Strategic Shock

[Jag]

Strategic Shock - Report Warns Unexpected Crisis Could Lead To Massive Unrest

The United States could be sleep-walking into its next crisis, a military report said.

The report by the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Institute, said that a defense community paralyzed by conventional thinking could be unprepared to help the United States cope with a series of unexpected crises that would rival the Al Qaida strikes in 2001, termed a “strategic shock.”

The report cited the prospect of the collapse of a nuclear state leading to massive unrest in the United States.

“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, said.

“Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock.”

Titled “Known Unknowns: Unconventional Strategic Shocks in Defense Strategy Development,” the report warned that the U.S. military and intelligence community remain mired in the past as well as the need to accommodate government policy. Freier, a former Pentagon official, said that despite the Al Qaida surprise in 2001 U.S. defense strategy and planning remain trapped by “excessive convention.”

“The current administration confronted a game-changing ’strategic shock’ inside its first eight months in office,” the report said. “The next administration would be well-advised to expect the same during the course of its first term. Indeed, the odds are very high against any of the challenges routinely at the top of the traditional defense agenda triggering the next watershed inside DoD [Department of Defense].”

The report cited the collapse of what Freier termed “a large capable state that results in a nuclear civil war.” Such a prospect could lead to uncontrolled weapons of mass destruction proliferation as well as a nuclear war.

The report cited the prospect of a breakdown of order in the United States. Freier said the Pentagon could be suddenly forced to recall troops from abroad to fight domestic unrest.

“An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home,” the report said.

The report said the United States could also come under pressure from a hostile state with control over insurgency groups. The hostile state could force American decision-makers into a desperate response.

World Tribune

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/u...rategic-shock/

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute....Cfm?pubID=890

Move this Ryan if this isn't where it belongs or if its already been posted...

Jag

Jag

[Jag]

and this from...http://www.********.net/articles/dec...1208Unrest.htm


Army 'Strategic Shock' Report Says Troops May Be Needed To Quell U.S. Civil Unrest
"Purposeful domestic resistance" would require military to "rapidly determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force inside the United States."
Steve Watson & Paul Watson
********.net
Tuesday, Dec 16, 2008

A recent report produced by the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Institute warns that the United States may experience massive civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises which it has termed "strategic shock."

The report, titled Known Unknowns: Unconventional Strategic Shocks in Defense Strategy Development, also suggests that the military may have to be used to quell domestic disorder.

"Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security," the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, reads.

"Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock." it continues.
"An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home..."
"Already predisposed to defer to the primacy of civilian authorities in instances of domestic security and divest all but the most extreme demands in areas like civil support and consequence management, DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States." Lt. Col. Freir concludes.

See Pages 31-32 (PDF) for quoted sections.

Freir is a Senior Fellow in the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He joined the think tank in April 2008 after retiring from the U.S. Army after 20 years as a lieutenant colonel. In his role at CSIS he rubs shoulders with a whole host of globalist luminaries including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and Richard Armitage.
Echoing recent comments made by Pentagon advisors, along with other notable figures such as Colin Powell and Joe Biden, Freir also warns that the incoming Obama administration should prepare for a "first term crisis" that could act as a catalyst for such unrest.

"The current administration confronted a game-changing 'strategic shock' inside its first eight months in office," the report reads. "The next administration would be well-advised to expect the same during the course of its first term. Indeed, the odds are very high against any of the challenges routinely at the top of the traditional defense agenda triggering the next watershed inside DoD [Department of Defense]."

We have recently highlighted plans to station thousands more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic security” from September 2011, an expansion of Northcom’s militarization of the country in preparation for potential civil unrest following a total economic collapse or a mass terror attack.
“The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials,” reported the Washington Post last month.

In a September 8 Army Times article, Northcom announced that the first wave of the troop deployment, which was put in place on October 1st at Fort Stewart and at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, would be aimed at tackling “civil unrest and crowd control”. After a controversy arose surrounding the admissions made in the Army Times article, Northcom retracted the claim but conceded that both lethal and non-lethal weaponry traditionally used in crowd control and riot situations would still be used in the field.

The increasing militarization of America is part of a long term agenda to abolish Constitutional rule and establish a "military form of government," following a large scale terror attack or similar disaster, as Tommy Franks, the former commander of the military’s Central Command, alluded to in a November 2003 Cigar Aficionado piece.
Franks outlined the scenario by which martial law would be put in place, saying, “It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”
In the short term, the domestic deployment of troops is likely aimed at combating likely civil unrest that will ensue after a complete economic collapse followed by a devastating period of hyperinflation.
This warning was again echoed a few days ago in a leaked internal memo from Citibank.
"The world is not going back to normal after the magnitude of what they have done. When the dust settles this will either work, and the money they have pushed into the system will feed through into an inflation shock," wrote Tom Fitzpatrick, Citibank’s chief technical strategist.
The memo predicts "depression, civil disorder and possibly wars" as a fallout from an economic collapse that many say is on the horizon.
Naturally, the claim that such troop deployments are merely to aid in disaster relief efforts is a thin veil aimed at distracting from the real goal. Should a real tragedy occur, volunteers and already existing civil aid organizations are fully capable of dealing with such events, as we witnessed on 9/11.
The military are primarily trained to kill people and break things, and their role during the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts was mainly focused on detaining people in sports stadiums, shooting alleged looters and seizing guns from wealthy home owners in the high and dry areas, while real recovery measures were left to volunteers and local state authorities.
The open admission that U.S. troops will be involved in law enforcement operations as well as potentially using non-lethal weapons against American citizens is a complete violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act, which substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement unless under precise and extreme circumstances.
Section 1385 of the Posse Comitatus Act states, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
Under the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, the law was changed to state, "The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws."
However, these changes were repealed in their entirety by HR 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, reverting back to the original state of the Insurrection Act of 1807. Despite this repeal, President Bush attached a signing statement saying that he did not feel bound by the repeal. It remains to be seen whether President elect Obama will reverse Bush's signing statement.
The original text of the Insurrection Act severely limits the power of the President to deploy troops within the United States.
For troops to be deployed, a condition has to exist that, "(1) So hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution."
Is the incoming Obama administration and Northcom waiting for such a scenario to unfold, an event that completely overwhelms state authorities, before unleashing the might of the U.S. Army against the American people?
[Ret.] Lt. Col. Freir's Known Unknowns report addresses this specifically, stating:

"A whole host of long-standing defense conventions would be severely tested. Under these conditions and at their most violent extreme, civilian authorities, on advice of the defense establishment, would need to rapidly determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force inside the United States. Further still, the whole concept of conflict termination and/or transition to the primacy of civilian security institutions would be uncharted ground. DoD is already challenged by stabilization abroad. Imagine the challenges associated with doing so on a massive scale at home."

The deployment of National Guard troops to aid law enforcement or for disaster relief purposes is legal under the authority of the governor of a state, but using active duty U.S. Army in law enforcement operations inside America absent the conditions described in the Insurrection Act is completely illegal.
The political left and right need to join forces and denounce this plan for what it is - another unconstitutional step towards the incremental implementation of martial law and the militarization of America.

There's also an article on http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/
It's everywhere....
Jag

[Ryan Ruck]

Some of us have been warning about prepping for the very high possibility of civil unrest for a while, especially those of us who have "been there, done that" (Cincinnati 2001). I know many urban centers are powder kegs waiting to go up. The successful election of Obama combined with a very prevalent entitlement mentality is a very dangerous combination. Augusta, GA is dealing with this right now over the police shooting death of some drug dealing, car stealing scumbag.

[American Patriot]

As I said some time back... "Life as we know it is about to change...."

[American Patriot]

By the way, speaking of this... Athens, Greece is under siege as we speak.

There are riots and violence right now.

[Ryan Ruck]

By the way, speaking of this... Athens, Greece is under siege as we speak.

There are riots and violence right now.

Yep, and not just Greece...

http://www.transasianaxis.com/vb/showthread.php?t=5616

[vector7]

Communist-Inspired

[vector7]

San Francisco Mall Trashed by Greek Protestors

Elizabeth Fernandez, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, December 21, 2008

(12-20) 22:32 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- A band of demonstrators, many wearing black masks, stormed a bustling San Francisco mall Saturday evening, upending garbage cans and foliage and damaging crystal merchandise at one kiosk.

An estimated 50 to 75 people were involved in the disruption at Westfield San Francisco Centre, police said.

"It felt like random, vague anarchy," said Sam Cantrell, who sells sunglasses at a kiosk near the escalators on the street level where the protesters gathered.

"Everyone's yelling," he said. "Some people started running up the escalator the wrong way. People were grabbing their babies and running away in fear."

The disruption began around 6:30 p.m. as holiday shoppers crowded the mall on the last Saturday before Christmas.

Some protesters threw food, police said. Others tried to toss a large planter onto the food court below.

According to mall management, the protesters were part of a "Solidarity with Greek Uprising" demonstration, which began in the Mission District earlier in the afternoon. An international day of action was called on Saturday to protest the death of a young man in Greece in early December.

"Although people have the right to their opinions, disruptive and destructive behavior on our property is not tolerated," said mall management in a statement.

By 7:45 p.m., the area was cleaned up.

"They made a mess," said Monica Yuen, owner of San Francisco Glass Works, a kiosk selling delicate imported crystal earrings, bracelets and other jewelry. She was trying to assess the damage to her wares.

"I had a lot of jewelry on the top shelves that got smashed," she said. "They threw a big sign at it. I think some of it was stolen. I was crying and shaking."

A police source said five or six protesters were arrested for misdemeanor vandalism.

E-mail Elizabeth Fernandez at efernandez@sfchronicle.com.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BAV714SA8V.DTL

[American Patriot]

They actually arrested them? How quaint....

[Ryan Ruck]

[American Patriot]

LOL.

You know, this thread brings up the Mumbai attacks.

You guys REALIZE that was dry run with wet work don't you?

No one seems to be putting together the puzzle pieces, quite yet.

I think it was a "dry run" to see how far a group could get.

Imagine that a group like that hit a city in the US.

Pick one. Any city. Who are they going to come against? Law Enforcement? Or civilians armed with guns?

Both?

Trained terrorists, in say, San Fran or some other city that doesn't ALLOW guns.

Now... multiply that by 10 groups, or 20 groups and spread them around.

[vector7]

Teams from Obama and Bush Regimes Will Run Joint Terrorism Drill in January

December 23rd, 2008 Via: USA Today:

What would happen if terrorists attacked the United States at the start of Barack Obama’s presidency?

The Bush administration doesn’t want to wait to find out. It’s planning to test the incoming government’s readiness next month in a series of tabletop exercises involving top Bush and Obama officials.
Concerned about the first handoff of presidential power since Sept. 11, 2001, the White House also is preparing briefing books and office manuals designed to bring the incoming Obama administration up to speed in a hurry.

“This is the first wartime transition in 40 years, and it’s probably the first transition in a couple of centuries in which our homeland itself has been under threat,” says White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten, who’s supervising the effort. The goal is to “make sure that those who are coming in are as well prepared as they can be to deal with an actual threat here in this country.”

Although Obama’s emerging team includes many former Clinton administration officials and members of Congress, most have not served in the executive branch since the Department of Homeland Security was created. That makes it critically important that they quickly understand the federal government’s terrorism-response capabilities.
White House officials have not said what specific scenarios will be played out in next month’s exercises. One overriding concern since 2001 has been the possibility that Washington comes under attack. In that case, plans would need to be in place for the replacement of key government officials.

“They would be smart to be thinking about these things,” says John Fortier, executive director of the Continuity of Government Commission, created by Congress in 2002 to help plan for terrorist attack aftermaths. “You face a lot of perverse scenarios.”
Norman Ornstein, a presidential and congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who has participated in similar tabletop exercises, says the Bush administration’s preparation efforts are “fabulous.”
“No president coming in in the past has had a ready-made crisis management process in place,” Ornstein says.
The briefings and test-runs on domestic terrorist attacks are just part of a broad White House effort to make this the smoothest transition of power in history.

“This … isn’t about good manners,” Bolten says. “It’s about preparing the next administration to deal with the challenges that the country faces. It’s about our responsibility to the public more than it is about our responsibility to each other.”
Over the past month, federal agencies have hosted scores of meetings with members of Obama’s transition team and prepared reams of documents — manuals for key White House offices, briefing books for key federal agencies and issue briefs on pending policy matters ranging from the threat of pandemic flu to relations with North Korea.
“This is not intended as the administration’s attempt to dictate what the next administration does,” Bolten says. “It’s intended completely in the spirit of, ‘Here’s what we know, you take it from here.’ ”

That passing of the torch began at the top the week after Election Day, when President Bush hosted Obama in the Oval Office.
Neither the 43rd nor the incoming 44th president has revealed much about that private talk or any phone conversations they have had since then.
“I was impressed by the questions he asked,” Bush said last week. “And I told him I wouldn’t reveal them, so that if he ever asked for my advice again, he would feel comfortable doing it.”
Bolten says that Bush and Obama “have already established a good relationship of candor.”

Similar relationships are forming between outgoing and incoming officials. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, for instance, has met and dined with Obama’s choice for the job, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Perhaps the most robust transition was organized by Bolten for his successor, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. Earlier this month, Bolten invited the 16 living former White House chiefs of staff to breakfast at the White House “to meet the newest member of the club and provide some counsel.” Thirteen showed up, including two who date to the Ford administration — Vice President Cheney and his mentor, former secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

“I’m glad that Rahm had the benefit of so much wisdom around the table,” Bolten says. “Everybody around that table was pulling for the next administration and specifically wishing Rahm well, and explicitly making themselves available to him.”

[American Patriot]

Perhaps a bunch of Liberals will finally understand what Conservatism really means around a terror analysis table, huh?

[Ryan Ruck]

Doubtful...

[eversman]

Liberals, are idiots, prima donnas, and completely self-centered. never trust them with anything important, most especially anything relating to national security or your personal safety.


ev

[vector7]

Should the Military Be Called in for Natural Disasters?

By Siobhan Morrisey / Miami
Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2008


Friends and family waive flags to greet soldiers during a homecoming ceremony at Fort Stewart, Georgia.
Stephen Morton / Getty

Theoretically, even pacificists would probably admit that no one can respond as quickly and efficiently to a major U.S. disaster as the military. But the news that active duty soldiers fresh from a combat tour of Iraq will be gearing up to assist civilian agencies charged with responding to anything from accidental chemical spills to terrorist attacks has sparked mixed reactions from experts in emergency management and civil liberties advocates. (Read "Why Disasters Are Getting Worse")

By 2011 the Department of Defense plans to have 20,000 uniformed troops expressly trained to assist in national disaster rapid response at a moment's notice. Since Oct. 1, some 4,700 soldiers belonging to a brigade combat team out of Fort Stewart, Ga., have already been engaged in the new assignment, according to Air Force Lt. Col. Almarah Belk, a spokeswoman at the Secretary of Defense's office. The $556 million, five-year training program is part of a broader, $2.3 billion FEMA project to have civilian authorities in states such as Massachusetts, South Carolina and Washington work with the military to develop response plans to a range of potential disasters, from a hurricane and earthquake to a terrorist attack and a pandemic flu.

Skeptics of the military mission at home question whether this signals a "creeping militarism" into our civilian culture and the erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old law that specifically bars the President from using the military for law enforcement in the United States.

"The founding fathers had a fear of standing armies," says Stephen Dycus, who teaches national security law at Vermont Law School and co-authored a book on the subject, National Security Law. "Posse Comitatus is one expression of that. We've always had a problem of having the military involved in civil affairs. On the other hand, if we got in a bind, such as a plague released in Chicago, the only way to get out is to have the military involved. They've got the personnel, the training and the experience in use of force that other parts of the government don't have."

The Pentagon insists Posse Comitatus is not going to be an issue because the 20,000 troops will play no role in actual law enforcement. "The first point to make, our department understands and respects the concerns that have been voiced — even under circumstances where some of the concerns are not well based in fact," says Paul McHale, the outgoing assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, who vows transparency about the mission. McHale says he met with the American Civil Liberties Union a few weeks ago to give assurances that the proposals will not infringe on the basic rights of civilians. "We believe that when there is a serious review of what we are doing, that what we are doing is appropriate and noteworthy in terms of enhanced security without any threat to civil liberties."

Proponents of the program say it makes a lot of sense to give troops specific training for how to deal with disaster response, because inexperienced troops have often been called upon to help out by sending in much-needed supplies. "You really do want people who are trained and thinking about this specific mission," says George Koenig, a former marine who previously served as counsel to the general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security during the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. "You don't want to pull someone who is training for combat missions." Still, Koenig acknowledges that even a properly trained military is not right for the long-term job of dealing with a disaster's aftermath. And, he says, "The one drawback [could be that] most people sign up for the military; they are not signing up for this type of thing."

Gene Healy, a vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute and author of The Cult of the Presidency, maintains the biggest danger is the possibility of mission creep because there just aren't that many terrorist attacks and disasters to keep the military busy on a regular basis.

"I don't share the view that this is some sinister plot," Healy says. "There is the danger where we keep militarizing. When we say we really need active duty military, combat-ready troops for homeland security, there's a danger of collateral damage to American lives and property and a danger to democracy."

But others do fear sinister plots, and there is some historical justification for that. They date back to the 1980s, when Lt. Col. Oliver North worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide for the continuity of government in the wake of insurrection or an atomic attack.

He sought to put together an emergency process whereby the President, through FEMA, would temporarily take over broad unprecedented powers, including censorship, the suspension of habeas corpus and the seizure of production, from farms to manufacturing plants. As part of the operation, FEMA might even assume authority over all Defense Department personnel and National Guard forces, according to Guts and Glory, Ben Bradlee, Jr.'s book about North.

More recently, since 9/11, the Bush administration has attempted to stiff-arm the Posse Comitatus law as part of the war on terror. Barely a month after the September 11 terror attacks, on Oct. 23, 2001, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General John C. Yoo co-wrote a memo regarding "Authority for the Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States." Jay Bybee, then chief of the Office of Legal Counsel, acknowledged in a later memo that the act generally prohibits use of the military for law enforcement purposes unless there's a constitutional or statutory reason for doing so. However, he and others came to the conclusion that even absent constitutional or statutory support, the act "does not forbid the use of military force for the military purpose of preventing and deterring terrorism within the United States."

Historically, Presidents have suspended the Posse Comitatus Act by invoking the Insurrection Act. President Dwight D. Eisenhower did just that in 1957 when segregationists tried to prevent black students from enrolling and attending public school in Little Rock, Ark. John F. Kennedy also used the act in 1962 and 1963 to send troops to enforce desegregation in Mississippi and Alabama. Similarly, George H.W. Bush sent troops to quell the Los Angeles riots in 1992. Assistant Secretary of Defense McHale notes that the troops being trained for disaster response under the new program would not even be the ones called upon to help quell domestic disturbance in the event of a President invoking the Insurrection Act.

"Part of the genius of the Insurrection Act is before it can be invoked the President has to make a public declaration that he is doing it," Dycus says. "There is no way the President can use that exception to the Posse Comitatus Act secretly."

One emergency manager, who asked not to be named, says people on the civilian side worry about how to separate FEMA from the Department of Homeland Security, how to keep it professional and not "a weak sister of the military." At the same time, most civilian emergency managers recognize the military has specialized training in chemical, biological, nuclear and urban warfare. With the current threat of dirty bombs and improvised explosive devices, it makes sense to have the military available to deploy to a disaster of that nature anywhere in the United States.

"From Andrew on, I've believed there is a civilian mission for the military," the emergency manager says. "We needed what they uniquely could provide in Andrew, and it was needed again in Katrina...On the personal side, I have fears that urban-warfare-trained commando units could do the bidding of the government in more malevolent and malignant ways."

Others in the emergency management field welcome the military with open arms. Billy Wagner, who retired as director of emergency management in the Florida Keys two years ago, says the military is the way to go. "I've always advocated that," Wagner says. "I've thought it was imperative to react to any kind of disasters we had, specifically to have these units ready to be mobilized."

Reasonable minds can and do differ on this subject. Only future disasters will reveal who's right.

[American Patriot]

Liberals, are idiots, prima donnas, and completely self-centered. never trust them with anything important, most especially anything relating to national security or your personal safety.


ev

Sorry Ev,

Missed this one before Christmas.

Just wanted to say, "It's a little late" for this advice. LOL

[vector7]

BART Shooting Protest Turns Violent

Wednesday, January 7, 2009 – updated: 12:16 am PST January 8, 2009
OAKLAND, Calif. -- A march protesting the slaying of young Oakland father at the Fruitvale BART station early New Year's Day became violent Wednesday evening as a group of rampaging marchers rioted through downtown.

By 10 p.m., police reported 14 people had been arrested, but footage shot by NewsChopper2 about an hour later revealed a mass arrest at 20th Street and Broadway near the Paramount Theatre that looked to net in the neighborhood of 40 to 50 suspects.

Several people gathered at the Fruitvale Bay Area Rapid Transit station Wednesday afternoon for a rally to protest the shooting death of Oscar Grant III at the hands of a transit agency police officer at the station early Jan. 1.

For safety reasons, BART trains are bypassing the Fruitvale station while the protest continues. Organizers said the rally was planned to last until 8 p.m., but by 5:30 a substantial portion of the rally spontaneously started marching through the streets of Oakland towards downtown.

While the majority of the marchers were well behaved, just after 6:30 p.m. a splinter group of protesters started causing trouble at the intersection of 8th Street and Madison not far from the Lake Merritt BART station.

A fire was lit in a dumpster on wheels that was rolled into the middle of the street and swarmed a police car that was nearly tipped over as the angry protestors beat on the vehicle with sticks and rocked it violently back and forth.

Oakland police responded in riot gear, shooting tear gas and approaching the crowd with shields, helmets and batons drawn to force them to disperse. The Oakland Fire Department was quickly able to put out the dumpster fire without event.

[vector7]

THE BONUS MARCH



By Jeff Elkins

Long before Waco, long before Homeland Security, there was an incident that will help you better understand what we will likely be facing in the near future, as far as police state activities are concerned. We go back to the summer of 1932 to get a glimpse of just how brutal and evil our own government can be. It is mostly forgotten today, but the Bonus March incident of 1932 provided one of the more instructive lessons in the naked power of the State and just how meaningless the State views its laws and contracts with citizens.

Returning doughboys from President Wilson's World War One had been voted a "bonus" in 1924, basically a government bond with payment due in 1945.

Many of those same veterans were numbered among the victims of the depression. Industry had secured its own "bonus" through passage of the infamous Hawley-Smoot Tariff and the hard-pressed ex-doughboys wanted one as well. Not in far off 1945, but then, when they needed it. A populist movement of the former soldiers developed to demand premature payment of the deferred bonus voted by Congress. They called themselves the Bonus Army. The Bonus Army movement was widespread and thoroughly lambasted by the powers-that-be of the time. President Herbert Hoover viewed them as a mixture of "hoodlums, ex-convicts and Communists" with a sprinkling of veterans as mere leavening. The movement alarmed the leaders of the nation's military who were afraid that the insurrection could spread into the enlisted ranks of the standing armed forces. Government secret police under the command of J. Edgar Hoover investigated and attempted penetration of the diverse group as well, a pattern repeated through the history of that august organization.

Their efforts were akin to an attempt to stop the wind. Bonus protests were nationwide and culminated in a massive march on Washington, DC, by tens of thousands of disgruntled veterans. At this troubled point in history, a revolution by the masses of unemployed was one of the worst fears of the political masters of the United States. Depression riots had already erupted in many large Northeastern cities. The sight of thousands of angry citizens openly defying the State at the very fountainhead of its power was terrifying. By the end of June, the marchers numbered more than 20,000 men, women and children. The Bonus Army was tired, hungry and defiant and the State was fearful of revolution. The nation watched in horror, not knowing what the culmination of events would be.

A blowup was inevitable.

The House of Representatives had passed the Patman bill for veterans relief on June 15, despite promise of a presidential veto. But on June 17 the bill met defeat in the Senate, and shortly thereafter orders were given to begin active measures to disperse the marchers. President Hoover ordered the Secretary of War to "surround the affected area and clear it without delay."



Army Chief of Staff MacArthur was convinced that "the movement was actually far deeper and more dangerous than an effort to secure funds from a nearly depleted federal treasury" and in fact, was a communist-led attempt to overthrow the government. Assisted by his aides Major Dwight D. Eisenhower and Major George S. Patton, Jr , MacArthur led Army troops and cavalry in an advance on veterans marching on Pennsylvania Avenue, with tear gas, naked bayonets and swords drawn. Hundreds were injured and a baby was killed by gas. Fearful that the State might look too oppressive, Secretary of War Hurley sent orders to MacArthur, containing President Hoover’s direct command that he did not wish the Army to pursue the Bonus Marchers across Anacostia River into their main encampment, which had been caustically named "Hooverville" by its residents.

MacArthur saying that he was "too busy," and did not want to be "bothered by people coming down and pretending to bring orders," ignored the presidential commands and led troops into "Hooverville" anyway. They burned it to the ground, injuring hundreds more and driving the remainder of veterans from the nation’s capital. The Bonus Army was crushed and the movement dead. We will never know the true death toll from the violent military suppression of the Bonus Marchers. While immediate deaths were only a handful, injuries were high and the marchers were massively dispersed to many different areas of the country. This was a time when medical care was crude by today’s standards and before the advent of antibiotics. Pneumonia and infections were often a death sentence. The butcher’s bill from the aftermath of the attack was undoubtedly not minimal. The use of military forces against unarmed, peacefully demonstrating American citizens was a direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. However, that was not the first time military had been used against American citizens and we know that it was not the last. Starting perhaps with the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, leading armed troops against citizens has been a tradition of the American State. Troops have been used not only to crush political and religious dissent (Kent State, Waco), but to advance corporate interests as well, in well-documented incidents of strike suppression.

Today, the situation is more perilous than at any other time in our Nation’s history. Rather than a limited and rather small standing army, we are faced with literally millions of federal soldiers under arms, augmented by the forces of the various "National Guards," in actuality federal troops under nominal control of state governors. Our police, once local peace officers, are now merely a subset of the overall forces arrayed against liberty. Soldiers in everything but name, local police are funded, trained and armed by the federal Leviathan and are in truth just as much a part of it as the lowest ranker in the US Army.

[eversman]

i think this is a good case for rubber buckshot in large quantities in the closet for use in the family 12 guage.


ev