FC: More on military apparently videotaping protesters in DC

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Wed Oct 09 2002 - 22:26:45 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Why fathers of PC revolution are wary of digital rights management"

    Previous Politech message:
    http://www.politechbot.com/p-04056.html
    
    ---
    
    From: "mobiustripat_private" <mobiustripat_private>
    To: declanat_private
    Subject: Re: Military apparently videotapes DC protesters; PosseComitatus
    Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:22:06 -0400
    
    i agree, but i was in farragut sq that saturday and soon after outside the
    worldbank, and i saw the military standing side by side w/the metrocops.
    
    ---
    
    From: "Bill Hanson" <hansonweat_private>
    To: <declanat_private>
    Subject: RE: Military apparently videotapes DC protesters; Posse Comitatus
    Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 05:30:02 -0500
    
    Declan,
    I was unable to tell from the pictures (too blurry to fix out the unit
    insignia), but from the context it's likely that those shown are members of
    the National Guard.  The National Guard works for the governor of the state
    unless they are federalized.   While working with the state, posse comitatus
    doesn't apply, as they are under Title 32, USC instead of Title 10, which
    governs the active duty military.
    Bill H
    
    ---
    
    Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:38:22 -0400 (EDT)
    From: "J.D. Abolins" <jda-irat_private>
    To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>
    Subject: Re: FC: Military apparently videotapes DC protesters; Posse Comitatus
    In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20021009000617.01e3a628at_private>
    
    Off-the-cuff FWIW speculations about the "odd" reduncy of military
    surveillance of the DC protesters:
    
    1. Practice for future possibilities of dealing with urban environments
    where protesting civilians may be expected. Having rpactice intelligence
    collection in the States may be seen as preparation for various Operations
    Other Than War.
    
    2. Concerns that some of the protestors ("troublemakers") will become
    people of concern to the US DoD somewhere along the line. Getting to know
    who they are for future reference.
    
    Just speculations, no evidence on hand.
    
    For something more solid on the issue of the military and domestic
    operations, the October 2002 issue of the US Naval Institutes
    "Proceedings" carried an op-ed piece "Broaden Armed Forces' Roles at Home
    and Abroad" by Captain James F. Kelly Jr., USN (Ret.)
    
    Kelly argues strongly for great powers to use the military in USA domestic
    law enforcement and anti-terrorism operations. Among his arguments is that
    US police department already are modeled after military units and that
    regular military personnel, unlike National Guard members or the local
    police, do not live in the area where they will operation. That lessens
    the worries about civilian response to the operation resulting in off-duty
    repercussions for the enforcers. <!!!>
    
    Although he doesn't expand on the second argument, it is a chilling echo
    of the practice by the USSR and others to use troops from distant regions
    to enforce harsh measures. Such troops would not have to live with the
    consequences when they go home, they lack relational ties with the people
    they might have to handle roughly, and they'd have regional and ethnic
    prejudices that lessen empathy for the civilians. The last is not as
    strong of a factor for USA situations but it can still play a role via
    cultural differences as dealing, say, urban operations.
    
    Kelly seemed to have distorted several things in his piece. He totally
    neglects history of why Britain and, by extension, the USA developed a
    civilian police force with strong disticntions form the military.
    
    Also he claims that military doing domestic policing is fine because
    soldiers swear to defend the *nation* from all enemies foreign and
    domestic. It This is a major distortion for a military person. The
    oath one
    swears upon enlistment is to defend the Constitution not the nation or its
    people. It goes:
    
    "I, ___________________________________, do solemly swear (or affirm) that
    I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against
    all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
    allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President
    of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed overme,
    according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help
    me God."
    
    Ref. http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/blenlistmentoath.htm
    
    Alas, Kelly's piece is not online at the USNI.org site. I'll snail mail
    you a paper copy.
    
    J.D. Abolins
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
    Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q=declan
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Oct 10 2002 - 00:34:59 PDT