US DoD Manual: OWS is low- level terrorism

Anonymous (@AnonyOps)
10/17/11 1:30 AM
US DoD Manual categorises protests as"Low-Level Terrorism"
bit.ly/nBwlhT #OWS does this make us enemies of the state?

Muh?! Not really very surprised.

Be careful out there! They will pull out the terrorism card if they need to. Avoid any violence or discussion of using it. Those who are violent are either PTB people or fools. Civil disobedience is the way to go because the terrorist label can discredit everyone.

Of course they're "terrorists" - they're telling the truth about our rulers.

http://www.aclu.org/images/general/asset_upload_file89_39820.pdf - see exhibit at last two pages. Salon story: http://open.salon.com/blog/dennis_loo/2009/06/14/dod_training_manual_protests_are_low-level_terrorism

However, when the ACLU disclosed this FOIAed document, related to military facilities and "force protection", DoD publicly disavowed that part of the document. But, it is at the core of the attitudes of many within the government that protest is criminal and a threat to national security.

"it is at the core of the attitudes of many within the government that protest is criminal and a threat to national security"

That attitude always amazes me.
Thanks for the link.

Of course it is.

'Can someone here fill me in on operation "Garden Plot?"'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4459947

protest movements together with militia groups as threats. Annex A, section B of Operation Garden Plot defines tax protesters, militia groups, religious cults, and general anti-government dissenters as Disruptive Elements. This allows the use of deadly force to be used against any extremist or dissident perpetrating civil disorder.

Here's a copy of a more comprehensive write-up, originally published in CAQ: http://cryptome.org/garden-plot.htm

including unlawful obstructions or assemblages.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2136322

actions of the government which acts almost solely in the interest of large corporations and wealthy benefactors. Chilling, for this is tantamount to an overthrow of our representative government. :patriot:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2108894

"After the Greenpeace protest, changes in security at Mount Rushmore included limiting access and avoiding the general circulation of video and images of the top taken by visitors. National Park Service officials now believe dissemination of such images constitutes an unjustifiable threat to security."


This is just more chipping away of our freedoms. I can see keeping people off the top because of the danger and chance of vandals, but viewing pictures taken from the top?

Part of the problem here is the slippery slope, the precedent set. The same 'security' mindset can be applied to, say, sky scrapper observation floors. Or any high public area in or around many cities providing a scenic view of 'sensitive' parts of the city, with the reason for the sensitivity of the view being left up to whoever manages the security.
Using terrorism as an excuse to enforce 'security' is being applied to entirely too many areas.
We need to become more aware of what our various levels of government are doing to us, U.S. as they scrub our country clean of the pesky freedoms we once enjoyed in the name of terrorism.

are void. Just ask Jose Padilla.

Funny how that works isn't it?

Don

too much of a threat I think they are capable of manufacturing a terrorist act themselves to turn public opinion against the OWS.

been given perfect license to do what they will since 2001.

If the public is protesting, and are defined as terrorists, then the military is terrorist funded: terrorists too?

I still vividly recall the images of anti-Obama protests and demonstrations showing people carrying guns.

Why?

Since this is something that will benefits 99% they are suddenly talking bout terrorism.

Exercising their first amendment is now considered to be terrorism? whodathunkit? :wow:

http://open.salon.com/blog/dennis_loo/2009/06/22/dod_deletes_protest_terrorism_problems_remain

In response to the ACLU’s June 10, 2009 letter demanding that the DoD pull a question from its DoD training exam that equated protest with “low-level terrorism,” which I wrote about at Open Salon on June 14 (“DoD Training Manual: Protests are ‘Low-Level Terrorism’”) – and which was reposted and written about on scores of websites and blogs, both left and right - the DoD has removed the question from the exam.

This is good news. The problem, however, goes deeper than this one question. Before going into that, let’s look at the DoD’s latest actions and its explanation:

As reported by Fox News: “The Pentagon has removed a controversial question from its anti-terrorism training exam that labeled ‘protests’ a form of ‘low-level terrorism,’ calling the question ‘poorly worded.’

“A Pentagon spokesman said the question failed to make clear the difference between illegal violent demonstrations and constitutionally protected peaceful protests.

.
.
.

And yet, they still largely ignore REAL terrorist threats..........or at least, that's true of the outright criminal factions of the gov't.