DoD Training Manual: Protests are "Low-Level Terrorism"

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern
A question: Since is from the Dod does it have anything to do with domestic protests?

I wasn't aware the Army etc was brought in for protests on USA soil (yeah, I remember Kent State but was a long time ago etc.)

Fern

They're not, but this is not what the army should be taught about peaceful protests anywhere.

We're going to 'spread democracy' and then have soldiers view peaceful protestors as terrorists?

And it's not uncommon for military vets to move on to police positions.

Kent State was national guard, not army.

 

[GeezerMan]

Originally posted by: Fern
A question: Since is from the Dod does it have anything to do with domestic protests?

I wasn't aware the Army etc was brought in for protests on USA soil (yeah, I remember Kent State but was a long time ago etc.)

Fern

Link


an active [U.S. Army] unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities." The brigade, the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, has spent most of the last four years fighting a war in Iraq, and will now be assigned on a permanent basis to engage in numerous domestic functions -- including, as the article put it, "to help with civil unrest and crowd control."

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234
-snip-

Kent State was national guard, not army.

Yeah, I know but figured they use the DoD manual too.

Otherwise, I agree this sounds stupid.

I suppose if the Iranian Mullahs would go online and read about this they could now say according to the USA those protesting the elections are terrorists

Fern

 

[GeezerMan]

LINK

Here it is from the Army itself. Their mission here in the USA. So, I guess a protest could be a low level terriorist attack...in their playbook that is.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern
A question: Since is from the Dod does it have anything to do with domestic protests?

I wasn't aware the Army etc was brought in for protests on USA soil (yeah, I remember Kent State but was a long time ago etc.)

Fern

Are "domestic protests" the only kind of valid protests? If Iraqis are marching peacefully in opposition to US occupation, that's a protest that the military has to deal with that should in no way be treated as terrorism.

I don't think this new language will directly result in oppression of people peacefully protesting, but it is indicative of a remarkably moronic culture of misuse of the word "terrorism". When it's Bill O'Reilly calling everyone a terrorism or a terrorism sympathizer, that's fine...he's being an asshole, but that's his business. When it's the DOD, I become more concerned that they aren't really doing their job very well.

 

[GeezerMan]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern
A question: Since is from the Dod does it have anything to do with domestic protests?

I wasn't aware the Army etc was brought in for protests on USA soil (yeah, I remember Kent State but was a long time ago etc.)

Fern

Are "domestic protests" the only kind of valid protests? If Iraqis are marching peacefully in opposition to US occupation, that's a protest that the military has to deal with that should in no way be treated as terrorism.

I don't think this new language will directly result in oppression of people peacefully protesting, but it is indicative of a remarkably moronic culture of misuse of the word "terrorism". When it's Bill O'Reilly calling everyone a terrorism or a terrorism sympathizer, that's fine...he's being an asshole, but that's his business. When it's the DOD, I become more concerned that they aren't really doing their job very well.

Remember how to boil a frog? Turn up the heat slowly and he sits right there in the pot. I can just imagine if you told the average American 10 years ago that the army will have a brigade on US soil to tend to domestic disturbances, and the DOD will define protests as low level terrorism, they would laugh in your face in disbelief. And yet, here we are.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: GeezerMan

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern
A question: Since is from the Dod does it have anything to do with domestic protests?

I wasn't aware the Army etc was brought in for protests on USA soil (yeah, I remember Kent State but was a long time ago etc.)

Fern

Are "domestic protests" the only kind of valid protests? If Iraqis are marching peacefully in opposition to US occupation, that's a protest that the military has to deal with that should in no way be treated as terrorism.

I don't think this new language will directly result in oppression of people peacefully protesting, but it is indicative of a remarkably moronic culture of misuse of the word "terrorism". When it's Bill O'Reilly calling everyone a terrorism or a terrorism sympathizer, that's fine...he's being an asshole, but that's his business. When it's the DOD, I become more concerned that they aren't really doing their job very well.

Remember how to boil a frog? Turn up the heat slowly and he sits right there in the pot. I can just imagine if you told the average American 10 years ago that the army will have a brigade on US soil to tend to domestic disturbances, and the DOD will define protests as low level terrorism, they would laugh in your face in disbelief. And yet, here we are.

Exactly, as this is the problem with 'long term stragetists' in places like the Pentagon who realize that placing one obscure brigade creates 'precedent'.

You had FDR, who led our largest military ever in WWII, afraid of the military becoming too powerful and autonomous if it had its own permanent location apart from other fedefal buildings, and he ordered the Pentagon to be a temporary building; you had Eisenhower, who had led that military, use his farewell address to warn of the military becoming too powerful and undermining democracy; you had Kennedy strongly at odds with the military and requesting the movie "Seven Days in May" be made, about the military orchestrating a coup against the president, as a warning for the nation and to the military, as he though it was possible. And so on.

Since then, the political entrechment of the industry has only gotten stronger, we all know the stories of vehicles with parts made in all 50 states. We've had times the military could block the president on policy - as Colin Powell did to stop Bill Clinton's plans for allowing gays in the military.

We need to be strengthening, not weakening, the military culture's respect for democratic dissent, so that they remain a force for protecting democracy, not a danger to it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: GeezerMan

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern
A question: Since is from the Dod does it have anything to do with domestic protests?

I wasn't aware the Army etc was brought in for protests on USA soil (yeah, I remember Kent State but was a long time ago etc.)

Fern

Are "domestic protests" the only kind of valid protests? If Iraqis are marching peacefully in opposition to US occupation, that's a protest that the military has to deal with that should in no way be treated as terrorism.

I don't think this new language will directly result in oppression of people peacefully protesting, but it is indicative of a remarkably moronic culture of misuse of the word "terrorism". When it's Bill O'Reilly calling everyone a terrorism or a terrorism sympathizer, that's fine...he's being an asshole, but that's his business. When it's the DOD, I become more concerned that they aren't really doing their job very well.

Remember how to boil a frog? Turn up the heat slowly and he sits right there in the pot. I can just imagine if you told the average American 10 years ago that the army will have a brigade on US soil to tend to domestic disturbances, and the DOD will define protests as low level terrorism, they would laugh in your face in disbelief. And yet, here we are.

Exactly, as this is the problem with 'long term stragetists' in places like the Pentagon who realize that placing one obscure brigade creates 'precedent'.

You had FDR, who led our largest military ever in WWII, afraid of the military becoming too powerful and autonomous if it had its own permanent location apart from other fedefal buildings, and he ordered the Pentagon to be a temporary building; you had Eisenhower, who had led that military, use his farewell address to warn of the military becoming too powerful and undermining democracy; you had Kennedy strongly at odds with the military and requesting the movie "Seven Days in May" be made, about the military orchestrating a coup against the president, as a warning for the nation and to the military, as he though it was possible. And so on.

Since then, the political entrechment of the industry has only gotten stronger, we all know the stories of vehicles with parts made in all 50 states. We've had times the military could block the president on policy - as Colin Powell did to stop Bill Clinton's plans for allowing gays in the military.

We need to be strengthening, not weakening, the military culture's respect for democratic dissent, so that they remain a force for protecting democracy, not a danger to it.

And I would remind you guys that being vigilant against the slow whittling away of our rights is NOT the same thing as seeing fascist monsters in every dark corner. There is such a thing as being TOO cautious, such a thing as being TOO ready to see evil where none exists. Not only does this make it less likely that you'll see actual problems, but it makes it so a lot of people just tune you out.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern
A question: Since is from the Dod does it have anything to do with domestic protests?

I wasn't aware the Army etc was brought in for protests on USA soil (yeah, I remember Kent State but was a long time ago etc.)

Fern

Are "domestic protests" the only kind of valid protests? If Iraqis are marching peacefully in opposition to US occupation, that's a protest that the military has to deal with that should in no way be treated as terrorism.

I don't think this new language will directly result in oppression of people peacefully protesting, but it is indicative of a remarkably moronic culture of misuse of the word "terrorism". When it's Bill O'Reilly calling everyone a terrorism or a terrorism sympathizer, that's fine...he's being an asshole, but that's his business. When it's the DOD, I become more concerned that they aren't really doing their job very well.

Ummm.. You're taking an honest question and 'misunderstanding' it into something completely different (non-domestic protests etc).

Many of those responding before me had replies indicating this had domestic consequences ("protect our citizens' rights", "Rosa Parks" etc), but I noticed it was from the DoD (not DHS etc). I'm thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act here and that the military shouldn't be used for domestic law enforcement purposes like patrolling during a protest (or even a riot) so this wouldn't apply here, unless something 'new' was up. GeezerMan's post indicates that may be the case however.

Fern

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern
A question: Since is from the Dod does it have anything to do with domestic protests?

I wasn't aware the Army etc was brought in for protests on USA soil (yeah, I remember Kent State but was a long time ago etc.)

Fern

Are "domestic protests" the only kind of valid protests? If Iraqis are marching peacefully in opposition to US occupation, that's a protest that the military has to deal with that should in no way be treated as terrorism.

I don't think this new language will directly result in oppression of people peacefully protesting, but it is indicative of a remarkably moronic culture of misuse of the word "terrorism". When it's Bill O'Reilly calling everyone a terrorism or a terrorism sympathizer, that's fine...he's being an asshole, but that's his business. When it's the DOD, I become more concerned that they aren't really doing their job very well.

Ummm.. You're taking an honest question and spinning the h3ll out of it.

Many of those responding before me had replies indicating this had domestic consequences ("protect our citizens' rights", "Rosa Parks" etc), but I noticed it was from the DoD (not DHS etc). I'm thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act here and that the military shouldn't be used for domestic law enforcement purposes like patrolling during a protest (or even a riot) so this wouldn't apply here, unless something 'new' was up. GeezerMan's post indicates that may be the case however.

Fern

Sorry, I didn't mean your question lacked merit. In fact, I think it is a very good once considering the comments you mentioned. That said, I think there are OTHER concerns here beyond how it affects domestic issues that should be addressed as well. That's all I was trying to say.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Fern
A question: Since is from the Dod does it have anything to do with domestic protests?

I wasn't aware the Army etc was brought in for protests on USA soil (yeah, I remember Kent State but was a long time ago etc.)

Fern

Anti-terrorism / Force protection is a part of every branch of the military. The basic idea is to protect the personnel and equipment. Anywhere there is an installation there are people who maintain force protection measures. Protests at or near military sites will always receive attention.

However, labeling protesters as low level terrorists is stupid... I am wondering if they meant protesters who actually cause harm (yes, define harm) to personnel and equipment/infrastructure. Personally I am shocked because if you look at commonly used definitions for terrorism the DoD and executive branch as a whole uses, it just doesn't fit.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

And I would remind you guys that being vigilant against the slow whittling away of our rights is NOT the same thing as seeing fascist monsters in every dark corner. There is such a thing as being TOO cautious, such a thing as being TOO ready to see evil where none exists. Not only does this make it less likely that you'll see actual problems, but it makes it so a lot of people just tune you out.

I agree, but don't see the relevance of your comment to my post. It hardly described a fascist monster in a dark corner, nor had anything to get it 'tuned out' like that.

In the scheme of things, this is trivial, quite possibly just some bad test writer making an oops because he couldn't think of a better example of 'light terrorism', but given our low visibility into some of the military's training in the general public, there's no reason not to use it as a reminder to insist that the right to protest be taught as important to defend rather than only a threat to control, and it shouldn't have gotten approved on a widespread training document.

We do already have sooe gap that's too large between security forces and protestors, seen not only in the previously posted examples but in things like the government's infiltration of little old ladies' peace discussion groups. Of course, it's not as bad as the 60's, when the government made up a big portion of the communist organizations and actually held leadership positions.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Craig, in another fine show of hypocrisy, just recently called another forum member a terrorist because he disagrees with him politically. Now Craig says that protesting (in other words, disagreeing with current government policy) should be protected.

So, as usual, Craig says that those who agree with him politically should be protected and all others should be destroyed. Typical.

You lie.

That was original...lol