Oh Boy! The Military Training To Use Tasers Against American Citizens, & 62,000 Combat Troops Deployed Stateside

[Mrs. Sharon B. Hodge]

62,000 combat troops were redeployed stateside for homeland security this month.


**************************************************
Marines, Army Get Ready to Wield Stun Guns
**************************************************

Wired
By David Hambling
October 27, 2008

http://blog. wired. com/defense/2008/10/marines-get-tas. html

The Marine Corps has been buying Tasers for years. But the military has only used the stun guns sparingly in the field.
Now, all that is set to change, thanks to new training guidelines for the electroshock weapons What's Arabic for "Don't Tase me, bro"?

“We would expect the use of [devices such as the Taser] to grow over time, now that we have this long-term policy in place,” Maj.
David Nevers, a tells Marine Corps Times

In the new policy, outlined in Marine administrative message 560/08, officials approve use of the X26E Taser, the most popular law enforcement device sold by Taser International Inc.
The weapon fires two probes attached to electrical wires, providing the ability to “tase” someone

There are already lots of "amusing" videos out there of Marine Corps Taser training –- the part where trainees get Tasered themselves But there are doubts over whether existing training is adequate:

Marine officials said the Corps began discussing using the Taser in 2003, and sent its first 122 units to Iraq’s Multi-National Force-West in spring 2004

But its use was scuttled after concerns were raised over whether the training in place was sufficient and whether its use would hurt efforts to gain the trust of Iraqis

Adding the police-style X26 Taser to the Marines' arsenal might be useful in some situations. But the Marines are not police.
In the long term, the Taser they are likely to fond most useful is the wireless XREP Taser projectile, which is fired from a standard 12-Gauge shotgun As we reported last year, this projectile was developed by Taser Inc under an Office of Naval Research (ONR) contract specifically to meet the Marines requirements:

The Marine Corps Systems Command conveyed an interest in this type of technology to ONR. The requirement was to 'clear facilities,' basically what our Marines are doing today in Iraq and elsewhere, going building to building and room to room." stated Mr.
John Beadling, an ONR support contractor

Meanwhile, the Army is starting to field Tasers. The 3rd Infantry's 1st Brigade Combat Team has already been issued with Army's first ever package of "nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them," including Tasers and bean-bag rounds. And although the 1st BCT is now stationed in the U.S. for "on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks," the Army Times makes it clear that they won't be using non-lethals to control civil distrubances at home.
"The package is for use only in war-zone operations, not for any domestic purpose"


iRobot’s Taserbot – Ready For US MARTIAL LAW NEEDS

************************************************************
Packs of robots will hunt down uncooperative humans
************************************************************

New Scientist
October 22, 2008 6:00 PM

http://www. newscientist. com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/packs...

The latest request from the Pentagon jars the senses. At least, it did mine.
They are looking for contractors to provide a "Multi-Robot Pursuit System" that will let packs of robots "search for and detect a non-cooperative human"

One thing that really bugs defence chiefs is having their troops diverted from other duties to control robots. So having a pack of them controlled by one person makes logistical sense.
But I'm concerned about where this technology will end up

Given that iRobot last year struck a deal with Taser International to mount stun weapons on its military robots, how long before we see packs of droids hunting down pesky demonstrators with paralysing weapons? Or could the packs even be lethally armed? I asked two experts on automated weapons what they thought - click the continue reading link to read what they said.
Both were concerned that packs of robots would be entrusted with tasks - and weapons - they were not up to handling without making wrong decisions

Steve Wright of Leeds Metropolitan University is an expert on police and military technologies, and last year correctly predicted this pack-hunting mode of operation would happen "The giveaway here is the phrase 'a non-cooperative human subject'," he told me:


"What we have here are the beginnings of something designed to enable robots to hunt down humans like a pack of dogs.
Once the software is perfected we can reasonably anticipate that they will become autonomous and become armed

We can also expect such systems to be equipped with human detection and tracking devices including sensors which detect human breath and the radio waves associated with a human heart beat.
These are technologies already developed"

Another commentator often in the news for his views on military robot autonomy is Noel Sharkey, an AI and robotics engineer at the University of Sheffield.
He says he can understand why the military want such technology, but also worries it will be used irresponsibly


"This is a clear step towards one of the main goals of the US Army's Future Combat Systems project, which aims to make a single soldier the nexus for a large scale robot attack.
Independently, ground and aerial robots have been tested together and once the bits are joined, there will be a robot force under command of a single soldier with potentially dire consequences for innocents around the corner"
What do you make of this? Are we letting our militaries run technologically amok with our tax dollars? Or can robot soldiers be programmed to be even more ethical than human ones, as some researchers claim?

Paul Marks, technology correspondent





**********************************************************************
ACLU Demands Information on U.
S Military Domestic Operations
**********************************************************************

by Tom Burghardt / October 24th, 2008

http://www. dissidentvoice. org/2008/10/aclu-demands-information-on...

On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request demanding information from the government on U.S. Northern Command’s (NORTHCOM) deployment of the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Combat Brigade Team (BCT) on U.S.
soil for “civil unrest” and “crowd control” duties

Last month, Army Times published a piece detailing how the 1st BCT spent “35 of the last 60 months in Iraq.” The 1st BCT–also known as the “Raiders”–carried out house-to-house raids and engaged in close-quarters combat in the city of Ramadi to suppress Iraqi resistance to U.S.
occupation, according to a report on the World Socialist Website

Readers will recall my October 11 piece, “Militarizing the Homeland:” NORTHCOM’s Joint Task Force-Civil Support,” that described NORTHCOM’s Vibrant Response exercise at Fort Stewart, Georgia

In tandem with the elite 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, the 1st BCT participated in mock drills designed to “coordinate with local governments and interagency organizations such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Emergency Management Agency,” U.S.
Northern Command News reported

The Pentagon revealed that 1st BCT is a key component of NORTHCOM’s Joint Task Force-Civil Support (JTF-CS), designed to “execute both homeland defense and civil support missions.
” As I pointed out in a piece earlier this month, current Army doctrine is heavily-weighted towards contingency planning for “civil disturbances”

Indeed, Army Times reported that the 1st BCT would be kitted out with “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded.” The publication reported, “the package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.
” But after spilling the proverbial beans, Army Times retracted that portion of their report

NORTHCOM now claims that a “nonlethal” weapons package was intended only for use in Iraq and not in the heimat.
In the opinion of this writer, this is nothing more than a feeble Pentagon move to spin a story that has garnered much unfavorable publicity since it first appeared

Rules for domestic military operations, including as an armed force to suppress “civil disturbances,” are clearly spelled out in Department of Defense Directive 3025.12 (DoD 3025.12), “Military Assistance for Civil Disturbances” (MACDIS).
Army doctrine and rules of engagement for civil disturbance and “riot control” planning have long recommended equipping troops with “non-lethal weapons” (NLWs) for what the Pentagon euphemistically calls “operations other than war”

As researcher and activist Frank Morales reported in Police State America, the Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL), located at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, “reacting to a growing sense of urgency to field weaponry in step with the requirements of globalization, issued a primer on the subject, entitled, Civil Disturbances: Incorporating Non-Lethal Technology, Tactics, Techniques and Procedures,” in 2000 Why is the Pentagon now so hesitant to come clean on plans for using NLWs in the “homeland”?

Since the late 1960s, the military has gradually expanded its brief to include domestic law enforcement, drug interdiction and border security, in clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. The 1878 law specifically bars the use of the military in domestic policing.
However the trend towards militarizing the inherently civilian nature of locally controlled law enforcement has accelerated since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, most infamously with the October 2002 creation of NORTHCOM itself

U.S.
Northern Command’s original mandate “to provide command and control of Department of Defense (DoD) homeland defense efforts and to coordinate defense support of civil authorities,” has since expanded with the May 2007 National Security Presidential Directive 51, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 (NSPD 51/HSPD 20)

Indeed, as previously reported, NSPD 51/HSPD 20’s top secret Continuity of Government annexes have been refused to members of Congress; a clear move by the White House to inhibit the legislative branch from performing its lawful oversight functions What then, is the Bush administration hiding from Congress and the American people?

The ACLU stakes out the legal ground on the erosion of Posse Comitatus and states,

Civilian authorities, not the military, have historically controlled and directed the internal affairs of the United States. This rule traces its origins to the nation’s founding and has been reaffirmed in landmark statutes including the Posse Comitatus Act, which helps preserve the foundational principles of our Constitution and democracy. (”ACLU Demands Information on Military Deployment within U.
S Borders,” Press Release, October 21, 2008)

Jonathan Hafetz, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project inquires: “What is the unit’s mission? What functions will it perform? And why was it necessary to deploy the unit rather than rely on civilian agencies and personnel and the National Guard? Given the magnitude of the issues at stake, it is imperative that the American people know the truth about this new and unprecedented intrusion of the military in domestic affairs”

Indeed, senior NORTHCOM commanders have repeatedly dodged these questions. During an emergency, they claim JTF-CS “supports” the “Primary Federal Agency [PFA] … designated to coordinate the government’s response to a disaster or emergency situation.” But “support” to a civilian agency is not the same as playing a subordinate role to civilian leadership.
This is stated unambiguously by NORTHCOM: “Although the JTF-CS supports the PFA throughout a CBRNE [chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosive] consequence management operation, the unit operates within a clear Department of Defense chain of command”

In other words, the “chain of command” followed by JTF-CS begins and ends with the Executive Branch and the President in his role as leader of the “unitary executive branch” and Commander-in-Chief.
As former FBI whistleblower and senior ACLU national policy counsel Mike German states, “This is a radical departure from separation of civilian law enforcement and military authority, and could, quite possibly, represent a violation of law”

To facilitate an open and public assessment of recent “homeland” military deployments, the ACLU demanded that the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Defense “immediately make public all legal opinions, executive orders, presidential directives, memos, policy guidance, and other documents that authorize the deployment of military troops for domestic purposes”

Such a demand arises precisely because of the unprecedented expansion of the U.S.
national security-surveillance complex since the 9/11 attacks As the civil liberties’ group pointedly reminds us,

[T]he Department of Defense has dramatically expanded its role in domestic law enforcement and intelligence operations, including the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping programs, the Department of Homeland Security’s use of military spy satellites, and the participation of military personnel in state and local intelligence fusion centers.
The ACLU has repeatedly expressed concern about these incremental encroachments of the military into domestic affairs, and the assignment of active duty troops to Northern Command only heightens these concerns

Unfortunately, some, if not most members of Congress, rather than defending the rights of the American people would rather re-write Posse Comitatus to reflect the needs of an “Executive Branch gone wild” As David Swanson reported on AfterDowningStreet. org, Senator John Warner wrote a constituent who had expressed alarm over the 1st BCT’s attachment to NORTHCOM Swanson commented,

This, like other changes imposed by President Bush, of course violates the Posse Comitatus Act. It also served to strengthen the threats of martial law that Congressman Brad Sherman reported the White House making to Congress members in order to win their support for the $780 billion give-away to Wall Street.
(David Swanson, “Sen Warner Supports Domestic Use of Military, AfterDowningStreet. org, October 21, 2008)

Claiming he is “deeply concerned that the Department of Defense and the President may not have authority to use active duty personnel in the most effective manner,” Warner writes,

I believe we must review the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act and similar provisions that limit the role of the active duty military to ensure that every available asset is properly employed in any type of future emergency situation. Title 18, Section 1385 of the U.S. Code, commonly referred to as the Posse Comitatus Act, prevents the armed forces from becoming involved in law enforcement activities for which, in most cases, they are not specifically trained or equipped.
Posse Comitatus is largely rooted in historical tradition that prohibits military involvement in civilian affairs

To be clear, I do not believe that U.S. law pertaining to this matter needs to be entirely rewritten.
I do, however, think it is necessary that we review the regulations governing use of military personnel in domestic operations in order to better understand how all of our military assets can best assist during emergency situations

Attentive readers will recall that “The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007,” included a section that permitted the President to deploy the armed forces to “restore public order” or to “suppress any insurrection.
” As Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman reported earlier this month, “while a later bill repealed this, President Bush attached a signing statement that he did not feel bound by the repeal”

The ACLU’s concerns are fully warranted and demand an impartial evaluation of the dangerous implications for democracy, particularly in light of the current capitalist economic crisis.
As the historic meltdown deepens, social tensions–and struggles–will inevitably intensify As researcher and analyst Michel Chossudovsky wrote,

Civil unrest resulting from the financial meltdown is a distinct possibility, given the broad impacts of financial collapse on lifelong savings, pension funds, homeownership, etc

The timing of this planned militarization is crucial: how will it affect the presidential elections scheduled for Tuesday November 4

The brigade in its domestic homeland activities will be designated as the Consequence Management Response Force (CCMRF)

What “Consequences” are being envisaged? (”Pre-election Militarization of the North American Homeland US Combat Troops in Iraq repatriated to ‘help with civil unrest’,” Global Research, September 26, 2008)

While the state justifies this deployment as a response to “terrorist threats,” what other scenarios are being contemplated?

With daily reports of voter suppression drives by the Republican Party in multiple “battleground” states hitting the corporate media, and a major exposé of these antidemocratic operations by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and Greg Palast published in Rolling Stone, Washington’s plans for the use of military force at home is a dagger aimed directly at the American people–and what remains of a democratic republic–by a thuggish and bankrupt ruling elite






Matthew Rothschild (part of the Rothschild Illuminati) tells gatekeeper Amy Goodman of Democracy Now that over 23,000 Business Leaders Working With FBI and Homeland Security had formed INFRAGARD given the power to SHOOT TO KILL ANY OF YOU when riots break out in USA


****************************
Police prepare for unrest
****************************

By Alexander Bolton
10/21/08 07:58 PM [ET]

http://thehill. com/leading-the-news/police-prepare-for-unrest-2008...

Police departments in cities across the country are beefing up their ranks for Election Day, preparing for possible civil unrest and riots after the historic presidential contest

Public safety officials said in interviews with The Hill that the election, which will end with either the nation’s first black president or its first female vice president, demanded a stronger police presence

Some worry that if Barack Obama loses and there is suspicion of foul play in the election, violence could ensue in cities with large black populations.
Others based the need for enhanced patrols on past riots in urban areas (following professional sports events) and also on Internet rumors

Democratic strategists and advocates for black voters say they understand officers wanting to keep the peace, but caution that excessive police presence could intimidate voters

Sen. Obama (Ill.), the Democratic nominee for president, has seen his lead over rival Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.
) grow in recent weeks, prompting speculation that there could be a violent backlash if he loses unexpectedly

Cities that have suffered unrest before, such as Detroit, Chicago, Oakland and Philadelphia, will have extra police deployed

In Oakland, the police will deploy extra units trained in riot control, as well as extra traffic police, and even put SWAT teams on standby

“Are we anticipating it will be a riot situation? No.
But will we be prepared if it goes awry? Yes,” said Jeff Thomason, spokesman for the Oakland Police Department

“I think it is a big deal — you got an African-American running and [a] woman running,” he added, in reference to Obama and GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. “Whoever wins it, it will be a national event.
We will have more officers on the street in anticipation that things may go south”

The Oakland police last faced big riots in 2003 when the Raiders lost to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the Super Bowl.
Officials are bracing themselves in case residents of Oakland take Obama’s loss badly

Political observers such as Hilary Shelton and James Carville fear that record voter turnout could overload polling places on Election Day and could raise tension levels

Shelton, the director of the NAACP’s Washington bureau, said inadequate voting facilities is a bigger problem in poor communities with large numbers of minorities

“What are local election officials doing to prepare for what people think will be record turnout at the polls?” said Shelton, who added that during the 2004 election in Ohio voters in predominantly black communities had to wait in line six to eight hours to vote

“On Election Day, if this continues, you may have some tempers flare; we should be prepared to deal with that but do it without intimidation,” said Shelton, who added that police have to be able to maintain order at polling stations without scaring voters, especially immigrants from “police states”

“Either party will make history and we want to prepare for celebrations that will be on a larger scale than for our sports teams,” Tate said

He noted that police had to control rioters who overturned cars after the Tigers won the 1984 World Series

“We’re prepared for the best-case scenario, we’re prepared for the worst-case scenario,” he said.
“The worst-case scenario could be a situation that requires law enforcement”

But Tate declined to describe what the worst-case scenario might look like, speaking gingerly like other police officials who are wary of implying that black voters are more likely than other voting groups to cause trouble.