense of failure to acquire punani.
posted by mondo dentro at 6:28 AM on September 15, 2006 [2 favorites]

o SNAP! You gonna take that, Curley?
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:29 AM on September 15, 2006

I'm wondering how difficult these things would be to simply reflect back to the source. Perhaps all the protesters could simply carry woks?
posted by mondo dentro at 6:31 AM on September 15, 2006

Non-lethal is a myth. Weapons that cause pain can induce a heart attack and, if used among a heterogeneous group will hurt the weak, sick, elderly and little children. It's the same reason why there is no useful sleeping gas for knocking out an area. When dosing a group in such a manner you will overdose some - again the most vulnerable, like at the 2002 Moscow theater siege when the authorities gassed to death 160 in trying to save 700. These weapons are generally only tested on healthy soldier recruits and under ideal situations.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:40 AM on September 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

...we start using that here in the United States on Americans and you start getting relief from people...

because god knows, the military/government/corporate axis needs some relief from people.
posted by quonsar at 6:40 AM on September 15, 2006

Can we beam it on the Republican National Convention, in 2008? That would be a great way to test it. Talk about an unruly crowd with criminal intent!! And Mayor Curley's house.

Air Force has turned into a turd, thanks to the band of misguided, pretencious, alleged "Christians" running it. They really make me quite sick. I got two words for those bastards: "Fly Navy!" Yum, winged seafood!
posted by Goofyy at 6:46 AM on September 15, 2006

It's a shame that we have such a knee-jerk reaction to non-lethal weapons. I look forward to technological improvements that allow military forces to minimize the number of people that they kill when they carry out their objectives.

Having said that, the Bush administration's lack of scruples makes me skeptical about their efforts to reduce the amount of cruelty that comes from warfare.
posted by Human Flesh at 6:52 AM on September 15, 2006

Since when have these guys ever cared about being villified by the rest of the world anyway?! Their every action screams otherwise.
That's what I find most strange about this.
posted by Flashman at 6:52 AM on September 15, 2006

There is a transcript of that part of the interview, but it really doesn't make the general look better -- according to him the PR implications of these weapons seems more important than the actual effects they have.

Indeed it's true that there is no such thing as a really non-lethal weapon. If you use a stun-gun on someone with a pacemaker you might easily kill the guy, and even a bean-bag gun can be lethal if not properly used.
posted by clevershark at 6:53 AM on September 15, 2006

Is he talking about using it on people who have spontaneously taken to the streets to vent their anger about government abuses?

Do you really believe that spontaneous protest actually exists? Even three people pissed about smoking bans are gonna have to call each other up and coordinate their outfits, and one of them is probably gonna want to get laid. I'm not seeing how that invalidates their right to political speech.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:57 AM on September 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

Maybe they could just test it on Johnny Knoxville.
posted by Flashman at 7:09 AM on September 15, 2006

I think if you read the transcript that chillmost posted above, you'll see that the Air Force secretary was basically arguing against including the "non-lethal" capabilities in the new planes. The stuff hasn't been tested enough and he doesn't want to be testing it in his military vehicles -- which have a specific set of design requirements (flying and killing). Adding "flying and stunning" is a non-trivial modification.

After the Sox won the World Series, we saw how a "non-lethal" weapon can easily kill. And this was just a few cops with a few rowdy kids.

Whether we like his crappy analogies or glib language, the secertary was correct.
posted by Cassford at 7:10 AM on September 15, 2006

It is an outrageous statement, but designed to be so. It's the way the military (and intelligence agencies) are approaching their jobs now. In essence: "I'll follow orders and do my job, but is this kosher with everyone and am I going to get arrested for it at a later date? It's the only diplomatic way to tell your bosses, they don't have full authority and that old stand-by and survival tool of beaurocracy CYAAAT (Cover Your Ass At All Times).

It's sad time in a nation's history when the military has to point out what's morally acceptable, and not even not "here" but in the world (which obviously has surpassed this nation in respect for human rights). We'll really be in deep trouble when American soldiers feel no compunction about using military grade weapons (Lethal or Non) on Americans.

Also, what if those tinfoil hat guys were right all along? This new weapon seems to suggest they were.
posted by Skygazer at 7:14 AM on September 15, 2006

Neither. In context you can see clearly that he's advocating using it on smug douchebags who fancy themselves too cool for political action, but instead hide behind keyboard generated snark in a lame attempt to mollify their own sense of failure to acquire punani.

>o SNAP! You gonna take that, Curley?

I'm fine with it. You can see how broad the social change affected by mondo dentro is. He's takin' it to the streets, just like the Doobie Brothers implored him to do, and things are swell because of it.

And as for his speculation about my sexual activity, I can't imagine that I get laid less than some dumpy gamer in "Centrally Isolated, PA". Unless you mean "in mondo dentro's mind, by Sailor Moon while she's wearing a Gore 2000 shirt." Then he gets laid twice a day and I definitely can't beat that.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:16 AM on September 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

But but Curley... did you assume I was talking about YOU? Gosh. Whyever for?
posted by mondo dentro at 7:22 AM on September 15, 2006

Using military grade weapons (Lethal or Non) on Americans.

Scratch that. I just remembered Kent State. I think there's some other instances...
posted by Skygazer at 7:28 AM on September 15, 2006

Painful microwaves? I thought the idea was to find some sort of electronic Havahart. You know, no pain, just immobilize folk and cart them away before they burn the Starbucks again.

Non-lethal is a myth.

But there are drugs that will totally fuck you up without killing you, even in large doses. LSD, for example. If the US air force comes up with a good way to dose an opposing army (or a violently rioting crowd) with a drug that makes people complacent and happy -- if the only alternative is to do nothing or to dish out pain and death -- I say cool.

If it's seen as a good alternative to allowing peaceful protest, however, then it would better that they don't find an acceptable non-lethal weapon. Protest itself is a non-lethal weapon. Shutting it down should feel wrong.
posted by pracowity at 7:41 AM on September 15, 2006

Death ray, fiddlesticks!
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 7:47 AM on September 15, 2006

Free LSD for the protesters! What could possibly go wrong?
posted by thirteenkiller at 7:48 AM on September 15, 2006

This whole article pisses me off. I think the general is right, if a weapon is suitable for use against unarmed civilians as a crowd control measure, we should be willing to use it in all applicable circumstances. If it's too dangerous to use against anti-globalization nutjobs it shouldn't be used against Al-Sadr's nutjobs. This is a sane hearts-and-minds decision.

Also, a better term is Less than lethal as nothing including air and water is non-lethal. These weapons are designed to kill as little as possible and giving troops/cops an option between a) inaction and b) killing someone is a good thing. Do tasers et al get abused? sure and we should look at that, but that doesn't mean that tasers shouldn't be part of the set of options.
posted by Skorgu at 7:55 AM on September 15, 2006

Also, a better term is Less than lethal as nothing including air and water is non-lethal.

"Less than lethal" sounds safer, but I believe that the actual term is "less lethal," in regard to tazers and such. They are less likely to kill you than, for instance, a shotgun blast or a shot from a service revolver, but they can still be lethal.
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:21 AM on September 15, 2006

It is less than lethal that they are using, leftcoastbob. Not that I think changing the wording makes them any safer.
posted by SuzySmith at 9:07 AM on September 15, 2006

If the US air force comes up with a good way to dose an opposing army (or a violently rioting crowd) with a drug that makes people complacent and happy -- if the only alternative is to do nothing or to dish out pain and death -- I say cool.

Woohoo, a THC aerosol dispenser -- like a Mjölnir only it's ejecting bomblets that disperse concentrated THC over the target area...now THAT would be pretty intense. People start looking around at each other, they burst out laughing, and maybe a few get laid or listen to bad music...wow, I'd drive up to Aberdeen Proving Ground if they need people for tests.
posted by pax digita at 9:48 AM on September 15, 2006

Hell, people might start riots in order to get the free buzz!
posted by clevershark at 11:07 AM on September 15, 2006

"The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools." - Thucydides

Just a thought.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:38 AM on September 15, 2006 [2 favorites]

Smedleydude: Do you just live to give each thread the K.O. comment or what? Sheesh...
posted by Skygazer at 12:45 PM on September 15, 2006

Not saying it should be this way, but isn't it the army's job to value the lives of American citizens more than the citizens (and especially soldiers) of another country? Not just saying that Americans are particularly callous about foreigners (that's a whole other topic), but that's the primary job of any country's army. This statement is terribly confusing.

We're not sure about these weapons, so first we'll test them on the population that we are sworn to protect at all costs. Sure it's all very PC, but how can the Air Force secratary even suggest this when it's his job to prevent American casualties, even at the expense of foreigners if necessary?
posted by SBMike at 1:15 PM on September 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

Skygazer- I usually read everything and so come in late. And benefit from everyone else’s wisdom.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:30 PM on September 15, 2006

Too humble. Take a bow Smedley.
posted by Skygazer at 7:18 PM on September 15, 2006

"Less than lethal" sounds safer, but I believe that the actual term is "less lethal," in regard to tazers and such. They are less likely to kill you than, for instance, a shotgun blast or a shot from a service revolver, but they can still be lethal.

And even if they don't kill you, that doesn't mean everything's ok afterward.
posted by poweredbybeard at 8:52 PM on September 15, 2006

In 1969, the Unionist minister of home affairs for Northern Ireland, Robert Porter, tested CS gas on himself before authorising its use on rioters in Free Derry. I think this is both hilarious and the sort of high standard that must be met if the Air Force is going to pull itself out of its current slump. Mr. Wynne, your task is set before you.
posted by Football Bat at 7:35 AM on September 16, 2006

mondo dentro, I would expect that with comments like the one you were trying to zing on, Mayor Curley beats off the pussy with a stick.
posted by dozo at 1:56 PM on September 16, 2006

Hey dozo: this pussy, it... reads MetaFilter?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 2:36 AM on September 17, 2006