Mention of FDR's Internment Camps for Japanese American Citizens
during World War II reminds me that we don't need to look back so far
to see what internment does to a people. Just look for starter at the
Indigenous People shoved onto lands not needed by our Empire. Take a
trip and wander through these enforced camps. Want something closer
to home? Just wander down to your city's Central Slums. Take a look
at the people crammed into these internment camps. And be aware that
there are those who would put Muslims and all non Christian people in
special camps. Women are no longer safe from those who would run
their lives for them.
That is what Internment Camps are all about. Controlling the lives of
others. And we are a nation chock full of them.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/25/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Domestic Use of Military
> A Homeland Is a Country That Allows Domestic Use of Military
> ________________________________________
> By davidswanson - Posted on 12 January 2016
> Have you seen Dahr Jamail's report on U.S. military plans for war games in
> Washington state? I'm sure some observers imagine that the military is
> simply looking for a place to engage in safe and responsible and needed
> practice in hand-to-hand combat against incoming North Korean nuclear
> missiles, or perhaps to rehearse a humanitarian invasion of Russia to
> uphold
> the fundamental international law against Vladimir Putin's existence.
> But if you look over the history of domestic use of the U.S. military --
> such as by reading the new book Soldiers on the Home Front: The Domestic
> Role of the American Military -- it's hard not to wonder whether, from the
> U.S. military's point of view, at least a side benefit of the coming war
> game isn't rehearsing for the next time citizens in kayaks interfere with a
> corporation intent on poisoning the earth's climate with fossil fuels.
> Soldiers on the Home Front is almost rah-rah enthusiastic in its support
> for
> the U.S. military: "Our task here is to celebrate the U.S. military's
> profound historical and continuing contribution to domestic tranquility,
> while at the same time ... ." Yet it tells a story of two centuries of the
> U.S. military and state militias and the National Guard being used to
> suppress dissent, eliminate labor rights, deny civil liberties, attack
> Native Americans, and abuse African Americans. Even the well-known
> restrictions on military use put into law and often ignored -- such as the
> Posse Comitatus Act -- were aimed at allowing, not preventing, the abuse of
> African Americans. The story is one of gradually expanding presidential
> power, both in written law and in practice, with the latter far outpacing
> the former.
> Some of us are grateful to see restraint in the approach to the men
> occupying a federal facility in Oregon. But we are horrified by the lack of
> similar restraint in using the military or militarized police against
> peaceful protesters in U.S. cities. Police departments as we know them
> simply did not exist when the U.S. Constitution -- virtually unaltered
> since
> -- was cobbled together in an age of muskets, slavery, and genocide. Among
> the developments that concern me far more than the authors of Soldiers on
> the Home Front:
> Numerous drills and practices, and the locking down of Boston,
> desensitizing
> people to the presence of the U.S. military on our streets.
> Congress members threatened with martial law if they vote against their
> oligarchs.
> The legalization of lawless military imprisonment without charge or trial
> for U.S. citizens or anyone else.
> The legalization of murder by drone or any other technology of U.S.
> citizens
> or anyone else, with arguments that apply within the Homeland just as
> anywhere else, though we've been told all the murders have been abroad.
> Nuclear weapons illegally flown across the country and left unguarded.
> Mercenaries on the streets of New Orleans after a hurricane.
> Northcom given legal power to illegally act within the United States
> against
> the people of the United States.
> Fusion centers blurring all lines between military and domestic government
> violence.
> Secret and not-so-secret continuity of government plans that could put
> martial law in place at the decision of a president or in the absence of a
> president.
> The militarization of the Mexican border.
> The gruesome history and future of the attack on the Bonus Army, the
> bombing
> of West Virginia, Operation Northwoods, tin soldiers and Nixon coming, and
> Franklin Roosevelt's actual and Donald Trump's possible internment camps.
> The authors of Soldiers on the Home Front claim that we must balance all
> such dangers with the supposed need for a military to address "storms,
> earthquakes, cyber attacks ..., bioterrorism." Why must we? None of these
> threats can be best addressed by people trained and armed to kill and
> destroy. When only such people have funding and numbers and equipment, they
> can look preferable to nothing. But what if we had an unarmed, nonviolent
> green energy brigade taking on the protection of the climate, and
> non-military police ready to enforce laws in crises, a major new Civilian
> Conservation Corps trained and equipped and funded to provide emergency
> services, a computer whiz team dedicated to fending off cyber attacks and
> preventing their ongoing provocation by U.S. government cyber attackers, a
> publicly funded healthcare system prepared for health emergencies, and a
> State Department redirected away from weapons marketing and into a new
> project of building respectful and cooperative relations with the world?
> If the United States were to move from militarism to all of the above, the
> main problem would be what to do with all of the remaining money.
> .
> . davidswanson's blog
> . Email this
> &&&&
>
> . Home
> . Books
> . Article Topics
> . Talk Nation Radio
> . About
> . Donate
> . Search
> . Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
> . Twitter
> . Youtube
> . WarIsACrime.org
> . RootsAction.org
> . Images
> . RSS
> . Store
> . WorldBeyondWar.org
> . War No More
> You are hereBlogs / davidswanson's blog / A Homeland Is a Country That
> Allows Domestic Use of Military
> A Homeland Is a Country That Allows Domestic Use of Military
>
> By davidswanson - Posted on 12 January 2016
> Have you seen Dahr Jamail's report on U.S. military plans for war games in
> Washington state? I'm sure some observers imagine that the military is
> simply looking for a place to engage in safe and responsible and needed
> practice in hand-to-hand combat against incoming North Korean nuclear
> missiles, or perhaps to rehearse a humanitarian invasion of Russia to
> uphold
> the fundamental international law against Vladimir Putin's existence.
> But if you look over the history of domestic use of the U.S. military --
> such as by reading the new book Soldiers on the Home Front: The Domestic
> Role of the American Military -- it's hard not to wonder whether, from the
> U.S. military's point of view, at least a side benefit of the coming war
> game isn't rehearsing for the next time citizens in kayaks interfere with a
> corporation intent on poisoning the earth's climate with fossil fuels.
> Soldiers on the Home Front is almost rah-rah enthusiastic in its support
> for
> the U.S. military: "Our task here is to celebrate the U.S. military's
> profound historical and continuing contribution to domestic tranquility,
> while at the same time ... ." Yet it tells a story of two centuries of the
> U.S. military and state militias and the National Guard being used to
> suppress dissent, eliminate labor rights, deny civil liberties, attack
> Native Americans, and abuse African Americans. Even the well-known
> restrictions on military use put into law and often ignored -- such as the
> Posse Comitatus Act -- were aimed at allowing, not preventing, the abuse of
> African Americans. The story is one of gradually expanding presidential
> power, both in written law and in practice, with the latter far outpacing
> the former.
> Some of us are grateful to see restraint in the approach to the men
> occupying a federal facility in Oregon. But we are horrified by the lack of
> similar restraint in using the military or militarized police against
> peaceful protesters in U.S. cities. Police departments as we know them
> simply did not exist when the U.S. Constitution -- virtually unaltered
> since
> -- was cobbled together in an age of muskets, slavery, and genocide. Among
> the developments that concern me far more than the authors of Soldiers on
> the Home Front:
> Numerous drills and practices, and the locking down of Boston,
> desensitizing
> people to the presence of the U.S. military on our streets.
> Congress members threatened with martial law if they vote against their
> oligarchs.
> The legalization of lawless military imprisonment without charge or trial
> for U.S. citizens or anyone else.
> The legalization of murder by drone or any other technology of U.S.
> citizens
> or anyone else, with arguments that apply within the Homeland just as
> anywhere else, though we've been told all the murders have been abroad.
> Nuclear weapons illegally flown across the country and left unguarded.
> Mercenaries on the streets of New Orleans after a hurricane.
> Northcom given legal power to illegally act within the United States
> against
> the people of the United States.
> Fusion centers blurring all lines between military and domestic government
> violence.
> Secret and not-so-secret continuity of government plans that could put
> martial law in place at the decision of a president or in the absence of a
> president.
> The militarization of the Mexican border.
> The gruesome history and future of the attack on the Bonus Army, the
> bombing
> of West Virginia, Operation Northwoods, tin soldiers and Nixon coming, and
> Franklin Roosevelt's actual and Donald Trump's possible internment camps.
> The authors of Soldiers on the Home Front claim that we must balance all
> such dangers with the supposed need for a military to address "storms,
> earthquakes, cyber attacks ..., bioterrorism." Why must we? None of these
> threats can be best addressed by people trained and armed to kill and
> destroy. When only such people have funding and numbers and equipment, they
> can look preferable to nothing. But what if we had an unarmed, nonviolent
> green energy brigade taking on the protection of the climate, and
> non-military police ready to enforce laws in crises, a major new Civilian
> Conservation Corps trained and equipped and funded to provide emergency
> services, a computer whiz team dedicated to fending off cyber attacks and
> preventing their ongoing provocation by U.S. government cyber attackers, a
> publicly funded healthcare system prepared for health emergencies, and a
> State Department redirected away from weapons marketing and into a new
> project of building respectful and cooperative relations with the world?
> If the United States were to move from militarism to all of the above, the
> main problem would be what to do with all of the remaining money.
> . http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php
> http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php
> . davidswanson's blog
> . /forward?path=node%2F5023 Email this
>
>
> Home
> Books
> Article Topics
> Talk Nation Radio
> About
> Donate
> Search
>
>
>
>
> Facebook
> Twitter
> Youtube
> WarIsACrime.org
> RootsAction.org
> Images
> RSS
> Store
> WorldBeyondWar.org
> War No More
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You are hereBlogs / davidswanson's blog / A Homeland Is a Country That
> Allows Domestic Use of Military
>
> A Homeland Is a Country That Allows Domestic Use of Military
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
>
>
>
> By davidswanson - Posted on 12 January 2016
>
>
> Have you seen Dahr Jamail's report on U.S. military plans for war games in
> Washington state? I'm sure some observers imagine that the military is
> simply looking for a place to engage in safe and responsible and needed
> practice in hand-to-hand combat against incoming North Korean nuclear
> missiles, or perhaps to rehearse a humanitarian invasion of Russia to
> uphold
> the fundamental international law against Vladimir Putin's existence.
>
> But if you look over the history of domestic use of the U.S. military --
> such as by reading the new book Soldiers on the Home Front: The Domestic
> Role of the American Military -- it's hard not to wonder whether, from the
> U.S. military's point of view, at least a side benefit of the coming war
> game isn't rehearsing for the next time citizens in kayaks interfere with a
> corporation intent on poisoning the earth's climate with fossil fuels.
>
> Soldiers on the Home Front is almost rah-rah enthusiastic in its support
> for
> the U.S. military: "Our task here is to celebrate the U.S. military's
> profound historical and continuing contribution to domestic tranquility,
> while at the same time ... ." Yet it tells a story of two centuries of the
> U.S. military and state militias and the National Guard being used to
> suppress dissent, eliminate labor rights, deny civil liberties, attack
> Native Americans, and abuse African Americans. Even the well-known
> restrictions on military use put into law and often ignored -- such as the
> Posse Comitatus Act -- were aimed at allowing, not preventing, the abuse of
> African Americans. The story is one of gradually expanding presidential
> power, both in written law and in practice, with the latter far outpacing
> the former.
>
> Some of us are grateful to see restraint in the approach to the men
> occupying a federal facility in Oregon. But we are horrified by the lack of
> similar restraint in using the military or militarized police against
> peaceful protesters in U.S. cities. Police departments as we know them
> simply did not exist when the U.S. Constitution -- virtually unaltered
> since
> -- was cobbled together in an age of muskets, slavery, and genocide. Among
> the developments that concern me far more than the authors of Soldiers on
> the Home Front:
>
> Numerous drills and practices, and the locking down of Boston,
> desensitizing
> people to the presence of the U.S. military on our streets.
>
> Congress members threatened with martial law if they vote against their
> oligarchs.
>
> The legalization of lawless military imprisonment without charge or trial
> for U.S. citizens or anyone else.
>
> The legalization of murder by drone or any other technology of U.S.
> citizens
> or anyone else, with arguments that apply within the Homeland just as
> anywhere else, though we've been told all the murders have been abroad.
>
> Nuclear weapons illegally flown across the country and left unguarded.
>
> Mercenaries on the streets of New Orleans after a hurricane.
>
> Northcom given legal power to illegally act within the United States
> against
> the people of the United States.
>
> Fusion centers blurring all lines between military and domestic government
> violence.
>
> Secret and not-so-secret continuity of government plans that could put
> martial law in place at the decision of a president or in the absence of a
> president.
>
> The militarization of the Mexican border.
>
> The gruesome history and future of the attack on the Bonus Army, the
> bombing
> of West Virginia, Operation Northwoods, tin soldiers and Nixon coming, and
> Franklin Roosevelt's actual and Donald Trump's possible internment camps.
>
> The authors of Soldiers on the Home Front claim that we must balance all
> such dangers with the supposed need for a military to address "storms,
> earthquakes, cyber attacks ..., bioterrorism." Why must we? None of these
> threats can be best addressed by people trained and armed to kill and
> destroy. When only such people have funding and numbers and equipment, they
> can look preferable to nothing. But what if we had an unarmed, nonviolent
> green energy brigade taking on the protection of the climate, and
> non-military police ready to enforce laws in crises, a major new Civilian
> Conservation Corps trained and equipped and funded to provide emergency
> services, a computer whiz team dedicated to fending off cyber attacks and
> preventing their ongoing provocation by U.S. government cyber attackers, a
> publicly funded healthcare system prepared for health emergencies, and a
> State Department redirected away from weapons marketing and into a new
> project of building respectful and cooperative relations with the world?
>
> If the United States were to move from militarism to all of the above, the
> main problem would be what to do with all of the remaining money.
>
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment