Missouri National Guard's term for Ferguson protesters: 'Enemy forces'
Source: CNN
As the Missouri National Guard prepared to deploy to help quell riots in Ferguson, Missouri, that raged sporadically last year, the guard used highly militarized words such as "enemy forces" and "adversaries" to refer to protesters, according to documents obtained by CNN.
... The National Guard's language, contained in internal mission briefings obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, is intensifying the concerns of some who objected to the police officers' actions in putting down riots. They broke out after the August 9 shooting of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown by city police officer Darren Wilson. A grand jury declined to indict Wilson in the case.
... "It's disturbing when you have what amounts to American soldiers viewing American citizens somehow as the enemy," said Antonio French, an alderman in St. Louis.
The documents obtained by CNN also detail that the Missouri National Guard was concerned about perceptions of its deployment, with superiors later telling troops to stop using heavily militarized language to describe protesters.
Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/17/politics/missouri-national-guard-ferguson-protesters/index.html
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Anyone want to guess what country this is in? Quick, without looking...
Yep, yours.
Where we serve racism and bigotry with breakfast.
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)The national guard took those posts and the police went to the protest site(s). Racism wasn't a factor in the NG deployment.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)And we were warned by those with foresight that all the technology and training for wars abroad would be brought back here, turned on and used AGAINST the American People. If the American People are the guards enemy doesn't that make the National Guard the enemy of the American People. What a twisted situation.
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)They weren't deployed against the protesters. They never came in contact with the protesters. It was never the plan for them to come in contact with the protesters.
That was the distinction I was making.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)get orders to open fire on protesters who are against shooting(s) of unarmed citizens, will damn well be more than 4 laying on the ground with their blood soaking into the earth. And for the record, I was really surprised and saddened when this happened.
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)I know that, and that was not my point. ......
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)"In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed", has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, repeatedly and illegally established programs to appropriate the power of the military for use in law enforcement. Specifically, he has contravened U.S.C. Title 18. Section 1385, originally enacted in 1878, subsequently amended as "Use of Army and Air Force as Posse Comitatus" and commonly known as the Posse Comitatus Act.
The Act states:
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
The Posse Comitatus Act is designed to prevent the military from becoming a national police force.
The Declaration of Independence states as a specific grievance against the British that the King had "kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures," had "affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the civil power," and had "quarter[ed] large bodies of armed troops among us . . . protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these States"
Despite the Posse Comitatus Act's intent, and in contravention of the law, President Bush
a) has used military forces for law enforcement purposes on U.S. border patrol;
b) has established a program to use military personnel for surveillance and information on criminal activities;
c) is using military espionage equipment to collect intelligence information for law enforcement use on civilians within the United States; and
d) employs active duty military personnel in surveillance agencies ,including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)."
heaven05
(18,124 posts)that IF(when) the repubthugs gain power again, suspension of the constitutional protections some american citizens enjoy will be suspended completely during one of their upcoming terms.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)if a republican ayatollah gets elected for sure. And that covers every thug in the race. The religious right will demand sharia laws against gays. Which will just be a start. Then you will be lawfully able to deny services to Blacks and Hispanics as well because..."religious reasons".
This is what they mean by "taking back our country". Back to the "good ole days" when the KKK ruled Indiana for example.
How the Klan Captured Indiana
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/05/books/how-the-klan-captured-indiana.html
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)flourish.
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)trained(brainwashed) to think that way. It's not until they open fire on their fellow citizens, en masse, that MAYBE some will have a crisis of conscience. But history has shown me that those who benefit from the system have no qualms about shooting, lynching, burning or otherwise killing their fellow citizens to maintain that perceived benefit. Period.
frylock
(34,825 posts)ProudProg2u
(133 posts)It's here and growing..the last Freudian slip I heard was a Police official saying ..The Officers "Tour of duty"...
procon
(15,805 posts)takes a generation, 20 to 25 years to alter a society. However, business management is often compelled to make transformational changes to remain competitive, and they can achieve quicker results in about three years if changes at the top are mandated and enforced, and pushed downward within the organization. Without some consequences that make a compelling reason to change their behavior, the prevailing mindset will continue to spread and infect the next generation.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)Not to like anything military in this country and before anyone decides to flame me I did received an honorable discharge in 1975 from the USAF.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)In the 1920s, military intelligence sought, without real evidence, to link pacifist groups, including liberal women's and religious organizations, to an alleged Communist threat to U.S. internal security. Indeed, MID prepared Emergency Plan Whitea detailed outline for army intervention to suppress what the conservative planners feared would be Communist‐led civil disorder and armed insurrection in the United States.
In 1932, the U.S. Army used a modified version of Plan White against the unemployed veterans encamped in Washington, D.C., petitioning Congress for relief. Based upon an MID report that the veterans were led by Communists (an allegation denied by the Washington police chief), President Herbert C. Hoover authorized the army to drive the men from the capital. Fear of foreign aggression and radicalism in the 1930s led MID to expand its domestic operations, increasing the surveillance of unionists, pacifists, civil rights activists, and Communists. Van Deman retired in 1938, but the agency continued to pursue radical specters at home more than foreign espionage and intelligence evaluations, a lesson brought home by the unanticipated attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.
During World War II, domestic military surveillance expanded substantially. President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave military intelligence (now G‐2) responsibility for protecting defense plants, and it established a network of thousands of informants. Although the FBI had primary jurisdiction over domestic investigation of civilians, it eventually cooperated with G‐2 and with the army's new Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC). Almost half of CIC's 5,000 civilian agents operated undercover among various groups of civiliansparticularly disaffected minority or political groups. In addition, G‐2 continued to assemble data for Plan White, reporting on radical labor and political groups and what it called semiradical groups concerned with pacifism and civil liberties. Military intelligence continued that policy throughout much of the Cold War era.
In the 1950s, President Dwight D. Eisenhower restricted the use of military‐intelligence personnel in monitoring civil disturbances until a presidential authorization indicated that the use of federal troops was imminent. Only after the decision to use federal troops to enforce desegregation did G‐2 and CIC join the FBI in monitoring groups of whites and blacks in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 195758. In the desegregation crisis at the University of Mississippi in 1962, however, military intelligence agents violated regulations and conducted investigations of civilians without specific authorization from President John F. Kennedy.
Domestic military surveillance expanded to an unprecedented extent in peacetime in the 1960s with the concern of Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon, among others, over threats to internal security in the United States as a result of the civil rights movement, the Vietnam antiwar movement, and the urban disturbances. In 1965, a new intelligence command was established at Fort Holabird, Maryland. It began coordinating the work of counterintelligence agents at G‐2 offices at each army command within the United States, preparing daily civil disturbance situation reports on right‐wing and racial activists and on left‐wing and antiwar dissidents. The widespread dissent, civil disorder, and violence in the 1960s led to the pre‐positioning and occasionally active intervention of units of the army in American cities under President JohnsonDetroit in 1967 and Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Baltimore in 1968. President Nixon deployed troops at both the Democratic and Republic National Conventions in Miami Beach in 1972, and at his second inauguration in 1973.
By 1966, the U.S. Army's Intelligence Command at Fort Holabird had broadened its civilian surveillance, including operations violating regulations and probably done without knowledge of senior army commanders. By 1968, renamed Continental United States Intelligence (CONUS Intel), the Holabird center had computerized field reports on civilians composed by more than 1,000 plainclothes army agents, who monitored civil rights and antiwar organizations, infiltrated radical groups like the Students for a Democratic Society, and sometimes engaged in provocative and illegal acts to discredit them.
Military intelligence crossed the dividing line into illegal, unconstitutional activity between 1963 and 1972, as it had in the period 191721. Violating laws and regulations restricting federal domestic investigatory activity to civilian agencies, primarily the FBI, the military's investigation of civilian protest went beyond immediate use in tactical operations. Instead, it intimidated and sometimes restrained legitimate exercise of civil and political rights. The use of the military against political criticism of the central government was precisely the kind of abuse of standing armies feared by Americans since the mid‐ eighteenth century.
The extent of domestic military surveillance became the center of controversy when it was exposed in Washington Monthly magazine in January 1970 by a former military intelligence officer. This led to the first full‐scale public debate on the subject in America. Although the Supreme Court in Laird v. Tatum (1972) upheld the legitimacy of military surveillance for national security, a widespread public and congressional belief that the surveillance had become excessive, if not illegal, led the army to exercise greater control over its domestic military intelligence system.
[See also Civil‐Military Relations: Civilian Control of the Military; Vietnam War: Domestic Course.]
Bibliography
U.S. Congress, Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary , Military Surveillance of Civilian Politics: A Report, 1973.
Christopher H. Pyle , Military Surveillance of Civilian Politics, 19671970, 1986.
Joan M. Jensen , Army Surveillance in America, 17751980, 1991.
Roy Talbert, Jr. , Negative Intelligence: The Army and the American Left, 19171941, 1991.
John Whiteclay Chambers II
Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.
John Whiteclay Chambers II. "Surveillance, Domestic." The Oxford Companion to American Military History. 2000. Encyclopedia.com. 17 Apr. 2015 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)paranoia, secretiveness, attack, undermining behavior ensues. Nothing good can come of this rot of competition.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Yep just like when Occupy Wall Street peaceful protesters exercising their constitutional rights to peaceful protest were met by stormtrooper fascist pigs who beat them bloody and gassed them.
Welcome to fascist AmeriKa citizens! The 1% OWN this country and their militarized police forces and or National Guard? will kill you if you step out of line!
americannightmare
(322 posts)the national guard and the police - enemies of civilization!
blackspade
(10,056 posts)The War on Drugs continues this madness.
ileus
(15,396 posts)because we thought they were targeting the right people....now we're saying this is bad???
Lunabell
(6,082 posts)This great nation is really going to hell. We are now the enemy. Shame.
Cha
(297,253 posts)Mahalo NJ