Thursday, February 25, 2016

Gitmo, an engineered solution

Image from HERE
Not all coyotes attack sheep.  Some "clans" of coyotes specialize in eating rodents, and rabbits and such.  Those clans are considered beneficial.  Indiscriminate shooting of coyotes, on the basis that they might be bad, can open up the ecological niche to clans of coyotes that are bad.

Coyotes kill large prey by strangulation.  Their jaws are not sufficiently powerful to challenge the prey's spine, so they rely on strangulation/possible carotid artery penetration.  They clamp onto the prey just below the jaw and don't let go.  The reason that they grab "up high" is that a low grab makes them vulnerable to being dragged and stomped.

A ewe wearing a "Livestock protection collar".  Image from HERE.  Many gory photos of coyote attacks.
The livestock protection collars are essentially a collar that holds two "juice pouches" in the position shown in the illustration above.  The juice pouches are similar to the ones you see "healthy moms" give their kid at soccer games.  The only differences are that the mylar film of the pouches on the sheep are tougher and treated with UV protection....and the contents are neuro-toxins.

A coyote biting the bottom of this ewe's neck gets a mouthful of sodium fluoroacetate.  Clans of coyotes, and coyotes that diligently stick to the business of eating rodents are at no risk from these juice pouches.

The engineered solution.

It would be very useful to be able to track released Gitmo detainees, especially if  30% of them rejoin terrorist cells.

Released terrorists are an intelligence asset.  At a minimum, we need to know where they are.  That is a trivial exercise with laparoscopic surgery, cell phone technology and GPS.  Battery life would be conserved if the device did a daily "up periscope" at random times. 

In some cases it would be useful to include microphones in the package.

Being able to pin-point the exact location of high-value targets gives the military the means to drop a guided munition on top of their head.  A patient commander could wait until a high level meeting was in progress before dropping the hammer.  No telling how many bonus targets might be killed.

A more passive solution would be to insert a pre-programmed devise with a small pouch of coyote juice.  Inform the detainee that there certain places he must not go.  If he violates the geographical constraints the device punctures the pouch.

The most passive solution would be to simply create a surgical scar at the base of their skull and tell them a device had been inserted.  It will be necessary to implant a metal "dummy" in case the bad guys use any imaging technologies to verify the claim.

At a minimum, a released detainee will be less welcomed by his former associates if they think there is the slightest chance that he is carrying a bug.

Note:  This essay was inspired, in part, on the assassination of a terrorist known as "The Engineer".  One account HERE


  1. JoeMama,
    IF you accept the premise that all men are created in the image and likeness of God, and IF you accept the premise that war is to be avoided, unless it is a Just War, how can you get to the US grubmint invading foreign countries, creating war zones, abducting people that live there, and treating "detainees" in the fashion that you describe?

    1. Hello Milton:

      Thank-you for commenting. You are keeping me honest.

      If I remember back to the start of the Iraq war, Saddam Hussein was walking a fine line. On one hand, he was posturing as if he was on the brink of developing "weapons of mass destruction". On the other hand, the was trying to stay just shy of initiating an invasion.

      Terrorist activities, not of his doing, tipped public sentiment into supporting an invasion. In retrospect, there were no weapons-of-mass-destruction but that is not information we had before hand.

      Deut. 20:10-18 discusses how to deal with cities of the enemy. The text points out the distinction between how one treats a threat that is distant and how one treats a threat that is imminent and local. Today, with transportation being what it is and the small size of weapons-of-mass-destruction....can any viable WOMT be considered "distant"?

      At the risk of sounding like an apologist for the US Government, Iraq was a time bomb from the very beginning. It was really three "nations" welded into one state: Sunni, Shiite, Kurds. We were naive to think that democracy could flourish in that environment. Hussein was a strong-man because that is the only kind of leader who could survive in that hostile environment.

      We continue to reap the harvest or our arrogance.

  2. Additionally, how have the US grubmint invasions of the middle east worked out for Christians living there? Is there one example amongst the many places where US troops improved the circumstances for our brothers and sisters?


Readers who are willing to comment make this a better blog. Civil dialog is a valuable thing.