DOD considers protest to be low level terrorist activity

[devotedknuckles]

yeah thats right.


http://www.contracostatimes.com/politics/ci_12589887?nclick_check=1


Defense Department sees protests as terrorism

Antiterrorism training materials used by the Department of Defense teach that public protests should be regarded as "low-level terrorism," according to a letter of complaint sent to the department by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

"Teaching employees that dissent on issues of public concern is something to be feared, rather than encouraged, is a dangerously counterproductive use of scarce security resources, making us less safe as a democracy," Northern California ACLU staff attorney Ann Brick and ACLU Washington national security policy counsel Michael German wrote in the letter to Gail McGinn, acting undersecretary of Defense for personnel and readiness.

"DOD employees cannot accomplish their mission of protecting our nation and its values unless they understand that those values encompass the right to criticize our government through protest activities," they wrote. "It is imperative that they are taught the difference between political, religious or social activism and terrorism."

Among the multiple-choice questions included in its Level 1 Antiterrorism Awareness training course — an annual training requirement for all DOD personnel that is fulfilled through Web-based instruction — the department asks the following: "Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorist activity?" To answer correctly, the examinee must select "protests." The ACLU wants that changed immediately, and it wants corrective information sent to all Department of Defense employees who received the training.

The ACLU letter notes that this is particularly disturbing in light of the long-term pattern of government treating lawful dissent as terrorism. In the Bay Area, my colleagues and I reported exactly this in 2003, as the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center fed local police agencies information on protests, with catastrophic results. Two years after that, it was the California National Guard.

I guess I'm surprised not only that the government hasn't yet learned its lesson about equating the exercise of our cherished constitutional rights with terrorism, but also that it's so incredibly obvious in doing so.

a pdf of aclu letter which includes a screen cap of the question in question
http://www.aclunc.org/docs/aclu_letter_to_dod.pdf

[devotedknuckles]

Here is the URL for the ACLU-California website, where the lead article is posted:


http://www.aclunc.org/news/press_releases/aclu_challenges_defense_department_personnel_policy_to_regard_lawful_protests_as_low-level_terrorism.shtml

[geogeer]

It really is the end of the world... I am agreeing with the ACLU on something. 

[Melita]

This can't go on much longer. Something has to happen.

[Herr_Mannelig]

This can't go on much longer. Something has to happen.

Lets stage a protest! Oh, wait.

But seriously, the DOD may be doing a risk analysis in which they look at scenerios and possible risks and how to counter them. Where a person sees a festival, a police department sees possibilities for assault, sexual crimes, kidnapping, and other negative things. This is because that is their job to be concerned with it.

[Melita]

This can't go on much longer. Something has to happen.

Lets stage a protest! Oh, wait.

But seriously, the DOD may be doing a risk analysis in which they look at scenerios and possible risks and how to counter them. Where a person sees a festival, a police department sees possibilities for assault, sexual crimes, kidnapping, and other negative things. This is because that is their job to be concerned with it.

What about the (not so subtle) subversion of basic democratic rights? It's nearly as inane as that British 'safe knife' story, only lots more dangerous.

[Herr_Mannelig]

What about the (not so subtle) subversion of basic democratic rights? It's nearly as inane as that British 'safe knife' story, only lots more dangerous.

The DOD is not concerned with civil liberties. That is not their job. Their job is to work for defense within the confines of the laws of the land.

[Melita]

So it's a "don't shoot the messenger" type situation? The laws of your land are scary.

[Herr_Mannelig]

So it's a "don't shoot the messenger" type situation? The laws of your land are scary.

No, it is being realistic.

The DOD is concerned with defense. The police are concerned with law enforcement. The congressman are concerned with getting money. That is how it works. The police do not make laws. The DOD does not define civil liberties.

To do their job, they have to focus. This means using non-PC terms. They are not concerned with things that aren't threats, so they look at possible threats in everything. Do they think protesting is wrong or should be illegal? Probably not. Are they realistic about protesters becoming terroristic? Yes.

Protests aren't all fun and games. They have a real potential to become riots out of control. Look at the 60's and 70's.

[Melita]

So it's a "don't shoot the messenger" type situation? The laws of your land are scary.

No, it is being realistic.

The DOD is concerned with defense. The police are concerned with law enforcement. The congressman are concerned with getting money. That is how it works. The police do not make laws. The DOD does not define civil liberties.

To do their job, they have to focus. This means using non-PC terms. They are not concerned with things that aren't threats, so they look at possible threats in everything. Do they think protesting is wrong or should be illegal? Probably not. Are they realistic about protesters becoming terroristic? Yes.

Protests aren't all fun and games. They have a real potential to become riots out of control. Look at the 60's and 70's.

But what about protesting outside abortion clinics? Against things like divorce? Against the presence of a president anathema to Catholicism at a Catholic university? These are righteous things, and would be tarred with the same brush thanks to this sort of scaremongering. Being 'realistic' doesn't mean that people should become jaded, or cynical or assume the worst at the expense of the good.

[Herr_Mannelig]

But what about protesting outside abortion clinics? Against things like divorce? Against the presence of a president anathema to Catholicism at a Catholic university? These are righteous things, and would be tarred with the same brush thanks to this sort of scaremongering. Being 'realistic' doesn't mean that people should become jaded, or cynical or assume the worst at the expense of the good.

What about protesting against racism? Against unjust wars? Against torture?

That was the pretext for the riots of the 60's and 70's. All protests have a possible chance of becoming less peaceful.

They are not being cynical; it isn't an all encompassing policy. It is only the policy within the department which manages it.

Anything can be good or bad. The civil liberties which are so dear here are also the same ones which allow those gay pride parades and counter protesters to those wanting life. Does this have a possibility of abuse? Yes. All things do.

[Melita]

It just seems incredibly dangerous and judging by the recent past, ripe for abuse. The innocent people who will most suffer from this are the people protesting things unpalatable to the current administration and its cronies. No prizes for guessing who those people are.

[Herr_Mannelig]

It just seems incredibly dangerous and judging by the recent past, ripe for abuse. The innocent people who will most suffer from this are the people protesting things unpalatable to the current administration and its cronies. No prizes for guessing who those people are.

The government is not one entity. We are not psychics here, so I think we should only protest governmental actions which do something protestable. If we protest things which have the potential to be abused, then we are in a perpetual state of being cynical (like some on the forum). I don't deny possibilities, but I don't protest them either.

[Melita]

I didn't say the government was a single entity, but an ideology saturates an administration, a culture and a society. Protesting specific points of contention lawfully should never be an issue, and opening up the way for that to no longer be the case would trouble me if my cause could suffer for it, and by extension the propagation of Church teachings.

[alaric]

Sooo......from this perspective, those who are behind the "protesters" in Iran right now, are actually advocating terrorism.


I guess that sounds about right.