Unconstitutionally Targeting Americans

Posts Tagged ‘unconstitutionally targeting Americans’

National Guard asked to explain ‘internment’ jobs

Sunday, August 9th, 2009

Campaign recruiting for workers at ‘civilian resettlement facility’

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

An ad campaign featured on a U.S. Army website seeking those who would be interested in being an “Internment/Resettlement” specialist is raising alarms across the country, generating concerns that there is some truth in those theories about domestic detention camps, a roundup of dissidents and a crackdown on “threatening” conservatives.

The ads, at the GoArmy.com website as well as others including Monster.com, cite the need for:

“Internment/Resettlement (I/R) Specialists in the Army are primarily responsible for day-to-day operations in a military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment facility. I/R Specialists provide rehabilitative, health, welfare, and security to U.S. military prisoners within a confinement or correctional facility; conduct inspections; prepare written reports; and coordinate activities of prisoners/internees and staff personnel.”

The campaign follows by only weeks a report from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security warning about “right-wing extremists” who could pose a danger to the country – including those who support third-party political candidates, oppose abortion and would prefer to have the U.S. immigration laws already on the books enforced.

The “extremism” report coincided with a report out of California that the Department of Defense was describing protesters as “low-level terrorists.”

The new ad says successful candidates will “provide external security to … detention/internment facilities“ and “provide counseling and guidance to individual prisoners within a rehabilitative program.” [emphasis added by EGN]

Officials at the state and federal National Guard levels told WND they were unaware of the program, although one officer speculated it could be intended for soldiers trained in the U.S. and dispatched overseas to “detention facilities.” From the national level, WND was told, officials were unaware of any such “internment facilities” at which there could be jobs to be available.

At a NationalGuard.com website, a front page video describes the position thoroughly.

[video added by EGN]

But one of the critics was a YouTube contributor who identifies himself as jafount and titled his video, “Want a job putting people into camps?”

Alarmed by the ads, he said it, the idea “just absolutely blew my mind.”

Citing a promise that successful applicants would be trained in “search and restrain procedures,” he said, “That’s code for violating the 14th Amendment.”

Likewise, he said, “use of firearms” is “code for depriving somebody of their life.”

“This is the real deal, I think,” he said, citing, among others, the NationalGuard.com link.

“I saw something that didn’t sit right with me. I posted it so other people can investigate,” he said.

A commenter on the YouTube site pooh-poohed the whole suggestion.

“You have … put out a relatively benign fact, twisted it into something sinister, and then did a tinfoil-hat connection to give a false impression,” the forum participant wrote.

The ads list as “advanced responsibilities” issues such as supervision and administration, responsibility for the “prisoner/internee” population, “custody/control for the operation of an Enemy Prisoner of War/Civilian Internee (EPW/CI) camp,” and work on “custody/control for the operation of detention facility or the operation of a displaced civilian (DC) resettlement facility.”
[emphasis added by EGN]

An editorial at CanadaFreePress.com raised some overall concerns:

Let’s look at some of the evidence we have of the U.S. government’s intentions to establish the infrastructure that could be used to house large numbers of political dissidents, so-called terrorists and other individuals the U.S. government wants locked up.
[emphasis added by EGN]

HR 645 the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act is a proposed bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would authorize FEMA to build no less than six National Emergency Centers throughout the U.S. on closed or open military facilities. These facilities are to be designed to house large numbers of people. Why would emergency centers need to be built on closed or open military facilities unless there was a need to keep people from coming in and out of them?
[emphasis added by EGN]

KBR was granted a government contract a few years ago to build facilities to house illegal immigrants. Now with illegal immigration becoming less of a problem with the U.S. economy in the toilet, these facilities can now be used for other purposes.

“This is just another step in the U.S. government’s long term plan to build the infrastructure that could be used to contain wide spread popular revolt. Combine this with the swine flu fear mongering and the potential for a mass swine flu vaccination operation and it is easy to see what might happen. Refuse to take their poisonous vaccine and you might risk being locked up as being a hazard to public safety. With the economy in the toilet and more and more people not trusting either political party or the corporate media, the ‘powers that be’ realize that they need to continue building their martial law apparatus. These Army National Guard job listings are just another piece to that puzzle proving what we already know is being built,“ the editorial claimed.
[emphasis added by EGN]

At the Examiner, a commentator wrote,

“Correctional/internment facilities? I have to admit that the U.S. government is good at one thing: creating fluffy names for evil acts. During WW2, of course, the U.S. didn’t have concentration camps, we had ‘relocation centers’ for hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese citizens.”
[emphasis added by EGN]

The jobs also were listed at Jobsearch.money.cnn.com, employmentguide.com and freedomsphoenix.com.

WND reported when the DoD eventually withdrew a training manual question that linked protesters across the United States to terrorism.

That followed by only weeks a Department of Homeland Security report that described as “right-wing extremists” those who oppose abortion and support secure national borders.

Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, has told WND that as part of his organization’s research for its lawsuit over the DHS “extremism” report, it has discovered additional information that it is withholding now but will include in a pending amended complaint.

Thompson said one of the things that sparked the organization’s curiosity was a reference by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano in the original report to not only government resources but also non-governmental resources.

Thompson said the information he has “creates even more concern that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is unconstitutionally targeting Americans merely because of their conservative beliefs.”
[emphasis added by EGN]

The earlier DHS report was “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” WND has posted the report online for readers to see.

The report linked returning veterans with the possibility of terrorism, and when it was released it created such a furor for Napolitano she has given several explanations for it, including that she would have reworded the report and that it was issued by a rogue employee.

She later apologized to veterans for having linked them to terror.

But Thompson noted that the report also targeted as “potential terrorists” Americans who:

Oppose abortion

Oppose same-sex marriage

Oppose restrictions on firearms

Oppose lax immigration laws

Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs

Oppose continuation of free trade agreements

Are suspect of foreign regimes

Fear Communist regimes

Oppose a “one world” government

Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world

Are upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India, and more

Thompson told WND no apology has been offered to the members of any of those classes of citizens.

Thompson said the original “extremism” report was “the tip of the iceberg. … Conservative Americans should be very outraged.”
[emphasis added by EGN]

The Thomas More Law Center filed its lawsuit against Napolitano and the DHS on behalf of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform Inc. and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray.

It alleges the federal agency violated the First and Fifth Amendment constitutional rights of the three plaintiffs by targeting them for disfavored treatment and chilling their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims that DHS encouraged law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.
[emphasis added EGN]

Pentagon pulls description of protesters as ‘terrorists’

Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009

But term apparently used by law enforcement ‘regularly’

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The Department of Defense has withdrawn a training manual question that linked protesters across the United States to terrorism, but there’s evidence coming to light that describing Americans as terror suspects, or “low-level” terror suspects, is routine.

WND reported just days ago that the U.S. Department of Defense had included in a training course a question that defined protesters as terrorists.

According to the letter from the Northern California ACLU, the DoD’s “Annual Level 1 Antiterrorism (AT) Awareness Training for 2009″ tells department personnel “that certain First Amendment-protected activity may amount to ‘low-level terrorism.’”

Specifically the training “Knowledge Check 1″ asks, “Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism activity?”

The multiple choices are: Attacking the Pentagon, IEDs, Hate crimes against racial groups and Protests.

The correct answer in the training course is “Protests.”

Now, according to a Fox News report, the Pentagon has withdrawn the question.

A spokesman told the network the question didn’t make it clear what the difference was between violent and illegal actions and peaceful protests, which are protected by the U.S. Constitution.

“They should have made it clearer,” Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Les Melnyk told Fox. He declined to specify when the line would be crossed from one into the other.

But he said all of the 1,546 people who took the exam and saw the question will be notified of the “error” and told that there is a difference between lawful objections and violent unrest.

The whole episode developed just weeks after a scandal erupted over a Department of Homeland Security report that described as “right-wing extremists” those who oppose abortion and support secure national borders.

The Department of Defense situation was revealed by blogger Dennis Loo at Salon.com.

He cited an ACLU complaint demanding that the DoD change its instructions and those who have been given the training be told of the modifications by “sending out corrective materials.”

Loo reported at the time that the use of the term apparently is routine.

“I have just learned of a scholarly conference paper presented earlier this year that underscores the fact that the DoD training’s use of ‘low-level terrorism’ is hardly an anomaly. ‘Low level terrorism’ is a term regularly being used by state security agencies,” he wrote.

Thompson said the information he has “creates even more concern that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is unconstitutionally targeting Americans merely because of their conservative beliefs.”

On the website of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based activist group that leans strongly left, there are boasts about the organization’s effort to “train” a number of “local, state and federal law enforcement officers” about terror suspects, “hate crimes” and similar topics.

“We focus on the history, background, leaders and activities of far-right extremists in the U.S.,” the website says. “Training sessions last from two to four hours and are tailored to fit the requesting agency’s requirements.”

Further, whatever the relationship may be between the DHS and the SPLC, the DHS has given several hundred million dollars in recent years to set up Fusion Centers – a focused investigatory facility – in several locations around the nation. And it apparently was out of one of those centers that came a recent state report in Missouri that identified people with third-party political candidate bumper stickers as suspect in the war on terror.

The SPLC said it has worked within a “groundbreaking partnership with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) that culminated in new courses on hate and bias crimes. … Courses are offered both online and in the classroom, and teach officers to recognize and respond to hate crimes. Academic and continuing education credit is granted by California State University, San Bernardino to officers who complete the online course.

“Intelligence Project staff also offer in-person trainings on extremist activity to law enforcement and offer their expertise to educational and other groups,” the SPLC said.

The SPLC also writes of its “Hate Crime Training” work.

“Intelligence Project staff have been involved in the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center’s hate and bias crime ‘train-the-trainer’ program since its inception in 1992. FLETC trains personnel for more than 75 federal law enforcement agencies and provides services for local, state and international agencies.

“FLETC invited Intelligence Project personnel to help develop and write courses for a training program to improve the recognition, reporting and investigating of hate crimes. A member of the Intelligence Project staff taught one of the program’s first pilot classes in New Jersey in 1994 and continues to instruct FLETC classes today,” the SPLC says.

The concept of “hate crimes” is being pushed through Congress, with hundreds of thousands of letters opposing it as bigoted having been delivered to members of the Senate through a write-in campaign.

Under the measure pending in a Senate committee and scheduled for a hearing next week, crimes based on the “perception” of sexual orientation would be prosecuted as more serious than the same physical action without the “perception” of sexual orientation.

Several House members who have been critical have been Reps. Steve King of Iowa and Louis Gohmert of Texas. King offered an amendment that stated nothing in the law could be used to protect pedophiles from criminal charges, but majority Democrats refused to accept it.

Gohmert, a former judge, said that could make it the Pedophile Protection Act, because when something is not specifically stated in a law, a judge would look at the “intent” of the writers, and in this case they had the opportunity to make sure pedophiles were not protected and chose not to do that.

The earlier DHS report was “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” WND has posted the report online for readers to see.

She later apologized to veterans for having linked them to terror.

But Thompson noted that the report also targeted as “potential terrorists” Americans who:

Oppose abortion

Oppose same-sex marriage

Oppose restrictions on firearms

Oppose lax immigration laws

Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs

Oppose continuation of free trade agreements

Are suspect of foreign regimes

Fear Communist regimes

Oppose a “one world” government

Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world

Are upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India, and more

Thompson told WND no apology has been offered to the members of any of those classes of citizens.

Thompson said the original “extremism” report was “the tip of the iceberg. … Conservative Americans should be very outraged.”

Source: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101608

Twitter This

Tags: ACLU complaint, Annual Level 1 Antiterrorism (AT) Awareness Training for 2009, because of their conservative beliefs, blogger Dennis Loo, California State University, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), DHS "extremism" report, DHS report was "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.", DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, difference between lawful objections and violent unrest, far-right extremists, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), First Amendment-protected activity, FLETC, focused investigatory facility, Fusion Centers, government resources, Hate Crime Training, hate crimes, Knowledge Check 1, linked protesters across the United States to terrorism, local, low-level terrorism, low-level terrorism activity, Lt. Col. Les Melnyk, non-governmental resources, oppose abortion, Pedophile Protection Act, Pentagon pulls description of protesters as 'terrorists', president of the Thomas More Law Center, protect pedophiles from criminal charges, provides services for local, recent state report in Missouri, Rep Louis Gohmert of Texas, Rep Steve King of Iowa, report linked returning veterans with the possibility of terrorism, Richard Thompson, San Bernardino, Southern Poverty Law Center, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), SPLC, state and federal law enforcement officers, state and international agencies, state security agencies, support secure national borders, terror suspects, that certain First Amendment-protected activity may amount to 'low-level terrorism', training manual question, trainings on extremist activity to law enforcement, U.S. Department of Defense, unconstitutionally targeting Americans, US Constitution
Posted in Activism, Big Brother Legislation, Hidden Agendas, New World Order, Police State / Martial Law | No Comments »

Posts Tagged ‘unconstitutionally targeting Americans’

National Guard asked to explain ‘internment’ jobs

Campaign recruiting for workers at ‘civilian resettlement facility’

Related Links:

Related Stories:

Pentagon pulls description of protesters as ‘terrorists’

But term apparently used by law enforcement ‘regularly’

DISCLAIMER:

FAIR USE NOTICE