It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The War on Military Recruiters

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I've debated with myself whether or not to bring this up, but I feel that it is important and the situation is getting out of control. As many of you are probably aware, the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war is only days away and protesters are planning "peaceful" protests at recruiting stations all over the US. While protests in themselves are not necessarily a bad thing, the route that some protesters are currently going is not going to end in a pleasant place. Someone is going to end up getting killed.

The recent bombing in New York of a recruiting station is not the beginning of the violence military personnel have to endure from their fellow Americans, and certainly won't be the last. In 2003 a molotov cocktail was thrown through the window of a recruiting station in New York, the culprit was not caught until 2005. In 2006 UC Santa Cruz students ambushed military recruiters. In January 2007, Anti-war radicals smashed windows at a Washington recruitment center, while radicals in Pittsburgh shut down a recruitment station wielding signs calling recruiters "child predators." Recruiting centers have had all the tires slashed on their vehicles, been subjected to fraud by the anti-war group Iraq Veterans against War, their offices and building have been trashed, government property defaced, and the recruiters themselves have been called "death pimps" and "assassins" by the anti-war group Code Pink.

With the upcoming fifth anniversary, officials have issued a memo to military personnel warning them of potential violence against them. A few parts of the memo:



Unclassified Memo
PITTSBURG RECRUITING STATION, PA: 19 MARCH 2008, PITTSBURG ORGANIZING GROUP (POG) WILL BE HOLDING A TORCH-LIT MARCH TO A MODERN DAY CASTLE OF ABOMINATIONS-OUR LOCAL MILITARY RECRUITING STATION. THE GROUP INTENDS TO,”…EVICT IT AND EVERYTHING INSIDE OF IT, OCCUPY THE LOCATION, AND TRANSFORM IT INTO SOMETHING USEFUL FOR THE COMMUNITY. WE’LL ALSO BE BRINGING A MOVABLE CAGE IN WHICH TO CONFINE MILITARY RECRUITERS UNTIL THEY NO LONGER POSE A DANGER TO OUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS…..” SOURCE: TRADOC





3.5 (U//FOUO) SEATTLE 19 MARCH 2008, PROTEST ON 5TH ANNIVERSARY OF IRAQ WAR. DEMONSTRATORS WILL CONVERGE ON WESTLAKE PARK AT 6 PM. THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE MARCHED IN SEATTLE IN 2002 AS THE WAR BEGAN IN A SPIRITED EVENING MARCH TO THE FEDERAL BUILDING. ON MARCH 19, 2008, THEY ARE ENCOURAGING THE COMMUNITY TO MARK THE ANNIVERSARY WITH DIVERSE AUTONOMOUS ACTIONS THROUGHOUT THE DAY SUCH AS FREEWAY BANNERING, VIGILS, TEACH-INS, WALK-OUTS AND DIRECT ACTION/CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, CULMINATING WITH AN EVENING PROTEST CONVERGENCE AT WESTLAKE PARK AT 6 PM


(Note: The all-caps typing is from the memo, not from me and it would take quite a bit of time to retype it..)

The link I've posted to the memo is on a columnists website, but I assure you it is indeed an actual memo that was sent by military officials.

How far does this have to go before something is done? I'm all for free-speech and the right to a civil demonstration, but confining recruiters in a movable cage? Evicting everything and everyone in a recruiting center to make it something "useful"? And the worst part is that the military personnel aren't permitted to defend themselves or their property. They are being told to just ignore it and go around the protesters. Their lives are potentially at risk because of this.

I don't agree with the war, and haven't agreed with it since it changed from getting Bin Laden to taking over Iraq. But this is just getting ridiculous. Not only do members of our military have to worry about being sent over seas and getting shot or killed there, now they, and their families, have to worry about even getting in their own cars or going to work at a recruiting station while at home.

You hear people complaining all the time about the violence occurring in Iraq, but what about the violence occurring right here in the US against members of our military by their fellow Americans? Where is the outrage that Americans are terrorizing and destroying recruiting stations and property? Since when is it right to threaten a group of people simply because of their job? How far is this trend going to go before people realize that recruiters are not the enemy?

Some relevant news links:
Escalating War on Military Recruiters
Activists Fear Bombing at Berkeley Marine Recruiting Center
Berkeley Mayor to Marines: "Don't Expect an Apology."

[edit on 14-3-2008 by Jenna]




posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
It all boils down to lack of respect by the code pinks and other orgs.Military personnel are doing what is expected of them.Service to the country is by choice,and they have the right to make that choice. Demonstraters have the right to march and speak out about the war.
They do not have the right to attack military personnel out of frustration.
They have freedom of speach.They do not have the freedom of action to destroy property or injure people



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by daddyroo45
 


I agree. There is a huge difference between a peaceful demonstration and what some of these groups are doing. There are some groups who have people in their teens and early twenties going to recruiters pretending to be interested in joining, calling them constantly to ask every question they can think of, and taking up all their time to keep them so busy they can't focus on and enlist those who really do want to join.




Title 18, U.S. (Criminal) Code, Section 2388, states:

Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or

Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so –

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.


Yet these groups get away with it.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Is the war legal? That could mean all the difference. Terrorists or Freedom fighters? You tell me.

I can't say I agree with the violent means of achieving results, that is ultimately counter productive, but the time wasting phone calls are pure genius. Kinda brings to mind Gandhi's passive resistance. Effective, and bloodless to boot. Rock on.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Is it legal? Well, let's have a look, I'll quote it again:




Title 18, U.S. (Criminal) Code, Section 2388, states:

.....

Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so –

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.


(Bolded for emphasis.) That would tell me that it's illegal. I also am having trouble with the notion that these people could be termed "freedom fighters". That would work if they were opposing the president or Congress, but since they are aiming their hostility at recruiters I don't think the term fits.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
My question is not wether these acts are legal, but if the waris legal. If the war is an illegal one, then military personel partaking in it are in violation of their oath and obstructing their actions is quite the opposite of a crime.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Orwells Ghost
 



Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
My question is not wether these acts are legal, but if the waris legal. If the war is an illegal one, then military personel partaking in it are in violation of their oath and obstructing their actions is quite the opposite of a crime.



So, I suppose that recruiting for all the support personnel for all of our bases around the world should cease also?



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Although I don't agree with their alleged intent to use violence, I think their cause is a good one.

What I find disgusting is the federal government forcing schools to allow military recruiters access to students under The No Child Left Behind law. If they refuse comply there funding can be reduced.


SEC. 9528. ARMED FORCES RECRUITER ACCESS TO STUDENTS AND STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION.
(a) POLICY-

(1) ACCESS TO STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION- Notwithstanding section 444(a)(5)(B) of the General Education Provisions Act and except as provided in paragraph (2), each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide, on a request made by military recruiters or an institution of higher education, access to secondary school students names, addresses, and telephone listings.

(2) CONSENT- A secondary school student or the parent of the student may request that the student's name, address, and telephone listing described in paragraph (1) not be released without prior written parental consent, and the local educational agency or private school shall notify parents of the option to make a request and shall comply with any request.

(3) SAME ACCESS TO STUDENTS- Each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide military recruiters the same access to secondary school students as is provided generally to post secondary educational institutions or to prospective employers of those students.




posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
My question is not wether these acts are legal, but if the waris legal. If the war is an illegal one, then military personel partaking in it are in violation of their oath and obstructing their actions is quite the opposite of a crime.


Depends on how you decide if it's a legal war or not. If you base it on the original reasons given for going to war and factor in that we were lied to about the WMD's etc. then no it wouldn't be legal, in my mind anyway. If you base it on the approval of Congress, then yes it's legal. But really the legality of the war has no bearing on the violence being perpetrated against members of the military right here in America. These recruiters are merely doing their jobs. Bombing their place of work because they enlist people who may or may not be sent to war makes as much sense as bombing McDonald's because eating there may or may not cause you to become obese.



Originally posted by LLoyd45
Although I don't agree with their alleged intent to use violence, I think their cause is a good one.

What I find disgusting is the federal government forcing schools to allow military recruiters access to students under The No Child Left Behind law. If they refuse comply there funding can be reduced.


Those same students, and their parents, can opt out of having their information given to recruiters. And if a recruiter does call, the student saying they are not interested will generally put a stop to the calls. Of course they may have to tell recruiters from each branch that they are not interested, but once they do the calls should stop.

And according to part 3 SAME ACCESS TO STUDENTS, the information given to recruiters is the same as that given to colleges and employers. No matter which one gets the info, you don't have to go to their college, become their employee, or enlist in the military. People only have a problem with it when it's the military, but have no problems with colleges and companies getting the same info. Just because they have your name and phone number doesn't mean you have to join. But that is a completely different topic and I don't want to derail my own thread.


[edit on 14-3-2008 by Jenna]



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 
But who gave the school the right to pass out my child's personal information to these people in the first place? The Buckley amendment is supposed to protect your right to privacy.

Just because the school is afraid of having their funding cut is not a valid excuse to invade the privacy of my family and violate the law.

If my child is ever foolish enough to want to speak with a recruiter, then I'm sure he'll do so. In other words: "Don't Call Us, We'll Call You!"

By the way, do you happen to work at a recruiting station or possibly have a family member or relative that does? Why else would you be so pro-recruitment? Not many people want to send their children off to be slaughtered or maimed in an unjust war.


[edit on 3/14/08 by LLoyd45]

[edit on 3/14/08 by LLoyd45]



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by LLoyd45
reply to post by Jenna
 
But who gave the school the right to pass out my child's personal information to these people in the first place? The Buckley amendment is supposed to protect your right to privacy.

Just because the school is afraid of having their funding cut is not a valid excuse to invade the privacy of my family and violate the law.


I honestly do not know the answer to that. It would seem to me that that sort of thing should be taken up with your congressman.


If my child is ever foolish enough to want to speak with a recruiter, then I'm sure he'll do so. In other words: "Don't Call Us, We'll Call You!"


It's been my experience that most of them would rather not call you. They would rather you call them. When they get that list of students from the school they don't know if the student is handicapped, has a criminal record, or has a medical reason that would prevent them from enlisting if they wanted to. Recruiters in general hate cold-calling people, but they are expected to. It's part of their job.


By the way, do you happen to work at a recruiting station or possibly have a family member or relative that does? Why else would you be so pro-recruitment? Not many people want to send their children off to be slaughtered or maimed in an unjust war.


I am not in the military, but yes I have family in the military and my husband is a recruiter. And yes that's why this issue really bothers me. I'm not necessarily pro-recruitment I just don't see the logic behind attacking recruiters when it is the government who is sending people off to war.

The recruiters do not have the power or authority to decide who gets shipped over-seas and who does not. They are basically the human resources department you go through to get a job. They do the initial interview and paperwork and then it's up to someone else whether or not a certain person is enlisted and whether or not that person gets sent off to war.

Yet they are the ones who bare the brunt of the backlash against the military. They are the ones who are targeted by anti-military and anti-war groups rather than those who are in charge of the decision making. Which was the original point of my creating this thread, even though it's already way off-track after only a few posts. The point of this thread was to bring the fact that recruiters and their offices are being singled out for attacks by the anti-war/anti-military groups, even though they have no control over the war, to the attention of the masses here at ATS. Yet the point of this thread is ignored or passed over by the majority.

I suppose I should have known better than to think that these events would cause any reaction other than "Good, to heck with them, they deserve it" seeing as how the majority of threads on this site that have anything to do with the military are filled with posts claiming that all military members are puppy-tossing, blood-thirsty, mindless, rapist, zombies. Perhaps things will be different when a recruiter is murdered by one of these anti-war/anti-military groups during one of their office take-overs or bombings. Or perhaps they won't change until the next time America is attacked because our numbers have dwindled so low that we can't protect ourselves due to these anti-war/anti-military groups preventing the recruiters from doing their jobs and enlisting those people who do want to join the military.



And just for the record, none of the comments in those last two paragraphs are specifically aimed at you Lloyd45 or at any other member. They should be taken as the general impression that I have based on numerous posts by numerous members and are not to be taken as a personal attack on anyone.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


When was war declared by congress, and against whom?

Legalese is tricky!



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 02:43 AM
link   
You live in a society that teaches us that violence gets things done.
You allow your government to kill thousands with their military.
You see no problem with this, but you do see a problem with people acting out because they're sick and tired of the lies and the deaths done in their name?

If being violent to achieve an agenda is considered radical, then what the hell is the government?

The right to serve your country? I served it for 6 years, and now I know for sure it's all a con. Recruiters are worse than car salesman. You don't serve your country, you serve corporate interests. What hypocrites they are when they say you're protecting your country when your country is being sold off to foreign interests. What are they protecting exactly? Their investments. They don't give a damn about our lives and it's time people realised this.

But I don't blame the recruiters, or the military, they've just been conned like everyone else.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Actually, I don't allow the government to do anything. If it were up to me we wouldn't be in any of the messes we are currently in, but it's not up to me so there you go. And if you had read through my previous posts I have already stated that I am not in agreement with this war, so yes I do see a problem with killing thousands of people. And yes I do have a problem with the anti-war/anti-military groups taking all of their frustration out on recruiters.

The "Army of one" slogan is a bunch of crap and if you've been in the military than you know that no one person is making the decisions especially at the lower ranks. Each rank answers to the one above it till you get to the top. Recruiting is no different, they have to do what those in charge tell them to do. (Unless it's illegal, but even then there are the minority who will still do it.) Which is why the logic behind attacking recruiters and recruiting stations still escapes me. If they actually want to change things why not start at the source and overthrow the government? Seems to me that removing the decision-makers who are making the bad decisions would cause more change than removing someone at the bottom of the totem pole who barely has the authority to decide what to eat for lunch or what time they can go home for the day. But that's just me.

Perhaps the government is radical. I haven't really thought about that too much, but I suppose I will now.

And yes, it's a right to serve the country. No one is forced into the military here. Perhaps your recruiter was "worse than a car salesman", and I'm sorry you had that experience. But I must say, I've known several recruiters and have numerous friends and family members who have joined the military through recruiters I don't know and none of them have been promised anything they didn't get. So in my experience, your recruiter is the minority.

But it's nice to know you don't blame the recruiters or the military.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I actually did a bit of research so here you go.




Senate Approves Iraq War Resolution
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.


I know that there were no WMD's found, but Congress was told there were so they approved. And their continued funding of the war equates with approval. If they didn't approve they could've refused to fund it, but they didn't.



Does President Bush need the Approval of Congress to Attack Iraq
What the War Powers Act of 1973 Says: Passed by Congress over President Nixon's veto, the War Powers Act of 1973 requires the president to "consult" with Congress before "introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances," and to notify Congress within 48 hours of any U.S. troop commitment or deployment.


It would seem that the President did have the authority to go to war and tell Congress later, and Congress did ultimately approve the war in 2002.

[edit on 16-3-2008 by Jenna]



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join