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.

 

Urban Combat The Petraeus Way

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Urban Combat The Petraeus Way


www.scribd.com

General's eight-point strategy for crime counterinsurgency applied to US streets.

With violent crime increasing in many American cities, it is easy to think of criminals as an "insurgency." According to the freedictionary.com an "insurgency" is defined as, "An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict." The recent shootings of uniformed police officers in Philadelphia and Oakland highlight these attacks on governmental...
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.military.com
www.infowars.com




posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I do apologize if a thread related to this topic has already been posted. I searched and searched and couldn't find jack-squat about it. This news topic I took out of a magazine article. Magazine is titled "Guns & Weapons For Law Enforcement." Published by "Harris Publications". (To see their entire line of publications? Go here: "http://www.tactical-life.com/")

Guns & Weapons For Law Enforcement, as you will note by the title, is a firearm magazine specifically marketed to law enforcement.

The magazine is dated February 2010. So I kinda figure that's decently up-to-date.

(Also I've included an article from www.infowars.com covering this same magazine article. See it below. I don't necessarily trust infowars articles but I read 'em anyways just for the heck of it.)

As for my stance on using counterinsurgency methods to fight crime? I agree with it. I work in law enforcement and something like this could make my job a heck of a lot easier. I especially like how the article mentions the notion of law enforcement agencies needing to work together, cooperate with each other better and more efficiently, not to mention establish efficient communication channels. To put it simply; a jurisdictional pissing match needs to be avoided. (Example: In Texas, San Antonio Police Department and Bexar County Sheriff's Dept DO NOT like each other. This needs to change.)

Voice your thoughts, we'll go from there.



www.scribd.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Interesting article. I'll admit I'm not LEO and I think a pretty average guy.

My thoughts -
1. It *could* work I think - as it has worked in Iraq. However, there are other developed countries that have less crime than the US. We should also look at what they do. Maybe they do the things suggested, maybe not.

2. I think his 2 points - "Legitimacy is the main objective" and "Security under the Rule of Law is Essential" would be the 2 hardest to implement. To put it bluntly - I think the "buy in" of the public and the "us vs them" between cops and the general public is going to be very hard to get and will require a major effort by LEO's. Right now many just plain do not trust LEO's - and every day there are stories and videos that give them reason not to.

..and an edit just to be clear. I do think he does have some very good points - just as the various branches working together. My fear would be that is would be oh so easy to just toss that legitimacy thing out the window and bring the hammer down on everyone.



[edit on 18-12-2009 by Frogs]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I think that the biggest problem with this entire premise is that Americans are not going to appreciate being labeled as insurgents -- whether by the strictest of defintions its accurate or not.

Further, the American public's confidence in our current administration is waning, so any joining together of forces in order to combat an uprising of citizens is more than likely going to be viewed as more of a threat than a necessary measure to secure peace.

Now, in general terms, police forces, especially within individual states, should be better coordinated and there should definitely be some sort of communication practices in place.

My suggestion to the writer of the article however would be not to use the terms:

"Unified Police Forces"
"Military general's counterinsurgency plan"
"Insurgencies in American cities"
and
"Overthrowing the Government"

all in the same article and expect the American public to respond with a resounding "Yes! We need this!"

Rather, given the times we are living in, a simple message such as:

"Police forces need to be better equipped with communication practices that enable one district to inform another district of what is transpiring while at the same time allowing this information to also be disseminated to other agenices responsible for responding to any crisis or catastrophes in order to aide in protecting or evacuating innocent American citizens."

Something along those lines sounds a lot less threatening to me.

But if you are posing the question: Do Americans want the military rushing into a city or state to work with police forces to combat an uprising of citizens? My answer would be no. The last thing I want to see on the streets where I live is a barrage of military personnel and tons of uniformed police officers marching around all in the name of protecting me from an American insurgency. All that sounds like to me is a big 'ol police state.

That all being said, I in no way support the actions of anyone that is shooting at and/or killing any of our fellow Americans -- especially uniformed officers.

I think there are a lot of "crazies" coming out of the woodwork. I only hope that the line between the crazies and the citizens acting within the laws of our Constitution and exercising our freedoms granted to us by the Bill of Rights does not get further blurred.

Exercising one's First Amendment rights and Second Amendment rights does not equate to being an insurgent.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frogs
Interesting article. I'll admit I'm not LEO and I think a pretty average guy.

My thoughts -
1. It *could* work I think - as it has worked in Iraq. However, there are other developed countries that have less crime than the US. We should also look at what they do. Maybe they do the things suggested, maybe not.
[edit on 18-12-2009 by Frogs]


I agree with this. Good example is some places in Europe (Netherlands for instance) where marijuana is legal. If we de-criminalize marijuana we'll free up the jails and clamp down harder on peddling of illegal narcotics by cutting the demand as a result. Not to mention it'll allow LEO to redirect their focus on more heinous crime (as opposed to something as simple as marijuana possession) such as child pornography, human trafficking, illegal immigration, drunk driving, murders, rapists, etc..



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
This sounds to me like preparations to quell a civil uprising. The American people would view them being called "insurgents" as a direct threat. It's like riot gear at a peaceful protest. (we all have seen how constitutional rights are burned to the ground in that kind of fiasco)

If anything this would provoke people who are normally law abiding citizens. The word "insurgent" is a threatening thing to be called. That alone would incite riots and violence.

I agree that police forces need to be more coordinated (as well as ethical, but that is a different thread for a different day) but really shouldn't they be already? The only thing stopping this "Coordination" is the current state of cooperation (or the lack there of). If a pissing match is more important than getting the bad guy then I am down for demanding some resignations. Some things are more important than measuring your D*$&s.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I don't have a problem with people practicing their 1st and 2nd amendment rights, etc. In fact we need more restrictions lifted off firearm purchases and ownership. The article says to fight insurgency you need to devote 80% political action and 20% physical/military action. The more armed law-abiding citizens we have? The better.

When you hear 'insurgent' this is what may come to mind:



When I think "American insurgent"

I'm not thinking this:



I'm thinking THIS:



THIS:



And THIS:




posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frogs
Interesting article. I'll admit I'm not LEO and I think a pretty average guy.

To put it bluntly - I think the "buy in" of the public and the "us vs them" between cops and the general public is going to be very hard to get and will require a major effort by LEO's. Right now many just plain do not trust LEO's - and every day there are stories and videos that give them reason not to.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by Frogs]



If general public doesn't trust LEO's? That's mostly the media's fault. But if people don't trust them or want to complain about being 'harassed' by them. That's their problem. If you work for Law Enforcement and you're not getting complaints against you? You're not really doing your job. I know this by experience. The ones who complain typically have something to hide. Something criminal in nature.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
you say it would make your job easier;
you wouldn't be doing the same thing you do now.?

you fail to realize that the attacks you mentioned were the cause of malfeasance on the part of the officiating contracted citizens (LEO's as you put it). i think you got lost somewhere and forgot what being a LEO is all about.first off you are contracted with the local governing body to officiate any disputes in common law and bylaw; luckily somehow, after the wild west, you get to carry weapons as an officiator or disputes with local laws.get your head out the clouds; citizens, regardless of their knowledge of rights, are not insurgents.and to exercise ones rights does not make one an insurgent.as for your last comment about complaints; you are not contracted with local governing bodies to extract deficiencies in the practice of another citizen, unto the process of declaration of what is and is not "criminal" in nature.you probably think i live in some fantasy world and that you have the authority.you are not contracted to authorize any interpretations of the common laws and bylaws stated that create the governing body you are officiating within; in essence you cannot author laws: thus you have no authority. pertaining your link to pictures of what you "think" an insurgent is; as a counter insurgent agent government protests like what you didn't think a counter insurgent was is what your target is: and a cop or swat team would handle the dispute referenced in your third picture, and an agent (officiating citizen working on behalf of a governing body)qualified to handle disputes with territories bordering differing governing bodies would handle the last picture.

you seem like your in the wrong profession and maybe you should have joined the bureau of investigation; then you could do all the counter insurgent work you want to your hearts content.on bank robbers even people who cross differing governing bodies.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
i feel there need be no extra rights given; unless due rights are given to all citizens to reflect a changing nature in a society's actions.



[edit on 18-12-2009 by Ausar]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
By easier I'm saying it would allow me to conduct my job more efficiently. And remove some of the red-tape that prevents me from doing my job to such an extent.


in⋅sur⋅gent

–noun

1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.
2. a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party.
–adjective
3. of or characteristic of an insurgent or insurgents.
4. surging or rushing in: The insurgent waves battered the shore.
Origin:
1755–65; < L insurgent- (s. of insurgēns) prp. of insurgere to get up, ascend, rebel. See in- 2 , surge, -ent

Synonyms:
3. rebellious, revolutionary, mutinous.


Any hardened criminal is going to be anti-government/anti-authoritarian/anti-establishment/anarchist/deviant of society's standards. Find me a hardcore drug-dealer who votes and pays taxes. Then we'll go somewhere else from there.


get your head out the clouds; citizens, regardless of their knowledge of rights, are not insurgents.and to exercise ones rights does not make one an insurgent


When did I ever say that someone exercising their rights makes them an insurgent?

This is quoted from one of MY posts.

I don't have a problem with people practicing their 1st and 2nd amendment rights, etc. In fact we need more restrictions lifted off firearm purchases and ownership.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
lawful authority in the definition you provided is impossible; that is like arguing the words in the bible are god.there is no law that gives you the ability to author laws, you come into being of authorship of laws(kingship). yet, in america i suppose you mean authority as a figure?well, the pope is the leader of catholics and the common laws and by laws in the bible he is not leader to but a product of.as an officiating citizen your ability to author laws is impossible, you have no means to do such.my words are in opposition to what you have insinuated, the words you put forth were lawful as i was able to read them justly thus you exercised your authorship properly, my consciousness is the force in opposition to your initial conjecture.thus by the definitions terms i am insurgent: a citizen officiator would have to see if there were any common laws and by laws that dictate what i have stated could be interpreted as insurgency. would a counter insurgency team have the power to act directly within this medium of fora for the purpose of making sure disputes over law between one citizen and another do not occur.voting and paying taxes are not means to prove ones immunity in the case of common law infractions and by law violations. what i mean about the head in the clouds statement is that all citizens have the same equal rights as the highest officiating citizen for people to go out and kill cops after the events that transpired in oakland and in other areas were not illegal to do such to the point of the illegality called murder and the associated charges dealing with death of one citizen by another.

my only question is,the red tape the edicts and laws governing your position you speak of?



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ausar
what i mean about the head in the clouds statement is that all citizens have the same equal rights as the highest officiating citizen for people to go out and kill cops after the events that transpired in oakland and in other areas were not illegal to do such to the point of the illegality called murder and the associated charges dealing with death of one citizen by another.

my only question is,the red tape the edicts and laws governing your position you speak of?


Okay so by saying what you just said in the first paragraph says to me that (example) some random thug can shoot your father or mother, brother, sister, or cousin point blank in the face and splatter cherry pie all over the wall behind 'em. Because your father or mother, brother or sister, cousin, etc is a convenience store clerk and they wouldn't give up the money when they were asked to do so nicely. An event that transpired with malfeasance on their part cause they wouldn't give up the money. Said thug has the same rights as your love one. So why cant said thug kill them? Even though your loved one is somebody who has a family and is a contributing member to society.

And your question at the end didn't make any sense. Could you please rephrase it. Thank you.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
in america i have a right to have an automobile

i don't have to make a contract with the government to have said automobile it is a right granted within the society in which i am speaking, america;as an officiating citizen you have the right to have an automobile and have to make contracts to drive said automobile while officiating. you have every right while you are not officiating to drive an automobile without the contracts fore-mentioned.this is similar in precedent to an officer having a gun and the right to use it and a citizen having a gun and the right to use it.

is the red tape the laws you are officiating as a citizen?



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
You want to have an automobile? Fine with me. Who's stopping you? Never did I say you couldn't have an automobile. Go out and buy one.

But basically what this:


i don't have to make a contract with the government to have said automobile it is a right granted within the society in which i am speaking, america


...is saying...is...

...I'm sorry...you're starting to lose me...

...You're saying you have a right to have an automobile? That you should just be flat-out given one without paying for it? Or are you saying that you should be given an automobile w/o having to fill out the appropriate paperwork? I'm confused.

Either way. Who gives you this (or these) right(s)?

As for the question of "is the red tape the laws you are officiating as a citizen?" Which laws are we talking about? Could you please be more specific?



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   
if you have the right to have a gun and use it as all citizens do then the infraction on law is the crime committed not the use of the weapon but the actual murder itself. in the oakland case force was shown that needs to be accepted as the force to use with the government as the actions of an officiating citizen sets precedents for citizens that are not officiating.

by your own admission you state you are a LEO.

so you consider yourself as one who enforces the common laws and by laws that make a district?i am confused about the term law enforcement officer.you cannot in force a citizen to execute any common law and or by-law; these are rights that the citizen executes.you mention red tape; are you implying that the common laws and by-laws that you are bound to officiate disputes over are hindering the time it takes to "apprehend criminals"?

[edit on 19-12-2009 by Ausar]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ausar
if you have the right to have a gun and use it as all citizens do then the infraction on law is the crime committed not the use of the weapon but the actual murder itself.


That is true. I agree with you on that. I never once said that a normal every-day citizen shouldn't have the right to bear arms. In fact I said in one of my above posts that "more responsible law-abiding citizens should be armed". And that "more restrictions NEED TO BE LIFTED from possession and purchasing of firearms" by common citizenry.


en⋅force

–verb (used with object), -forced, -forcing.
1. to put or keep in force; compel obedience to: to enforce a rule; Traffic laws will be strictly enforced.
2. to obtain (payment, obedience, etc.) by force or compulsion.
3. to impose (a course of action) upon a person: The doctor enforced a strict dietary regimen.
4. to support (a demand, claim, etc.) by force: to enforce one's rights as a citizen.
5. to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon: He enforced his argument by adding details.



Originally posted by Ausar
by your own admission you state you are a LEO.

so you consider yourself as one who enforces the common laws and by laws that make a district?i am confused about the term law enforcement officer.you cannot in force a citizen to execute any common law and or by-law; these are rights that the citizen executes.you mention red tape; are you implying that the common laws and by-laws that you are bound to officiate disputes over are hindering the time it takes to "apprehend criminals"?

[edit on 19-12-2009 by Ausar]




To answer your question highlighted in bold-text. That depends on exactly WHICH ONE of these 'common laws and by-laws' you'd like to be referring to. If you could be a little more specific and throw any given law at me as an example I can answer your question a lot better.

[edit on 12/19/09 by Marked One]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   
i have no statute to state but in closing; find any law that is created for a officiating citizen to follow/execute fit for any citizen; as anything else would not be equality in the guise of what america is. if officiating citizens were granted new rights to counter in-surgent's: then i am sure the entymology of the word insurgent would have to broken down and equal rights be given to the citizen as well as the officiating citizen(the citizen contracted to work as a good citizen with the articles and mandates herein refered to as the constitution,..etc)

the idea of your premise sounds more like the wild west in modern times to me though; thats an opinion.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Okay. Take the following situation into consideration.

Me and a coworker were pulling security for an apartment complex as courtesy officers. We took it upon ourselves to begin stopping vehicles and talking to the occupants of said vehicles, asking for them to show ID, and state their business for being on the property. We only did this with people who didn't live in the apartments or if they were just somebody we did not recognize off the bat.

The apartment complex happened to be a hot-bed for peddling of illegal narcotics as well as other various acts of an illegal/devious nature.

At a certain point in time the local police department showed up and questioned me and my coworker about 1) complaints against both of us in regards to impersonating police officers (at the time we weren't police, we were private security contractors) , 2) illegal searches, as well as 3) other civil-rights violations.

I found that kinda 'strange' because the local police did those things (illegal searches, civil-rights violations) all the time! Yet they had the nerve to come out and harass us about it.

And I had never had a single police officer give me problems like that until that very day. But local PD doesn't like security officers, however the local sheriff's dept does.

(At one point we stopped a vehicle which had a passenger with a warrant for their arrest, the charge was for a hit & run. That person was let go because the police didn't want to go through all the trouble of extraditing said person back to the county they were from.)

Long story short. Me and my coworker decided that police had to have been out there at the apartments for a good reason other than civil-rights violations. And we felt that it was because someone within said police dept was involved in the drug trade taking place within those apartments. And so therefore police were out there running a protection racket behind the scenes. And they came out there to distract me and my colleague while the drug dealers did their business and left w/o getting caught.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
You know if they start calling people "insurgents" people are actually going to start acting more like them.

I don't particularly like where this is going.




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join