Military Law Books

Written in 1998, Mr. Mizell provides context and a greater level of understanding of the unfortunate incidents of September 11, 2001. Written from a great degree of personal experience with the sorts of individuals and groups that have sought and continue to threaten our country, the author provides chilling details of the sinister tactics that are employed.
To quote a previous reviewer "This book does open your eyes and lets the reader know that there is a lot more happening on our sovern soil than we realize."

There seems to be no INSIDE STORY told here. Little more than what you would read in a newspaper. Evidently the arthur is bound by some Government legal oath which prevents him from writing anything of consequence. A piece of milk toast.

This book does open your eyes and lets the reader know that there is a lot more happening on our sovern soil than we realize. I would have like to have read more specifics on detection, tactics, and MO. But considering the limit of information that could be provided to the public for the sake of National Security 'Target USA' could be a good introductory tool for readers just getting into the counter/antiterrorism field or for someone who just wants to get their feet wet.

I actually bought this book because one of the descriptions I saw said something about military and spec ops trainers as well. The author apparently was in the military but the book has little if any application for our needs. So if you are looking for somthing to suppliment your MOUT training this book is not it.

Train To Win is as important a manuscript for the modern law enforcement trainer as I have read in many years. In this book, author Wes Doss had the courage to say what many of us have been thinking since the word "survival" was drummed into our heads in our academy training: that training officers to survive is not enough; our responsibility as professional instructors is to teach our officers to WIN!

In Train To Win, Mr. Doss takes issue with what he calls individuals driven by the almighty dollar who are concocting training programs and techniques that are flashy and expensive, but are not relevant or practical. In fact, he says, many of these self-proclaimed "experts" have never been in a high-risk situation, nor do they understand the complications and after-effects of the encounter. I wholeheartedly agree.

Mr. Doss, on the other hand, is a seasoned law enforcement, military and self-protection professional whose experience is well articulated throughout the book. His manuscript brings together what we have learned over many years of training for and researching (especially in the areas of force application, adult learning, stress and sports performance) incidents in the real world.

Train To Win is a must read for every contemporary law enforcement instructor. It teaches us how to drive home the most important point of our mission: train the people for whom we are responsible to go home after every shift in the same condition they came to work that day.

I am a law enforcement officer with a bit over ten years of experience under my belt. As I am writing this, I am in a middle of four week training program to became a defensive tactics/firearms instructor for my department. That's why I was ecstatic to find out about this book, as I thought it could prepare me for my future duty as an instructor. As I read the book, I was somewhat disappointed, however.

The book handles some interesting and important issues about defensive tactics / firearms training, but it does not go very deep in any of the subjects. There are some good pointers made, and the author asks some interesting questions, but he does not give many answers. But then, sometimes just asking the right questions is enough.

To be frank, the production of the book is lousy. The text is printed in double spacing throughout the book (maybe to increase the page count), making reading the book somewhat tiresome. For some reasons there are lots of pages that are half empty, because on the next page there is a large picture that has not quite fitted into the empty space in the page. And for some reason they have not filled the page with text, although there seemed to be no reason for that (apart from poor layout). There are also lots of typos in the book. In addition to that, the reference section is incomplete, as there are references in the text to several books that seem quite interesting, but there is no mention about them in the reference section. All these issues are quite minor, however, as the contents of the text is the main issue. But sadly, the text didn't fill my expectations.

Although this book is not the ultimate source on the subject of defensive tactics training, I still recommend it to all law enforcement trainers, as there are some good observations made in the text.

The prior reviewer is a disgruntled former student of this author who apparently has so little to do that he can still nurse his grudge via Amazon's review feature. He has done this for every book by this author.
Many experts in the field have praised this book and it has sold many, many copies to satisfied readers. It is the only comprehensive treatment of the topic, and contrary to what the prior reviewer says, the relevant statute has not changed (and is not expected to change in the foreseeable future.)

This former Contracts Professor really doesn't have this material down. I learned more in an afternoon CLE - at twice the price. And, this whole area of law is about to be changed in the 110th Congress.

If you're looking for the best of Lincoln, and avoiding unbiased books, this one is for you. This book paints Lincoln as the most caring person imaginable.

Of course the title is "Don't shoot that boy"; which only focus on 'good' things Lincoln did.

If you're doing research on Lincoln's good qualities, this book is a good source. But it you want unbaised book, look elsewhere.

It's a fast reading book, that lives up to the 'myth' of Lincoln.

The research into this book is incredible. The stories of the court martials is enjoyable reading, though at times the stories become repetitive (thus the 4 stars and not 5). Lincoln the compassionate president is examined carefully through these court martial cases and in the final chapter. The final chapter, is a great look at Lincoln and his place in history.

This piece covers two dangerous manifestos published in Israel during 2004.

The first calls on the Israeli police and army to disobey orders with regard to the dismantling of the Gaza Settlements. The Army and the police are called on to mutiny against the elected democratic government in favor of unelected extremists. Such calls are a danger to democracy and any kind of rule of law in Israel. Like something out of a fascist nightmare, an appeal is made to the soliders and police to obey a higher morality than the elected government of Israel. This first mafesto was signed by 150 public figures mostly of the right including mayors, scientists and former army leaders.

The first manifesto isn't about the right or wrong of removal of settlements from Gaza. Its about if groups like the army and the police have a right to refuse to carry out the policies of the elected democratic government and the orders of their superior officers. The same people, however, who would claim that soldiers have a right to ignore orders concerning Gaza would scream up and down that anyone who refused orders to serve in the territories guarding settlers or orders to serve in Lebannon is a traitor to Israel. Orders only seem to matter on the right when they like the decisions being made by the politicians.

The second manifesto is far worse. It claims that Jewish religious law commands the killing of innocent civilians if those killings would save jews in some way (not necessarly directly save them). It was signed by a large number of promenent religious leaders in Israel including those of the Arrangement Yeshivot. The Yeshivot controls ideological army units in Israel, supposedly to allow religious students to serve in the army, but in practice these units have become a political militia for the most fanatical extreme political groups in Israel.

Avnery points out how this manifesto is written in such broad language that it might encourage the worst sort of atrocities. It effectively gives a moral free hand for the killing of civilians as long as those civilians are killed during activities that have something to do with the defense of jews.

In any case, these strong manifestos were so much hot air in the end because the majority of people in Israel don't follow manaics or fascists. And the army is loyal in the end to the state rather than the extreme political parties. In the end, two individuals massacred several palestinians but they could not stop the progress of peace represted by the dismanting of the worthless Gaza settlements which so much government money and Israeli military service have been wasted on for decades.

In this article, Uri Avnery discusses two "shocking manifestos." The first says that dismantling the Jewish towns in the Gaza Strip is a "'crime against humanity.'" Well, whether we agree or not, dismantling such towns is ethnic cleansing. It does not seem at all shocking to call it that. Avnery complains that the manifesto does not mention that the Jewish towns were set up on "the land reserves of a million" Arabs crowded in a tiny strip. But these towns were set up legally, on disputed land. Both Arabs and Jews were allowed to build homes and live on them there. Avnery does not mention that. Nor does he extend his argument to discuss Arab towns in Israel. After all, Israel could just as well be called the land reserves of five million Jews, crowded into a tiny strip. Does Avnery think that Arabs need to be expelled from Israel?

Avnery says that those who signed this first manifesto are fascists who are united by a primitive, atavistic morality. I've been called that before. I'm a Pagan. And some folks say that all Pagans are united in subscribing to a primitive and atavistic morality. And that we need to grow up and become monotheists! I'm not impressed by such arguments. Nor am I impressed by the argument that those who oppose ethnic cleansing on moral grounds are all fascists!

The second manifesto is more intriguing. It is about situations in which one's citizens are in mortal danger. And when strong measures, including the killing of enemy soldiers, can be used if necessary to save their lives. The question is whether it is morally permissible to kill civilians as well, as collateral damage in a military operation designed to save the lives of one's citizens. And if so, under what circumstances.

This manifesto says that according to Judaism, it is okay to do such a thing in some circumstances. But according to the author, the rabbis who wrote this manifesto have perverted their authority by making a bad ruling! And as proof, Avnery says that Jews are not supposed to kill innocents even to save their own lives.

Well, I'm certainly no expert on this latter question. So I'll have to avoid the question of whether self-defence is permissible in Judaism when it puts innocents at high risk. But from a practical standpoint, I think we can all agree that there is a line somewhere. We may disagree enormously on where that line is. But it is somewhere. In some circumstances, we'd all agree to risk the life of one civilian to save the lives of a large number of other civilians. In some circumstances, none of us would agree to risk the lives of many civilians to save one civilian. Somewhere between these cases is where each of us would draw our own lines on the question.

However, the question of drawing lines does not seem to occur to Avnery. Instead, he takes issue with the idea of killing people in the name of religion! Well, welcome to the club, Uri! I've been right here for decades, opposing the idea of killing people in the name of religion. Maybe Avnery will now say it was wrong to support Arafat and the rest of his gang when they busily murdered people in the name of religion.

More seriously, all the major monotheist religions permit (or even encourage) the killing of people in some circumstances. I think if Avnery wants to argue against this, it makes no sense to do so from a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim point of view. Such an argument is doomed: once you accept the authority of such a religion, you have to accept some killing. Instead, I think Avnery should have made an argument from some secular or Pagan point of view, so that he would not already have conceded that he was wrong.

Why did Avnery make all these logical errors? I think it is because he was too intent upon finding fault with anyone who wants to allow Jews in Gaza or the West Bank to have human rights, and overlooked the problems with his arguments.

...about as empty as well.

The problem with this book isn't so much that it fails miserably at what it tries to do (justify the war in Iraq), but rather the fact that it comes just a little too little, a little too late.

The basic premise of this book is as follows:

1) No matter what everyone said, Iraq was trying to get WMD.

2) Everyone thought Iraq was trying to get WMD. This was of course proved by the aluminum tubes (that could "only" be used for uranium enrichment), the yellowcake uranium that Saddam had tried to buy (except that he hadn't), and the mobile bioweapons labs (that were just your standard flatbed trucks with some menacing looking hoses, widgets and doohikies attatched).

3) Even the crackpots who at the time said Iraq had no WMD (like the CIA, State Dept., IAEA Inspectors, Hans Blix, George Galloway, Czech Intel, Joe Wilson and so on) had to admit that it was possible that Saddam MIGHT have wanted to obtain some kind of WMD at some point in the past.

4) Saddam had owned WMD in the past (we know because we have the receipts left over from the 80's when we sold them to him).

5) The fact that there was no WMD is irrelevant because ultimately, Saddam was a dangerous man and dictator who probably fantasized about nuking the U.S. and the west at some point and probably might have wanted to potentially think about restarting his stalled (since 1991) nuclear program.

The probelm isn't so much that this book is a laughable exercise on every level. Despite attempts to distort the past, blame the war on "flawed" intelligence and reinvent the U.S.'s justification for going to war in the first place (in case you've developed the same strain of Alzheimer's as the rest of the aministration: IT WAS BECAUSE OF WMD, and no other reasons), the fact is that its contents are simply irrelevant in respect to the situation as we know it. Saddam had no WMD, no capability to aquire WMD, and from all accounts no serious desire for WMD. Despite allegations to the contrary, serious doubts about the justification for war were raised from many quarters on many levels from many different experts and agencies in the field.

Going back and raking over the data available to the administration at the time, glossing it, and offering an apologia as to why the WMD excuse was actually justified is similar to Church authorities in 1521 writing a book in which they justify that, despite Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe, the world was still pretty much flat. Sure, they had to admit that Magellan did sail around the globe, but that didn't change the fact that 1) the Bible said it was flat, 2) the ancient thinkers said it was flat, 3) mathematical and scientific theorems could prove the earth was flat, 4) common sense said the world was flat, 5) generations of clerical thinkers and high ranking ecclesiastics said it was flat, 6) centuries of geopolitical and scientific theory has been founded on the assumption the world was flat, and 7) no independant witnesses could prove that Magellan sailed around the world. So while it might well have been that the earth was round and that Magellan proved that fact, the earth was for all intents and purposes, still flat (sorta).

Furthermore, the book might be at least interesting if Ventner provided some sources, a detailed appendix, a bibliography, and some footnotes. Sadly, all that can be found in the back of the book is an index, a glossary, and the usual rounds of self-congratulatory little scribbles. So while Ventner can make claims such as "a journalist once tried to buy the components to make sarin gas on the internet and was deeply distrubed by what he found," without any sort of context, citation, or reference, this book is about as useful as Ahmed Chalabi's pre-war intelligence: of little value before the war and absolutely worthless today.

Considering the amount of negative publicity concerning Operation Iraqi Freedom these days it is truly amazing to see an author put all the evidence together for anyone to grind through. Based on sources dating back decades, Mr. Venter puts all the clues and data together detailing why we deposed an awful excuse of a human being.

Read this and compare it to what fills the airwaves and editorial pages every day.

The decision is up to the reader - the outcome is truly frightening especially in regards to biological weapons. With the mountains of evidence presented from UNSCOM up to 1998 and the bumbling of the UN in the aftermath one has to truly wonder how the free world can remain secure with such inept handling of world shaking events. Mr. Venter's insight is based on his "dirty boots" all through the world and its nasty little conflicts - he does not come off at all as a person who sits in a clean office to make his decisions.

I am personally glad this work has been published and is available for all the critics of action in the world. Any thinking person who has had to perform "failure analysis" of subtle issues associated with events can appreciate the depth of his research.

Levin is simply brilliant. He has an exceptional command of the English language and is a first rate scholar. The book is useful as a teaching tool as well general good reading. Brian's parents and Libby must be proud. So is his former roommate from NYU.

The topic is important, but this isn't really an analysis at all: just a transcript of a bunch of people agreeing with each other. Not worth spending money on; barely worth getting out of the library.

The book was used to formulate a claim for extension of time on an electrical supply and construction contract where the main contractor failed to make the full site available for completion within the contract term. The section on the Principle of Prevention was especially useful. The main contractor disputed nearly every assertion in the claim except the Principle of Prevention, which was the whole basis of the claim for an extension of time and related costs.

This is not a useful book.

The reason for this is that the author is obviously from England. Therefore, all of the examples and case law that are referenced are based on English law. This is very interesting, but hardly meaningful to someone like myself who works in the contract administration field in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

If you're interested in construction contracts as they relate to English Law, then this is a great source of information. However, if you work in the United States, then this is a worthless reference book!

I gave this book a chance, but in the end the inconsistencies and generalities plaguing this book were simply too much. Not only is it written in substandard English, but it also makes the flawed argument that the Japanese constitution, as it stands now, is sufficiently "Japanese" to justify its remaning unaltered. This is wrong and most educated and academic Japanese see the obvious need to pen the constitution by native and elected Japanese officials. The U.S. effort in Japan was intended as merely one to provide guidance and a framework for Japan, not as one to strip them of autonomy. Japan now realizes the distinct need to rewrite the constitution in its own words and through its own understanding and should do so. Ms. Inoue's case is colored through the lens of an ex-Japanese who has disowned her own culture and country to espouse the values of the U.S. While it may not be p.c. to say this, Japanese who still remain patriotic to their country should be the ones making the decision of how to handle their constitution, not someone who has disowned her country.

A major impact of this book is Inoue's explanation on dignity of individuals that for Japanese are not well consistent with American values. Japanese in general are afraid of expressing individuality (kosei) as such can be subjected to the bullying (ijime) by fellow Japanese in a group--be it shcool or workplace. This is a main reason why skipping the grades in school are not usually allowed in Japanese education system. In Japan, if you are too good, you will be bullied.

An interesting book, but there are definitely better ones to learn how age of the sail ships were manoeuvered.

To get a vivid account of how all these tasks were done during a round-cape-Horn cruise, you'd better read "Two years before the mast" of the same author.

It's Richard Henry Dana, Jr