Just another fine example of where we're headed.



HH
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-

Pentagon Exam Calls Protests 'Low-Level Terrorism,' Angering Activists

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526972,00.html

Wednesday, June 17, 2009  
By James Osborne

Print ShareThisA written exam administered by the Pentagon labels "protests" as a form of “low-level terrorism” — enraging civil liberties advocates and activist groups who say it shows blatant disregard of the First Amendment.

The written exam, given as part of Department of Defense employees’ routine training, includes a multiple-choice question that asks:

“Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?”

— Attacking the Pentagon

— IEDs

— Hate crimes against racial groups

— Protests

The correct answer, according to the exam, is "Protests."

“Its part of a pattern of equating dissent and protest with terrorism," said Ann Brick, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which obtained a copy of the question after a Defense Department employee who was taking the test printed the screen on his or her computer terminal.

"It undermines the core constitutional values the Department of Defense is supposed to be defending,” Brick said, referring to the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.

She said the ACLU has asked the Defense Department to remove the question and send out a correction to all employees who took the exam.

“There were other employees who were unhappy with it and disturbed by it,” Brick said.

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Les Melnyk said the Defense Department is looking into the matter and expects to provide more information later Wednesday.

“We need to determine if it’s something we’re currently doing,” Melnyk said. “A lot of the information in this exam is intended for people stationed abroad. We counsel those people to avoid demonstrations.”

Anti-war protesters, who say they have been targets of federal surveillance for years, were livid when they were told about the exam question.

“That’s illegal,” said George Martin, national co-chairman of United for Peace and Justice. “Protest in terms of legal dissent has to be recognized, especially by the authorities.

"It’s not terrorism or a lack of patriotism. We care enough to be active in our government.”

Bill Wilson, president of the Americans for Limited Government, which supported the Tea Party demonstrations earlier this year, agreed.

"Groups like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, paramilitary orgainzations that are striking at out at something they oppose or hate, that's terrorism," Wilson said.

"To equate that in any degree with citizens being able to express themselves seems to me to be headed down a road where all dissent is suspect and questionable."

Ben Friedman, a research fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, said the U.S. government has a long history of infringing upon citizens’ civil liberties in the name of domestic security.

“It’s the kind of thing that happens when you have large security bureaucracies, which is why they need to be kept in check,” Friedman said. “These things tend to occur in times of panic, like after Sept. 11.”

The ACLU, in a letter of complaint it sent to the Defense Department, catalogued a list of what it said were recent civil liberties violations by federal authorities, including the monitoring of anti-war protests and the FBI’s surveillance of potential protesters at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York.

Martin said getting information on the extent of the FBI and National Security Agency’s surveillance programs is nearly impossible.

“I have been arrested within 100 yards of George W. Bush and spoken out against the policies of our government in more than 100 countries," he said. "But they said they have no record on me. I don’t believe that.”

During Bush's presidency, the Defense Department was criticized for infringing on citizens’ civil rights through surveillance programs designed to protect the nation against terrorist attacks. Brick said she has seen no indication that there will be a change in policy under President Obama.

“We need to see what they do,” she said. “In a number of areas the Obama administration has not backed off and kept the Bush administration line.”

1776 anyone?




Meaning:

We [citizens] are perceived by our Government as its enemy....

King George would be proud...

Nooooo shit.

The Constitution means nothing to these criminals.  They ARE the Domestic Enemies of the U.S.

HH

I'm shocked.

THIS says it all.

This thread has potential to get really ugly!

Threads like this make me think of rifle plates.

have you seen what's happening in Iran? and that's for a make believe right. I am actually admiring the Iranian citizens with their courage. I find it sad that this type of courage does not exist here YET

Wow




1st amendment is TERRISM!

So the July 4th tea party I am going to I will be a low level terrorist?

Does this mean that Cindy Sheehan is now on the terrorist watch list?

The question is.

Does the ACLU feel the same way about the tea parties and those involved with them or is it just about people protesting against Republicans or War?

I think I know the answer to this already..

FWIW, I disagree with anti war protesters (among other groups) but I will fight tooth and nail to defend their right to protest. I wish they would reciprocate that.

in....? we well see

Funny how protesting wasn't "terrorism" when Bush was in office, but the minute Obama takes over, hey, disagreeing with the federal government is EVIL!

Lon Horiuchi is probably jizzing in his pants at the thought of getting to shoot at Americans on behalf of the government again.

If anyone is familiar with my pro-American, pro-gun, anti-commie image threads, I have a few that would likely get me on an FBI list if I posted them.

I don't want to sound like a troll, but perhaps they're referring to those protests that occur whenever there's a WTO or G8 summitt. Those people are nuts. They're highly organized and structured like a terrorist organization, plan their actions well ahead of time and deliberatly provoke violent responses from the authorities. Just to throw it out there.

If you look at the types who protest military bases, you'd agree that they are terrorists. I can see where the Pentagon is getting their thinking from, based on that reality.

You keep telling yourself that.



When you get to Gitmo send me a postcard

Just tell me what it's time.  Until then it's all just talk.

Wonder how many of the people who attend the tea parties will be labeled now as terrorist!  
Damn I hope we see some major people show up for these tea parties!!   July 4th people......  be there!

During Bush's term arfcommers raged against protesters at soldiers' funerals, leftist support for the Iraqi insurgency, and the G8 protesters. Now that a different admin is in power it doesn't feel so good any more does it?

Those aren't protests, they are riots.  Big difference.

the Progressives have been chiping away at the Constitution since Teddy Roosevelt, this is just more proof and fact they are preaching to to the upcoming generations so it will be easier to do away with..

revolution is coming,,,or the loss of freedom

Those protesters weren't labeled as terrorists by the government even though they support terrorists.

Big difference.

So when we fund dissident groups in Iran so that they can protest the election results, that makes America a state sponsor of terrorism?

I'm glad they went full retard on clearing that up.

This is definitley the sign when government turns evil and totaly corrupt, when the people they work for are now the enemy and must be put on a leash.  King George would have been proud!!!

I don't see any differentiation between the Battle in Seattle and last year's (peaceful) Tea Party protests.

Just "— Protests."

I hope this is merely stupidity and not doctrine.  

So the answer is overly general. The reality is that many of the people who used to protest military bases in my area were the same ones breaking into those bases, throwing blood at recruiting offices, beating on subs with sledgehammers, etc over the years. I don't consider those peaceful protests.

^ This!

ETA: Maybe a bit bombastic, but if our military leaders in the Pentagon see American's exercising the constitutionally protected right of redressing grievences about our government as "low level terroists" then they've overstepped their proper place and need to be corrected (not sure how to correct them since the rest of the government went astray 100, or so, years ago).

They are referred to as protests by the media and masses. It's no surprise that the .gov uses the same words.

LOL!

A couple years ago I voiced my displeasure in a "HIPPIE BEATDOWN" thread here and got trashed for it.

I said it was just a matter of time before we have to protest something (like taxes or gun control) and the tables are turned.

Looks like our TEA PARTIES and ANTI-GUN CONTROL demonstrations are now terrorism.

The people that wrote that exsham and the people that signed off on it need to be fired, pronto.  


Doubt it will happen.  

And me too, since I went to a Tea Party.

Neither do I.

You do realize the Pentagon is the U.S. military, right? That's a pretty high charge.

I know exactly what the fuck I'm saying.

HH

It's shit like this that makes me second guess if I really want to enlist and fight for this country.

April 19 1775





I'm just sayin'...

 

First off, there's no comparison between people peacably holding signs saying they're unhappy with how the government has been fucking up for the last few years and people who violate funerals, support terrorists and mass murderers, and deliberately provoke violence.

Second, we never called them terrorists and enemies of the state.

Not so much as enemies,more like unruly slaves who you need to keep an eye on at all times.

I notice that the Husker is siding with the ACLU on this one.  That should alert all to the possibility of confusion here.

Shall we review

“Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?”

— Attacking the Pentagon

— IEDs

— Hate crimes against racial groups

— Protests

The correct answer, according to the exam, is "Protests."

I would expect that the guy writing the exam, not having his definitions vetted by either the Husker or the ACLU for political correctness, was thinking along the lines that the first 3 answers would be more likely be considered high-level terrorism.  I mean I would never pick any of the first 3 as low-level terrorism.

The classic definition of terrorism is the use of force or violence or other methods by non-governmental groups to cause a government to change it's policies and actions from that in the best interest of the government and the people to actions desired by the terrorists and not in the best interest of the people or government. So in the grand scale of things and at the far end of the bell curve, one could define a protest as low-level (very low level) terrorism.

Some members need to start shaving with Occam's Razor more often.  

If you find yourself agreeing with the ACLU, maybe you need to re-think.

Why are you surprised? he's right in lockstep with the ACLU on this.  What do you think they think the Pentagon is?

right there with ya , it's what it will take .

Or maybe the ACLU isn't wrong on all issues?

The test writer could have easily put something like... well, Jesus... you know, I can't even think of a form of "low-level" terrorism.  Kidnapping but in a nice way?  Sawing off someone's head with safety scissors?  Hijacking small private planes?  What a RIDICULOUS term!  "Low Level" terrorism.

Sorry, but protests are not terrorist activities.  At ALL.  It isn't anywhere on that curve.  There just isn't a way you can rationally say that the act of petitioning your government for a redress of grievances = terrorism.

Acts by people to influence their government are terrorism?  All acts, regardless of whether they include violence????

Hey, look, Glen Beck just made a speech on his TV program criticizing the government.  Looks like he's trying to influence the government.   Low level terrorism?

Farmer Brown just cast a vote.  Trying to influence the government there, Mr. Brown?  I don't think so you cockfag terrorist!

Good grief.

Don't care anymore.

If this question is part of the computer-based training that I think that it might be, the first time I saw it was 2005 or 2006.

what's the difference?


free Americans, publicly proclaiming their disagreements with those in "power" for what ever reason are practicing their God Given Right. that is what the Bill of Rights is about, mans rights granted by God. weather we agree there is a God or  weather we agree with the protesters or NOT....should any protest go beyond that to looting, burning, destruction of private or public property, that would be another issue,,

heavens no, Sheehan is a protestor, YOU SIR are a ANTI GOVERNMENT RIGHT WING EXTREMIST

From someone who is actually inside the system, I would have to say that people in question are not the average American voicing their opinion, people who go to tea parties (as an aside most in the military agree with them) or those just upset at government.  We know there is a link between many progressive movements on the left, their street army and those who wish nothing but bad for the US.  When a protester is wearing the same kaffia as a member of the Hamas or the PLO he raises peoples interests and sparks discussion whether his protest is just because he hates war or because he actually believes in the extension of the global caliphate.

How about some "Low Level Terrorist" apparel like we did with "Right Wing Extremist"?