Everyone who reads this blog knows that I’ve consistently supported the Bush administration’s Iraq policy. Tonight, however, I heard a profoundly disturbing report. NBC has obtained documents showing that the military has been collecting information on the identities and activities of anti-war protestors. While I strongly disagree with the protestors, it’s their right as American citizens to express, in a non-violent fashion, their disagreement with the administration’s policies. This is all-too reminiscent of the FBI’s activities during the Vietnam era. Then, at least, there was concern about Communist infiltration of the anti-war movement. No such excuse exists today. The military’s action is beyond the pale.
HERE’S THE LINK TO DoD’S ANTI-WAR PROTEST DATABASE. My thanks to Dan Lucas for providing it.
Please read the comments for a fuller explanation of my point of view. There’s another debate going on at protein wisdom.
UPDATE
From MSNBC:
- A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn’t know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.
- A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat†and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents†across the country over a recent 10-month period.
- [ . . . ] The Defense Department document is the first inside look at how the U.S. military has stepped up intelligence collection inside this country since 9/11, which now includes the monitoring of peaceful anti-war and counter-military recruitment groups.
- [ . . . ] [A] Fort Lauderdale protest was deemed not to be a credible threat and a column in the database concludes: “US group exercising constitutional rights.†Two-hundred and forty-three other incidents in the database were discounted because they had no connection to the Department of Defense — yet they all remained in the database.
- [ . . . ] The military’s penchant for collecting domestic intelligence is disturbing — but familiar — to Christopher Pyle, a former Army intelligence officer . . . During the Vietnam War, Pyle blew the whistle on the Defense Department for monitoring and infiltrating anti-war and civil rights protests when he published an article in the Washington Monthly in January 1970.
- The public was outraged and a lengthy congressional investigation followed that revealed that the military had conducted investigations on at least 100,000 American citizens. Pyle got more than 100 military agents to testify that they had been ordered to spy on U.S. citizens — many of them anti-war protestors and civil rights advocates. In the wake of the investigations, Pyle helped Congress write a law placing new limits on military spying inside the U.S.
- “The military has the right to protect its installations, and to protect its recruiting services,†says Pyle. “It does not have the right to maintain extensive files on lawful protests of their recruiting activities, or of their base activities,†he argues.
Marc: To even a casual observer the extent to which the “anti-War” movement has made common cause with the Islamic Facists is rather obvious.
David Horowitz has even written a book about the concept
And was it you that directed us to Hitchen’s observation that the Anti-War types were in fact pro-war, but favor the other side?
A closer examination of these links might show some interesting things.
In the 80’s at a base I was stationed at, Anti-War types even tried to directly interfere with missile test launches. Some used links to people who worked on base to obtain false security clearance ID’s.
I guess I show my military experience – or simply the associated attiitudes – whien I say that keeping tabs on these people just makes sense.
Here is the link I believe you are looking for:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/DODAntiWarProtestDatabaseTracker.pdf
Wayne,
I understand where you’re coming from, and I’m willing to concede that some of the protestors may be in league with the Islamofascists. However, the NBC report indicates that the military is casting too wide a net. The example NBC gave (with documentation) was of a group of people who met at a Quaker meeting house that somehow found its way onto the military’s list.
What matters is identifying those who are making common cause with the Islamofascists. Whether or not such people participate in anti-war demonstrations is besides the point—it’s what they’re doing outside of camera range that we need to know. Finally, the camera can’t distinquish between those that are and those that are not in league with the enemy.
Protestors with anti-war signs are one thing, protestors who try to interfere with missile test launches are quite another. The latter are potentially a threat to our national security; the former are not. If history is any guide, continuation of this kind of surveillance will cause a growing number of people to turn against the military and, with that, against the Iraq war. That would be disastrous for our country, as I’m sure you would agree.
Protection of peaceful dissent is one of the things our troops are risking their lives for in Iraq.
Marc,
To echo Wayne, anti-war advocates do try to affect military operations, especially given the perception is reality of this asymmetrical mode of warfare we’re engaged in. Some relevant examples:
—Remember the human shields imported to Iraq before the war? Luckily most left before the shooting started but they were a variable the administration didn’t need.
—With the state of worldwide communications these days, what’s preventing an anti-war group to post themselves outside a USAF bomber base and phoning, oh, let’s say, friends in Iran that some B-2’s just took off?
—There’s been a lot of ink spelt in the European press regarding that Belgian female convert that recently blew herself up in Iraq. Could you imagine the fieldday the MSM will have if an American does this? Where would I go if I wanted to recruit a self-styled American martyr for this propaganda coup?
—How about the members of that anti-war group recently kidnapped in Iraq, and who may or may not be dead? What type of links did they have with the insurgency, if any? What resources was expended by the DOD to locate and rescue them, and how many servicemen would have been put at risk if this happened?
It seems to me that the anti-war movement is determined to be an active player in this conflict. I agree with Wayne that an effort should be made to properly identify and track their activities. The US military, afterall, deals in contingencies, and we’ve already seen how the DOD in regards to Able Danger was ahead of the curve regarding Islamic terrorism.
Exactly how much of an effort is debatable but to ignore the anti-war movement seems imprudent to me. Whether the DOD should be doing this, opposed to the FBI, is another issue. Nothing should be done to limit their freedom of expression, but I note that our law enforcement agencies keep tabs on US militia and neo-Nazi groups without infringing on their freedom of speech, of assembly, and their right to bear arms. We should at least use the same standard to the anti-war movement, despite all their flowery rehtoric and stated intentions.
It may be impossible in this day and age to differentiate dissent and aiding the enemy but we can’t ignore that this is an issue.
Marc,
I started drafting my comment when Wayne’s post was the only one up. I think you may be overreacting. I took a look at the MSNBC documentation. It seems to me that the DOD is itemizing their interaction with anti-war and anti-recruitment activists. Won’t the head of manpower at the Pentagon want to know which recruiting stations is getting harassed? From the incident summary, it seems that the anti-war movement is keep tabs on the military, not the other way around.
I’m afraid that the real story here is media sensationalism, a la 10,000 dead in Katrina. That said, I still stand by my previous post.
Tom,
I agree that more needs to be known. If it’s simply a matter of the Pentagon knowing which recruiting stations are being harassed, that’s understandable and acceptable. If this is so, then I plead guilty to making a mountain out of a mole hill. But what if DoD is identifying the individuals in each of the protests and entering their names in a database? Then it’s no mole hill.
The risks you’ve itemized in your lengthy comment are real. However, they have to be weighed against the risks associated with a DoD program—if it includes the entry of individuals’ names in a database—which, when Seymour Hersh (or someone like him) writes about it, would cause a firestorm. Accusations of spying on innocent Americans would fly about, as would the word cover-up. That. I believe, is a greater risk, as it would, in my opinion, virtually guarantee a premature withdrawal from Iraq and a replay of the 1970’s widespread disenchantment with the military. Neither you nor I want that to happen.
What? All the communists evaporated and went away?
North Korea and Cuba don’t quite measure up to the Soviet Union. There are still communists, but their homes are in the world’s slum section.
Marc,
I agree with where you’re coming from. In the spirit of Posse Comitatus, the DOD should concentrate on external threats. I don’t even like the idea of them patrol our border with Mexico.
But as a practical matter, I don’t see anything sinister with the DOD giving their recruiters information they need to do their jobs. Imagine if I just posted at a recruitment office, I would like to know if there’s a dedicated group looking to harass my activities. I would like the DOD to tell me what to expect, what tactics they employ, who they are, do they have supporters on the school board, etc. I noted that some of the entry found in the MSNBC link refers to violence against recruiters. That said, any further need for investigation should be handled by law enforcement.
What I do note is the MSM take on the issue, especially their evocation of Vietnam. It smacks of the anti-military attitude and Vietnam fetish of the MSM. I don’t think this story has any legs. Maybe MSNBC should hire Mary Maples to investigate. I hear she got a lot of free time on her hands.
“I understand where you’re coming from, and I’m willing to concede that some of the protestors may be in league with the Islamofascists.”
That’s something that can only be determined by…well, by tracking who they are.
Remember, if you can, how much of the VietNam protests were found to be financed and organized by the various Soviet organs.
” However, the NBC report indicates that the military is casting too wide a net.
First step is to cast a wide net, they narow it down. (See: Able Danger)
“The example NBC gave (with documentation) was of a group of people who met at a Quaker meeting house that somehow found its way onto the military’s list.”
Yeah..no one outside Hollywood ever said intelligence gathering is 100% accurate. You test, then if nothing shows, you move on to other leads. Basic police work.
In addition to actual threats I would also like to know who the wind bags are, i.e. not real threat beyond spittle range. When confronting the group at the front gate, are the protesters getting their media time or are they actually trying to block access? In the first cse I simply divert traffic to an unused gate while in the other in addition to a security detail I may need a working party to remove barriers. Are the protestors peaceful or do they spit and throw body fluids? Are they out to get arrested? Do they carry hypodermic needles in their pockets? Does the group of otherwise peaceful protestors include anyone with arrests for violent protest? If arrests are for non-violent protest can I expect the protestors to act within certain rules? How much property dammage can I expect? Does the group have a history of charging armed personnel?
Are you starting to get the idea?
In order to properly calibrate my response to provication I need to know what and who I am dealing with.
Marc:
The protestors who showed up at Vandenberg were Quakers – or at least claimed to be.
To both echo and summarize other’s comments:
“Know your enemy” is a neccessity.
Knowing who is your enemy is a vital part of that.
Who leaked the report and how did that individual get cleared to have access or work on ‘intelligence projects?’ Those, to me, are the primary issues – we can’t have intelligence organizations, military or civilian, which are forbidden to investigate because the information may be leaked and/or be used for unethical/political purposes – as the latter is probably the case in this issue.
No wonder the CIA’s fighting tooth-and-nail to protect the organization, they apparently are the only ones qualified, having both basic and advanced multicultural sensitivity training, amongst our various intelligence communities. While we’re at it, we should rename the whole ’upsetting misunderstanding’ of 9-11 the, ‘Warm-Fuzzy on Terror.’
To judge where we stand to date, without a Congressional mandate(which now sure isn’t going to happen) of a declaration of war, we’ve sure no hope of successfully fulfilling the objectives…with everyone’s sensibilities already riled.
So let me get this straight, if a Democratic administration was conducting a war, say in the Balkans, and many on the right were vehemently opposed, you would all think it completely acceptable for the DOD to conduct such operation against them?
Eric,
That is an insulting question. While most of the military is more conservative, we take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not any political belief. When I am watching the gate on my base, I genuinely don’t care about the internal political dialogue of the idiot threatening my post…I want to know if they are going to cause harm. Since I don’t have magical powers to determine the lucidity, hostility, and capacity of everyone who comes up, I have to rely on the intelligence that is provided to me.
The only protection I have when I stand unarmed gate guard here in the states is the intelligence efforts of the DoD. I do not care about any label someone appends to their political organization, I care about the likelihood that they are going to violate the security of the base. I don’t care if they got a Quaker or a Baptist hall to sponsor their activities, I want to know if they are going to stand around making faces or if they are going to get busy or if they are going to blow me up.
"Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?"
"Secret database obtained by NBC News tracks ‘suspicious’ domestic groups":A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. W…
[...] This post is a follow-up to “This Goes To Far.” [...]
‘“The military has the right to protect its installations, and to protect its recruiting services,†says Pyle. “It does not have the right to maintain extensive files on lawful protests of their recruiting activities, or of their base activities,†he argues.’
I’m searching my mind trying to find a reason that there is something wrong with this. Why does the military not have the right to do this? What law is it based upon?
I’m serious. The military doesn’t have the right to arrest and detain US citizens within the US, but to keep a database of information about potential troublemakers?
It seems to me much ado about nothing. And to answer the one questioner who wrote: ‘So let me get this straight, if a Democratic administration was conducting a war, say in the Balkans, and many on the right were vehemently opposed, you would all think it completely acceptable for the DOD to conduct such operation against them?’
I could care less. Keep all the information you want on me. So long as I am obeying the law, you can’t do anything to me. Hell, track me all my life. Ho hum.
If you seriously think this is a problem, for God’s sake, type your name into Google. Go to some of the sites that carry information about you based upon your phone number.
1. For the radical islamists and the enemys ,of the the United States ,
the anti war activists are “useful idiots.”
2. Unfortunately many of the anti-war activists in fact are communists.
Their opposition to the war is based on the basic ideaology set forth
in the communist manifesto .
1. For the radical islamists and the enemys ,of the the United States ,
the anti war activists are “useful idiots.”
2. Unfortunately many of the anti-war activists in fact are communists.
Their opposition to the war is based on the basic ideaology set forth
in the communist manifesto .
3. Most of those on the extreme far fight are facists.
4. Most of those on the extreme far left are in fact communists.
5. Very few remain in the political center to represent main street
america.
6. More then 50 % of the american people are apathetic, stupid, and ignorant
sheep. They are sheeple not people, who may at any time run off the clift
with the herd to their own distruction ..