DOD now considers protests to be "low level terrorism"

[chazlawyer]

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.

[mcfd45]

just more freedoms being oppressed.

[Rick]

For cryin' out loud. Where were you folks during the Nixon administration? This isn't new. Just more of the same.

[crashdive123]

I see it a little differently. I see career bureaucrats at the Department of Defense releasing a report of their opinions. Nobody (yet) has stifled the rights of citizens to peacefully assemble. This is no different than the recent release of a memo by the Department of Homeland Security stating that returning service members might become terrorists. This is nothing different than reports and papers that have been written offering up opinions for years. The big difference is that now, thanks to cable and satellite programming (that’s a TV thingie Hope), internet news and blogs, radio programming we now all learn of these reports. Knowledge is power – now you have the power to do something about it.

[sgtdraino]

The test should be reworded. That said, I think I can kinda see where DoD is coming from. It's not so much that public protesting is low level terrorist activity (which it is not), but more so that, with any situation where a large group of people get together to oppose a certain thing, there is a greater likelihood that there might be somebody (or more than one somebody) in that group that is crazy enough to do something dangerous.

So, protests shouldn't so much be regarded as terrorist activities, as they should be regarded as situations where terrorism might be more likely to occur. Heck, a group of protesters even has an increased likelihood of becoming the victims of a crazy idiot who doesn't like that they're protesting.

So, protests are situations where DoD should be more watchful of what is going on in that area, for the safety of everyone concerned.

[trax]

I believe GeorgeIII and his admin considered protests to be a fairly high level of terrorism.

[Pal334]

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.

Chaz, no disrespect meant to you. This is a total misrepresentation of the test. I taught this stuff for years, and currently help clients through this web based training and when taken in context the answer does not in anyway infer that lawful dissent is low level terrorism. This ACLU letter is promulgated by folks that never took the test and as usual are only trying to stir up folks. Since they probably can not be sponsored to enter the site, they are "spraying and praying" that something sticks.Very similar to the "FEMA camps" farce. I will try to get on the site this afternoon and get some examples for all to see. Remember, just because it is written, is not a warrant that it is 100% true (of course that also includes our posts )

[trax]

..... Remember, just because it is written, is not a warrant that it is 100% true (of course that also includes our posts )

So...were you just making that up?

[Pal334]

trax,,, only the shadow knows
Actually I was just reviewing the Level 1 Antiterrorism Awareness training referenced above. I re took the test and there is absolutely nothing like the wording alledged above. To satisfy the "nay sayers" I checked and if you goggle "Level 1 Antiterrorism Awareness training " you can in fact enter the site and take the training. Then you will better understand what the training and test is. And confirm the false statements in the article at the head of this string.

And Chaz, I am not accusing you of the falsehood, it is the writers of the article that I have a problem with.

[chazlawyer]

If there was a question that required a test taker to identify "protests" as a form of low-level terrorism, that I have an issue with the test. if no such questions exists (or at least anymore) than I'm ok...

BTW, I am by no means a card carrying member of the ACLU...In fact most of the time I am at complete odds with their thinking....

[Pal334]

If there was a question that required a test taker to identify "protests" as a form of low-level terrorism, that I have an issue with the test. if no such questions exists (or at least anymore) than I'm ok...

BTW, I am by no means a card carrying member of the ACLU...In fact most of the time I am at complete odds with their thinking....

I just wanted to make sure you did not think I was trying to "flame" you. By the way the training is good "Gee Whiz" info if you have the time. And as for " if no such questions exists (or at least anymore) than "I have been teaching, taking and giving that same program /test in its various iterations for almost 10 years and have never seen anything like they are alledging.

[SARKY]

Having gorwn up in the counter culture 60's, I remember the one phrase that was always chanted....."Question Authority". I seems, now that those persons who were chanting that are in power, don't want their authority questioned! How interesting!

[Rick]

Sarky - If you remember ANYTHING from the 60's, you were using the wrong drugs. Although, "Sock it to me" and "Here come da judge" and "Good night, Chet" keep ringing in my ears for some reason.

[crashdive123]

As long as you don't start asking us if we want a bite of your walnetto.

[chiangmaimav]

The greatest threat to Americans is, next to Islamic terrorists, the ACLU. This is the most crackpot organization I ever heard of. I dealt with them both in 25 years working in NY prison system and also when I worked for Investigative project for Terrorism. They say they wish to preserve rights of citizens but forget that people also should have the right to stay alive. I am all in favor of constitutional rights and fought for them myself at one time but if these people get their way America and its whole way of life will be destroyed.
As far as this bit about protests being terrorism, the evidence presented here indicates this never happened and I found the whole thing hard to believe in the first place. And if it was printed this way I am sure it meant as Sgt Drano says, which is basically any large gathering of pissed off people can potentially become a threat so people responsible for public safety should be aware of what is going on. This is common sense which explains why ACLU cannot comprehend it.

[oldsoldier]

Careful Rick you're showing your age!!

[Rick]

oldsoldier - I don't have to show it. Gravity has done a quite admirable job of doing that for me!

[LudwigVan]

For cryin' out loud. Where were you folks during the Nixon administration? This isn't new. Just more of the same.

Well I, for one, wasn't alive then. So I'll just have to complain about the current administration.

Plain and simple, it's a way for them to apply the patriot act to regular, non-extremists who disaprove of what's been unfolding. That's all I'll say...

[Rick]

That occurred during the 1960's as well where some docile church group of old ladies were fingered as rabble rowsers. Nixon kept a "notorious" list and some in his cabinet, G. Gordon Liddy and Jeb McGruder for example, thought that executing the columnist Jack Anderson would be a grand idea. Anderson even wrote that Liddy was under the impression that "Richard Nixon wanted me dead".

This is not political commentary, by the way, but historical reference.

The Kennedy years saw a plethora of Executive Orders written that would knock the socks off most folks today. In fact, many of the EOs that are written about today are, in fact, those.

My point is that every administration is pretty much the same. Some a little better, some a little worse.

[Pal334]

Just a reminder, before everyone gets their panties in a bunch. Review my posts #7, #9 and #11.You can believe me or not, or you can goggle "Level 1 Antiterrorism Awareness training " and review the test for yourselves. It should take care of any concerns, at least about this question.