A US Department of Defense training manual describes protest as "low-level terrorism." This is part of a broader trend of state agencies characterizing protest as a form of terrorism.
The first question of the Terrorism Threat Factors, "Knowledge Check 1" section reads as follows:DoD Training Manual: Protests are "Low-Level Terrorism (via Isen)Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism activity?
Select the correct answer and then click Check Your Answer.
O Attacking the Pentagon
O IEDs
O Hate crimes against racial groups
O ProtestsThe "correct" answer is Protests.
RSS Feed
These are, after all, the same chaps who described detainee suicide attempts as "asymmetric warfare".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5068606.stm
well... one has to admit that from a military point of view, anyone who does anything other than obey orders IS in fact a terrorist. Isn't the whole point of a military the turning of the world into one army?
To be fair, the question was meant for people overseas where unsanctioned protests could pose a threat to Americans caught in the middle. Not that this is terrorism, something like "low-level threat" might have been more appropriate.
The question has since been removed from the test.
So are hate crimes mid/heigh-level terrorism or are they simply better than protests?
Ian B@~3: If true, it's only because their slip was showing. At nearly every political convention / economic summit since '68 non-violent protesters have been illegally detained, beaten, and worse. The bush admin stepped it up a notch allowing anyone to be labeled as a terrorist arbitrarily and systematically removed of their constitutional rights to assembly, privacy, and free speech without due process of law. I am still waiting for O. to ratchet things back down, but he's only been showing his puppet strings so far. The illusion of democracy in the U.S. has never been more transparent.
In the UK a private The National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit (NETCU)has classed eco - protesters as Domestic Extremists.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/12/23/the-paranoia-squad/
In the UK the right answer is "taking photos outside"
In Iran the authorities have branded the protesters as "terrorists" and rioters. Tehran's police commander Azizullah Rajabzadeh warned police would "confront all gatherings and unrest with all its strength," the official IRNA news agency reported. Nice to know we're in good company.
Takuan,
so... civillians are terrorists?
I think that explains much of the last 8 years.
One also assumes that all the other answers would constitute a higher form of terrorism. How low is "low"?
Greg Sargent has a pretty thorough write-up of this story over at his Plum Line blog:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/blogosphere/pentagon-nixes-description-of-protests-as-low-level-terrorism/
Interesting to note that when this story first came out, Fox News was pushing it as evidence that the Obama administration was looking to crack down on the "Tea Party" crowd.
Sigh. Really? It amazes me to see this story still rolling around when anyone can just go take the training themselves. The offending question? Not there, and hasn't been for the last four years I've had to stay current on this course. The training page doesn't look anything like the supposed "screen shot" the ACLU provides in their brief. So much for the vaunted fact-checking of the blogosphere.
More on this here.
So now we have two independent sources (see #11 and #12) for the information that the offending training question was both created and then removed under the Bush Administration.
it's not as if powerful government bodies behaved in absurdly tyrannical ways
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/5595544/FBIs-Deep-Throat-tried-to-stop-Deep-Throat-porn-film.html
If y'all haven't sent any checks to the ACLU lately this would be a great time to do so.
Takuan@2: "Isn't the whole point of a military the turning of the world into one army?"
No.
The "whole point of a military" is to use violence and the threat of violence to achieve foreign policy goals.
-- MrJM
what about domestic policy?
Whether 'protestors' are "low-level terrorists" or not, I find the very notion an interesting reflection of point-defence attitudes. Very much the: "we have a gate to guard, IFF the bogey, interdict according to procedure."
Rather than..."(change your clothing), mingle and interact, develop a detailed profile of the motivations and intent of the group, identify specific individuals who present the most likely threat, report back."
Just goes back to the classic problem that confrontation, dissent, and defiance are categorized as 'threat' by the people with all the guns. It's comedy, really.
Clearly the DOD needs to train a clown corps to combat terrorism.
Wait, shouldn't the correct answer be "protests I disagree with"?
Protesters are terrorists. They should be shot. Hey, they're doing that in Teheran.